Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The only gaps Bible scholars have is between their ears, and they haven't discovered those yet.Address the actual argument, not the persons who present the arguement.
Op. cit. my previous post.Then, by your own "boolean standards," you're not required to believe it.
Name one already.It is 'sketchy' because of the gaps in the genealogical record. William Henry Green's assessment, 'Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?' is not as optimistic as yours. He demonstrates some of the significant gaps in the genealogical record.
Yes they are. Add that.Add to this the assessment that the length of the days of creation are not as definitive as young earth creationists want them to be.
Dolts lived in many eras.Long before the theory of evolution, St Augustine of Hippo (died 430) doubted the length of creation days when he stated, '
So have them post then, or make a case.There are other conservative evangelical scholars who argue for longer days of creation than 24 hours.
He died and went to aitch, too.Yes, Ozpern, Augustine certainly did argue that Genesis was not to be taken literally. He devoted a major work to the subject, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." Basically, his argument was that God is wholly outside the realm of time. God does not work through successive movements in time. Hence, God created the world in an instant, poof, and not over the period of six days. The reason for the "days" is that God had to reveal himself so as to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, which are all time-bound.
By "scholars," do you mean the boys at the Jesus Seminar?
First of all, a plain reading of the text doesn't state there are gaps, anywhere. This is probably why pretty much everyone read them as plain, unbroken, gapless genealogies until the evidence showed that they couldn't be literally true (and hence the new idea of "yalad"). That's why there has been clear historic agreement on the date, and hence this being the Jewish year 5776. You have called nearly all of historical Christianity as well as Judaism "dishonest".
Secondly, and just as importantly - positing gaps doesn't help, and still leaves one hopelessly out of step with the evidence. One is still left with either deciding the OT genealogies are symbolic/metaphors vs. denying evidence. The evidence shows that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, so if there are "gaps" in the 5,776 year chronology, then those "gaps" would have to account for over 90% of the time! So you are saying that the genealogies are 90% gap, with less than 10% of the time mentioned?
It gets worse - the evidence shows that the breeding population of our species was never just two people, and that the flood and many other Biblical stories could never have happened literally. The evidence also shows that there have been no humans for 99.9998% of earth's history - yet if one puts "gaps" in the genealogies to fill up the time (and keep creation week as 1 literal week), then humans appear after just 0.00002% of earth's history - the complete opposite. And the authors suggest that this is supposed to reconcile a literal reading of our scripture with the fact that droves of people are leaving the church due to the denial of scientific reality? Even allowing for longer "days" in creation week doesn't come close to agreement with the evidence - though if you've got some other approach that does help us stay in agreement with the evidence (as theistic evolution already does), then I'm all ears.
In Christ-
Papias
Yes, Ozpern, Augustine certainly did argue that Genesis was not to be taken literally. He devoted a major work to the subject, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." Basically, his argument was that God is wholly outside the realm of time. God does not work through successive movements in time. Hence, God created the world in an instant, poof, and not over the period of six days. The reason for the "days" is that God had to reveal himself so as to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, which are all time-bound.
Well no, since hydrogen is usually a single elementary proton with, usually, its attached electron.
nice fantasyBig Bang, not Stellar, nucleosynthesis.
Gong. The days in Genesis were not for God they were for us! The morning and evenings were for us. While our day may not be binding to God it is still a day and a unit of time that we know. We do not know millions of year days. That is lunacy.Yes, Ozpern, Augustine certainly did argue that Genesis was not to be taken literally. He devoted a major work to the subject, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." Basically, his argument was that God is wholly outside the realm of time. God does not work through successive movements in time. Hence, God created the world in an instant, poof, and not over the period of six days. The reason for the "days" is that God had to reveal himself so as to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, which are all time-bound.
The poor sod should have read the bible. Creation week did involve some time. What a numbskull that guy was.You missed my point abut Augustine, Dad. Augustine is arguing God's creative work did not encompass any time at all. Poof, all at once, not one minute this, another minute that, etc. No successiveness, period.
"Aitch" can mean one of two places, you know.What causes you to think that Augustine went to hell (or Hades)? Please provide the evidence from Augustine's writings.
You also chastise those who are Christians.Look, Dad, this is precisely the problem I was talking about. Calling St. Augustine names. ridiculing him or any other major figure, is strictly a no-no in serious theological discussion. All it does is show a very ignorant, vulgar mouth on your part. If you had known anything about classical theism, teh classical Christian model of God, you would have seen exactly where he was coming from. I don't agree with Augustine either, but I at least show some respect for him. I attack his metaphysics, not the man.
I have to point out that someone's over rated opinion that claims there is no time involved in creation week, days and mornings and evenings..is of no value.Look, Dad, this is precisely the problem I was talking about. Calling St. Augustine names. ridiculing him or any other major figure, is strictly a no-no in serious theological discussion.
Hey you want to stand behind dark and ignorant foolish opinions of men, then you take some heat.All it does is show a very ignorant, vulgar mouth on your part.
I do see exactly where...a big mouth run amuk, that fooled folks who did not know the bible. Whoopee do.If you had known anything about classical theism, teh classical Christian model of God, you would have seen exactly where he was coming from.
The man I do not know and do not care to know. His claims at least according to you, deserve contempt.I don't agree with Augustine either, but I at least show some respect for him. I attack his metaphysics, not the man.
Gong. The days in Genesis were not for God they were for us! The morning and evenings were for us. While our day may not be binding to God it is still a day and a unit of time that we know. We do not know millions of year days. That is lunacy.
"Aitch" can mean one of two places, you know.
What made you think I meant he took the elevator down?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?