For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[WirSindBettler]

No, the issue of evolution comes down to whether or not you accept that science is the best tool to explain the natural world (and universe) around us.

Science may be the best tool to explain the natural world and universe for non-Christians, but seeing how this is a debate regarding beliefs in evolution within Christianity, on a Christian web forum, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people here, regardless of their beliefs have decided that Christianity, and thus, Scripture, is the best tool to explain the natural world and universe around us. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

The choice you are making is to instead belief in a fallible interpretation of scripture written by fallible men, simply because it is the bible.

I'm taking the Bible at face value. That is only a fallible interpretation if the Bible itself is fallible. But, seeing as "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and God is infallible, it comes to reason that my so-called "interpretation" which in reality is no less then the Bible itself states, is thus, infallible. Also, it wasn't written by fallible men. It was written by God, and transcribed by the power of the Holy Spirit. These "fallible men" simply served as a writing instrument, much in the same way as a typewriter or fountain pen.

Also, Bible is spelled with a capital "B."

A book meant to be a theological guide not a natural history guide.

You're completely correct. The Bible was meant to be a theological guide, but as it happens, the history comes naturally.

Do organisms die today or not? Are there more organisms born than can be sustained by the environment or not? Is there or is there not competition between populations of organisms today? Its called reality.

Most people on this forum, or at least those Christians, will understand by this that I mean death before Adam. Not death which came into the world by his hand.

This is a misrepresentation of what Day-agers believe. They see the word used for "day" (yom) in GEN 1 to be an indeterminate amount of time. Therefore it makes little sense to average it all out and claim that is what constitutes a "day" in GEN or even worse in other parts of the bible. In other contexts, "yom" does mean a 24 hr day.

Thank you sincerely for helping me make my point. "It makes little sense" indeed to consider what in all other contextual cases means a 24 hour day as something other than what it is.

Say you're reading a geology textbook, and it says the following:

"Rock metamorphism is usually the result of a process occurring over millions of years. This seems like a long time, especially when compared with the average human lifespan of 70 years, but in the eyes of a geologist, it is no time at all."

There is nothing in the text to insinuate that one of the millions of years in the formation of metamorphic rocks is, as a measurement of time, any different than one of the 70 years that the average human being lives. This is the same in the Bible. When "day" is mentioned in any of the books of the Bible outside of creation, no one questions whether or not it refers to an actual 24-hour day. Thus, it seems illogical, that when, in the context of every other mention of the word in any of the Biblical languages, someone would take "day" in Genesis, to mean anything other than what it means in the rest of Scripture.

See what how easy it is to knock down a straw man of your own making?

Pretty difficult, huh?

Also, in your signature, you mention two quotes. Tutu never said that, and Asimov is spelled with an "s."

For Tutu, "The quote, often attributed to Jomo Kenyatta, was first written in a fiction play published by holocaust doubter Rolf Hochhuth, in his controversial The Deputy, a Christian tragedy (1964), Grove Press, p. 144. No reference to any historical or original source was given"

 

[bhsmte]

I'm taking the Bible at face value. That is only a fallible interpretation if the Bible itself is fallible. But, seeing as "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and God is infallible, it comes to reason that my so-called "interpretation" which in reality is no less then the Bible itself states, is thus, infallible. Also, it wasn't written by fallible men. It was written by God, and transcribed by the power of the Holy Spirit. These "fallible men" simply served as a writing instrument, much in the same way as a typewriter or fountain pen.

If the scripture was breathed out by God, why wouldn't God assure the original scriptures were preserved instead of for instance, only having copies of say the NT starting 200+ years after Jesus died?

Well, the majority of NT scholars and historians will state; the NT is a work of theology, not a work of history.

So how, does history happen naturally? Do you have a means to determine if written words are a credible description of history?

 

[WirSindBettler]

If the scripture was breathed out by God, why wouldn't God assure the original scriptures were preserved instead of for instance, only having copies of say the NT starting 200+ years after Jesus died?

(a) I'm not one to question God.
(b) Scripture is kept free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you want to debate this, there are far more knowledgable theologians on the subject out there. Also, the internal consistency of all known New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.
(c) As far as I'm aware, the earliest fragment of the NT is from the 2nd Century A.D., which most certainly is not 200+ years from Christ's Ascension.

Well, the majority of NT scholars and historians will state; the NT is a work of theology, not a work of history.

Well, the majority of historians will state that Christ is not divine. As stated before, the NT is a work of theology, but that does not mean it is not inerrant, infallible, and historically correct.

So how, does history happen naturally? Do you have a means to determine if written words are a credible description of history?

I meant to say that while it is primarily a work of theology, it just so happens that much of the history checks out as well. Again, this discussion is on Evolution, not the accuracy of NT historicity. Also, we were talking about Genesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science may be the best tool to explain the natural world and universe for non-Christians, but seeing how this is a debate regarding beliefs in evolution within Christianity, on a Christian web forum, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people here, regardless of their beliefs have decided that Christianity, and thus, Scripture, is the best tool to explain the natural world and universe around us. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

If christianity is the best tool, then show how it is better. How does christianity better explain the pattern of similarities and differences seen in the morphology of living organisms, the genomes of living organisms, and the fossil record? How does christianity better explain why we see fossils and living species with a mixture of reptile and placcental mammal features, but no fossils or living species with a mixture of mammal and bird features? How does christianity explain the fact that life falls into objective phylogenies?

It is one thing to claim it. It is a very different thing to demonstrate it.

I'm taking the Bible at face value. That is only a fallible interpretation if the Bible itself is fallible. But, seeing as "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and God is infallible, it comes to reason that my so-called "interpretation" which in reality is no less then the Bible itself states, is thus, infallible. Also, it wasn't written by fallible men. It was written by God, and transcribed by the power of the Holy Spirit. These "fallible men" simply served as a writing instrument, much in the same way as a typewriter or fountain pen.

The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true? That is what we call "circular reasoning".

The Quran also says that it was given to us by God. Do you take that at face value? I doubt it. The Book of Mormon states that it came from a heavenly angel on Golden Tablets, and that this was witnessed by many people. Do you take that at face value?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science may be the best tool to explain the natural world and universe for non-Christians, but seeing how this is a debate regarding beliefs in evolution within Christianity, on a Christian web forum, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people here, regardless of their beliefs have decided that Christianity, and thus, Scripture, is the best tool to explain the natural world and universe around us. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

An interesting choice of whom to quote, as C. S. Lewis accepted evolution.

I'm taking the Bible at face value. That is only a fallible interpretation if the Bible itself is fallible. But, seeing as "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and God is infallible, it comes to reason that my so-called "interpretation" which in reality is no less then the Bible itself states, is thus, infallible.

Just because the bible is inspired by God does not mean it has to be infallible. We have examples today of preachers being inspired of God as to what they should preach, and nobody says that makes them infallible.

In fact, although you can find passages that speak of the Bible being inspired of God, you cannot find a passage that says the Bible is infallible.

It is a human deduction to say that.

 

[WirSindBettler]

An interesting choice of whom to quote, as C. S. Lewis accepted evolution.

Except that there isn't conclusive proof he held belief in evolution for his entire life.

"What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." C.S. Lewis - 1951 Letter to Captain Acworth

While there is no evidence that Lewis ever took the Creation account literally, there is increasing evidence that he began to "lose faith" per se, in his earlier attempts at merging Christianity and evolution, as in the Acworth letters, which you can view online.

Just because the bible is inspired by God does not mean it has to be infallible. We have examples today of preachers being inspired of God as to what they should preach, and nobody says that makes them infallible.

What do you not understand about "All Scripture is breathed out by God"?

Do you want me to take you through the Greek?

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος
pasa graphē Theopneustos
all Scripture [is] Theopneustos (literally Theo-God, pneustos-Breathed, God-breathed)

In fact, although you can find passages that speak of the Bible being inspired of God, you cannot find a passage that says the Bible is infallible.

It is a human deduction to say that.

I'm gonna take the Confessional Lutheran approach on that one.

To quote Preus in Getting into the Theology of Concord (pp.7-29), "When we call Scripture inerrant we are using a relatively modern word to express the utter reliability and truthfulness of Scripture and of all its assertions. The term we use may be somewhat modern, but the conviction it expresses is as old as Scripture itself. The Scriptures teach and assume everywhere their utter truthfulness, and so do our Lutheran Confessions When our Confessions take for granted the divine origin of Scripture, they likewise take for granted its reliability and inerrancy. In our Confessions the Bible is called "the Holy Scripture of God" (FC SD, V, 3), "the clear Scripture of the Holy Spirit" (Ap, Preface, 9). Again and again "God's Word" and "Holy Scripture" are used interchangeably in our Confessions. This assurance concerning the divine origin and nature of Scripture is fundamental to a proper reading and approach to Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions consistently read Scripture as God's Word, carrying with it God's authority, God's power, God's truthfulness. In other words, the inerrancy, or truthfulness, of Scripture is a definite result of its divine origin. And so our Lutheran Confessions speak of Scripture as "the eternal truth" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 13). They urge us to believe the Scriptures, for "they will not lie to you" (LC, V, 76; cf. IV, 57) and cannot be "false or deceitful" (FC SD, VII, 96). And why? Because God, who is eternal Truth, cannot contradict Himself in Scripture (FC SD, XI, 35). It is His "pure, infallible, and unalterable Word" (Preface to the Book of Concord, p. 8)."

 

[WirSindBettler]

If christianity is the best tool, then show how it is better. How does christianity better explain the pattern of similarities and differences seen in the morphology of living organisms, the genomes of living organisms, and the fossil record? How does christianity better explain why we see fossils and living species with a mixture of reptile and placcental mammal features, but no fossils or living species with a mixture of mammal and bird features? How does christianity explain the fact that life falls into objective phylogenies?

Christianity gives true Faith. And I know you hate that word. I know that you dislike it, as it cannot be quantified, it cannot be calculated, it cannot be proven. It is an unknown variable in your eyes. To quote DS9, "That's the thing about faith... if you don't have it, you can't understand it and if you do, no explanation is necessary."

It is one thing to claim it. It is a very different thing to demonstrate it.

We do demonstrate it. It is demonstrable. You just can't see. Your eyes have not yet been opened.

 

[justlookinla]

An interesting choice of whom to quote, as C. S. Lewis accepted evolution.

C.S. Lewis didn't accept the view of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

You need to clarify which version of "evolution" you're referring to. "Evolution" isn't a monolithic term.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Except that there isn't conclusive proof he held belief in evolution for his entire life.

"What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." C.S. Lewis - 1951 Letter to Captain Acworth

While there is no evidence that Lewis ever took the Creation account literally, there is increasing evidence that he began to "lose faith" per se, in his earlier attempts at merging Christianity and evolution, as in the Acworth letters, which you can view online.




What do you not understand about "All Scripture is breathed out by God"?

Do you want me to take you through the Greek?

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος
pasa graphē Theopneustos
all Scripture [is] Theopneustos (literally Theo-God, pneustos-Breathed, God-breathed)



I'm gonna take the Confessional Lutheran approach on that one.

To quote Preus in Getting into the Theology of Concord (pp.7-29), "When we call Scripture inerrant we are using a relatively modern word to express the utter reliability and truthfulness of Scripture and of all its assertions. The term we use may be somewhat modern, but the conviction it expresses is as old as Scripture itself. The Scriptures teach and assume everywhere their utter truthfulness, and so do our Lutheran Confessions When our Confessions take for granted the divine origin of Scripture, they likewise take for granted its reliability and inerrancy. In our Confessions the Bible is called "the Holy Scripture of God" (FC SD, V, 3), "the clear Scripture of the Holy Spirit" (Ap, Preface, 9). Again and again "God's Word" and "Holy Scripture" are used interchangeably in our Confessions. This assurance concerning the divine origin and nature of Scripture is fundamental to a proper reading and approach to Scripture. The Lutheran Confessions consistently read Scripture as God's Word, carrying with it God's authority, God's power, God's truthfulness. In other words, the inerrancy, or truthfulness, of Scripture is a definite result of its divine origin. And so our Lutheran Confessions speak of Scripture as "the eternal truth" (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 13). They urge us to believe the Scriptures, for "they will not lie to you" (LC, V, 76; cf. IV, 57) and cannot be "false or deceitful" (FC SD, VII, 96). And why? Because God, who is eternal Truth, cannot contradict Himself in Scripture (FC SD, XI, 35). It is His "pure, infallible, and unalterable Word" (Preface to the Book of Concord, p. 8)."

Oh, there is no question that many, many people have expressed the idea that the scriptures are inerrant. Its just that you don't find that idea expressed in the scriptures. It is a conclusion made by men.

 

[Strathos]

(a) I'm not one to question God.

Yet you question the clear evidence He left in His creation...

 

[Strathos]

A God left Evidence? which God left the evidence and what is the evidence?

It's all around you... science discovers God's fingerprints.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Yet you question the clear evidence He left in His creation...

Yet you question the clear words He breathed in Scripture.

 

[bhsmte]

Yet you question the clear words He breathed in Scripture.

Not hard to question those, when they were written by mostly anonymous authors and far removed from the events they describe.

Physical evidence of our universe though, was not manufactured by man and can be observed with empirical evidence, something scripture falls woefully short on.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Yet you question the clear words He breathed in Scripture.

Combine both and we might just have a metaphorical omelette.

 

[Split Rock]

Science may be the best tool to explain the natural world and universe for non-Christians, but seeing how this is a debate regarding beliefs in evolution within Christianity, on a Christian web forum, it can be safely assumed that the majority of people here, regardless of their beliefs have decided that Christianity, and thus, Scripture, is the best tool to explain the natural world and universe around us. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

No, science is the best tool to explain the natural world for anyone who studies the natural world. Scientists come in many different flavors of religious belief, and they all use the same methods (methodological naturalism) and the same theories. There isn't one theory for Hindus, one for Muslims , one for Christians, and one for atheists.

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."
-Galileo Galilei

I'm taking the Bible at face value. That is only a fallible interpretation if the Bible itself is fallible. But, seeing as "all Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and God is infallible, it comes to reason that my so-called "interpretation" which in reality is no less then the Bible itself states, is thus, infallible. Also, it wasn't written by fallible men. It was written by God, and transcribed by the power of the Holy Spirit. These "fallible men" simply served as a writing instrument, much in the same way as a typewriter or fountain pen.

No, you interpret scripture, just like everyone else does. That interpretation varies and is never infallible. This is why there are so many denominations of Christianity in the world.

As far as the dictation theory of interpretation, I do not ascribe to such a concept. Clearly the writers of scripture were influenced by their own agendas and prejudices.

Also, Bible is spelled with a capital "B."

Why are you so concerned that it be written with a capital "B?" Is it your god?

You're completely correct. The Bible was meant to be a theological guide, but as it happens, the history comes naturally.

So, in other words, I am correct , but I'm wrong. Thanks for the clarification..

Most people on this forum, or at least those Christians, will understand by this that I mean death before Adam. Not death which came into the world by his hand.

If there was no death before Adam, why was God so concerned that Adam not eat from the Tree of Life and thus become immortal?

Thank you sincerely for helping me make my point. "It makes little sense" indeed to consider what in all other contextual cases means a 24 hour day as something other than what it is.

Say you're reading a geology textbook, and it says the following:

"Rock metamorphism is usually the result of a process occurring over millions of years. This seems like a long time, especially when compared with the average human lifespan of 70 years, but in the eyes of a geologist, it is no time at all."

There is nothing in the text to insinuate that one of the millions of years in the formation of metamorphic rocks is, as a measurement of time, any different than one of the 70 years that the average human being lives. This is the same in the Bible. When "day" is mentioned in any of the books of the Bible outside of creation, no one questions whether or not it refers to an actual 24-hour day. Thus, it seems illogical, that when, in the context of every other mention of the word in any of the Biblical languages, someone would take "day" in Genesis, to mean anything other than what it means in the rest of Scripture.

Wrong again. "Yom" has numerous meanings in the Bible (capitol "B" for your benefit)

Yom (in Hebrew יו&#1501 is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Arabic equivalent is "yawm" written as يوم.

Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]

Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
Period of twenty-four hours
General term for time
Point of time
Sunrise to sunset
Sunset to next sunset
A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
Time period of unspecified length.
A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.

Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, with fewer words compared to other languages, like English that has the largest vocabulary.[2] So words often have more than one meaning and context would determine the meaning.[3] Strong's Lexicon yom is Hebrew #3117 יוֹם [4] The word Yom's root meaning is to be hot as the warm hours of a day.

Thus yom, in it context, is sometimes translated: Time (Gen 4:3) (Is. 30:8). Year (I Kings 1:1)( 2 Chronicles 21:19)(Amos 4:4). Age Gen 18:11, Gen 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2, Gen 47:28). Ago (1 Samuel 9:20). Always (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7). Season (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3).

Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general. How yom is translated depends on the context of its use with other words in the around it, using hermeneutics.[5]​

Yom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty difficult, huh?

Also, in your signature, you mention two quotes. Tutu never said that, and Asimov is spelled with an "s."

For Tutu, "The quote, often attributed to Jomo Kenyatta, was first written in a fiction play published by holocaust doubter Rolf Hochhuth, in his controversial The Deputy, a Christian tragedy (1964), Grove Press, p. 144. No reference to any historical or original source was given"

Thank you Mr. Signature Quote Police.
(I did correct Asimov's name, thank you)

 

[WirSindBettler]

No, science is the best tool to explain the natural world for anyone who studies the natural world.

Except for Christians of course. 'Cause the Bible is good enough for them.

Scientists come in many different flavors of religious belief, and they all use the same methods (methodological naturalism) and the same theories. There isn't one theory for Hindus, one for Muslims , one for Christians, and one for atheists.

There may not be one "scientific" theory for Hindus, one for Muslims, &c., but there are many different creation accounts among them.

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."
-Galileo Galilei

Last time I checked, Galileo was not canonical scripture. Just sayin'.

No, you interpret scripture, just like everyone else does. That interpretation varies and is never infallible. This is why there are so many denominations of Christianity in the world.

My goal is not to interpret Scripture. My goal is not to understand Scripture. My goal is to stand under it. The Bible says that God created Earth in seven days. As I will show in a minute, there is no context in the Genesis creation story that would point to anything other than literal 24-hour days.

I'm not interpreting what it says. I'm following it. And it is infallible.

As far as the dictation theory of interpretation, I do not ascribe to such a concept. Clearly the writers of scripture were influenced by their own agendas and prejudices.

Well, obviously.
You're not Christian.

Why are you so concerned that it be written with a capital "B?" Is it your god?

*God

So, in other words, I am correct , but I'm wrong. Thanks for the clarification..

No problem.

If there was no death before Adam, why was God so concerned that Adam not eat from the Tree of Life and thus become immortal?

Have you even read the Bible? Or do you just know it from r/Atheism boards and wikipedia? God was concerned that Adam not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"
- Genesis 2:15-17

In fact, the only time God put up guards around the tree of life to stop man from eating it was after they brought death into the world and were kicked out of Eden.

"He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

-Genesis 3:24

Thus yom, in it context, is sometimes translated: Time (Gen 4:3) (Is. 30:8). Year (I Kings 1:1)( 2 Chronicles 21:19)(Amos 4:4). Age Gen 18:11, Gen 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2, Gen 47:28). Ago (1 Samuel 9:20). Always (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7). Season (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3).

Gen 4:3 - Yom is used in מִקֵּץ יָמִים literally meaning "and at the end of days"
A more literal, and Jewish translation of the verse, ripped from the Chabad Online Tanakh is "Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord."

Isaiah 30:8 - Yom is used in לְיוֹם אַחֲרוֹן literally meaning "later day"
Another more literal, and Jewish translation of the verse, again ripped from the Chabad Online Tanakh is "Now, come write it on a tablet with them, and on a book engrave it, and it shall be for the last day, forever to eternity."

1 Kings 1:1 - Yom is used in בָּא בַּיָּמִים literally translated as “he came in the days”, or “had a great many days.”
As expected, a more literal, and Jewish translations ripped from Chabad is “And king David was old, he came into his old age, and they covered him with clothes, but he was not warmed.”

I could go on and prove wrong every single example you gave, but I'm tired of your argument. Next time you're going to argue something, don't just copy paste from a Wikipedia page, especially when arguing against someone who has to know Biblical Hebrew for his future job, and had a period of a few years where he used it weekly.

Hebrew, unlike English, has a rather limited lexicon. Thus, in order to make words such as years, compounds of "yom" are used. "Yom" itself is not. For example, in the Hebrew given above, many days (could be interpreted as a year) is used for בַּיָּמִים not simply יום. Thus, the word for year, when translated, is not simply "yom," but "yom" compounded, such as "many-days," "later-day," &c., &c. Besides this compound, "yom" is also looked at in terms of context. As the Genesis Creation story has no context insinuating anything other than literal 24-hour days, it would be wrong, when translating, to assume it meant anything else.

Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general. How yom is translated depends on the context of its use with other words in the around it, using hermeneutics.[5]

Just like I said. Using hermeneutics, there is no other context insinuating that "yom" in the creation story, means anything other than literal 24-hour days.

Thank you Mr. Signature Quote Police.
(I did correct Asimov's name, thank you)

But you still claim Tutu said something he did not.

 

[Split Rock]

Except for Christians of course. 'Cause the Bible is good enough for them.

NO. Christian scientists are like other scientists and use the same methodological naturalism in their job.

There may not be one "scientific" theory for Hindus, one for Muslims, &c., but there are many different creation accounts among them.

Irrelevant. Science is used to study the natural world, not the theological world.

Last time I checked, Galileo was not canonical scripture. Just sayin'.

So what? As you continue to point out, I am not a Christian.

My goal is not to interpret Scripture. My goal is not to understand Scripture. My goal is to stand under it. The Bible says that God created Earth in seven days. As I will show in a minute, there is no context in the Genesis creation story that would point to anything other than literal 24-hour days.

So, you don't interpret scripture? Nonsense.

Is Jesus a lamb?
Does the Earth have four corners?
Did Satan take Jesus up to the top of a mountain and show him all the world?

If you answer no, then you are interpreting.

If you are reading GEN1-2 as a literal historical account, you are interpreting it that way.... even if the authors' intent was to write in an allegorical style.

I'm not interpreting what it says. I'm following it. And it is infallible.

Your reading of it is most certainly NOT infallible. You are not God.

Well, obviously.
You're not Christian.

Plenty of Christians do not interpret it that way. I suppose you would claim "then they are not real Christians," if it weren't against the forum rules...

*God

What???? I wrote "your god"... lower case.

No problem.

Glad to see you have "no problem" contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

Have you even read the Bible? Or do you just know it from r/Atheism boards and wikipedia? God was concerned that Adam not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"
- Genesis 2:15-17

In fact, the only time God put up guards around the tree of life to stop man from eating it was after they brought death into the world and were kicked out of Eden.

"He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

-Genesis 3:24

So did Adam die on that day? Did the snake lie or tell the truth?

Gen 4:3 - Yom is used in מִקֵּץ יָמִים literally meaning "and at the end of days"
A more literal, and Jewish translation of the verse, ripped from the Chabad Online Tanakh is "Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord."

Isaiah 30:8 - Yom is used in לְיוֹם אַחֲרוֹן literally meaning "later day"
Another more literal, and Jewish translation of the verse, again ripped from the Chabad Online Tanakh is "Now, come write it on a tablet with them, and on a book engrave it, and it shall be for the last day, forever to eternity."

1 Kings 1:1 - Yom is used in בָּא בַּיָּמִים literally translated as “he came in the days”, or “had a great many days.”
As expected, a more literal, and Jewish translations ripped from Chabad is “And king David was old, he came into his old age, and they covered him with clothes, but he was not warmed.”

I could go on and prove wrong every single example you gave, but I'm tired of your argument. Next time you're going to argue something, don't just copy paste from a Wikipedia page, especially when arguing against someone who has to know Biblical Hebrew for his future job, and had a period of a few years where he used it weekly.

Hebrew, unlike English, has a rather limited lexicon. Thus, in order to make words such as years, compounds of "yom" are used. "Yom" itself is not. For example, in the Hebrew given above, many days (could be interpreted as a year) is used for בַּיָּמִים not simply יום. Thus, the word for year, when translated, is not simply "yom," but "yom" compounded, such as "many-days," "later-day," &c., &c. Besides this compound, "yom" is also looked at in terms of context. As the Genesis Creation story has no context insinuating anything other than literal 24-hour days, it would be wrong, when translating, to assume it meant anything else.



Just like I said. Using hermeneutics, there is no other context insinuating that "yom" in the creation story, means anything other than literal 24-hour days.

Old Hebrew is a dead language. Different parts were written at different times. How can you be sure what yom referred to in GEN1? In any case, my original point was that the position of day-agers was misrepresented by you. It makes no sense to come up with an average for a term which signifies an indefinite time period. Now, you can argue that this interpretation of "yom" as an indefinite period of time is incorrect.... I have no problem with that. I am not an expert in Old Hebrew, nor am I defending my own opinion on the subject.

I actually agree with you that the intent was to represent a 24-hour day. The reason for this, was that the authors were trying to standardize a seven-day week with the Sabbath as a day of rest. It was not because God told them that the literal history of the planet involved a six day period of time. Here again, I strongly disagree with your use of dictation theory... as well as your assumption that the intent of GEN 1 and 2 was to relate a literal historical account.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did Satan take Jesus up to the top of a mountain and show him all the world?

If you meant:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

... yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Christianity gives true Faith. And I know you hate that word. I know that you dislike it, as it cannot be quantified, it cannot be calculated, it cannot be proven. It is an unknown variable in your eyes. To quote DS9, "That's the thing about faith... if you don't have it, you can't understand it and if you do, no explanation is necessary."



We do demonstrate it. It is demonstrable. You just can't see. Your eyes have not yet been opened.

Notice that you didn't answer a single question that I asked. You couldn't use christianity to explain anything in biology.

Not only that, you claim that something must be taken on faith, and then claim it is demonstrable. Which is it?