How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[Queller]

The first hand transfer of information would have been from Adam to Methuselah. Methuselah spoke to both Adam and Noah.... there is no broken telephone here. Not to mention that Enoch, Methuselah's father, knew how to write. So, the recorded events of this time could have easily been recorded as dictated by first hand observers. In fact, Adam himself.

Ah, the age-old creationist tactic; when you can't support a claim, add to the Bible to make it so.

We may not have the original documents, but, it is not any stretch at all to believe these events were written down.

Not to mention that some of the books of the Torah were understood to have been dictated by God to Moses.

You simply do not seem to understand how "the telephone game" works and what it demonstrates. This is the chain:

Adam->Methuselah->Shem->Isaac->Jacob

Every "->" is an opportunity for information to get lost/misremembered/misinterpreted.

The Telephone Game demonstrates that five people can't keep a couple of sentences correct when passing it along immediately after hearing it. You think five people can do that over more than 1,000 years?

Why not? Especially if it was an event such as the creation of the universe. A bit different than a walk to church on a Sunday morning... These things are profound events that get etched in your brain... Ever heard anyone say "I remember it like it was yesterday"?

And almost every time they said, they are wrong. Did you even bother to read the links I gave or would learning something that challenges your assumptions be a bad thing?

The difference between an ameba turning into a rabbit, or goo to you by way of the zoo........ is not the mistake of a forgotten detail that would render something "imperfect"

That's like gramps telling me he built a flying saucer with remote control before they had cars..... That's gramps with dementia NOT forgetting a few details.

No, it's like gramps in his 90s, telling you that the first car he owned was dark blue but in reality was black.

You mean like... "I remember my wife, when she was younger, going to the beach with her friends... or was it my uncle throwing me in the swamp with the alligators... hard to remember which, so hard to keep them straight... hmm"

No, I mean like... "I remember my wife, when she was younger, going to the beach wearing a red bathing suit." In reality your wife never owned a red bathing suit, it was orange.

Your argument is absurd. The difference between being the only man on earth, having a rib taken to make the first woman, naming all the animals, living in the garden of Eden....

AND..... a long line of preposterous events changing a single celled spark of life (which nobody is concerned about where it came from) turning into all the things we have today.

Except that's not what I'm arguing. My position is the early books of Genesis are allegorical, not literal.

My whole point with this is to demonstrate that the Bible is not inerrant and furthermore, the small things it errs on make no difference to the matter of sin and salvation.

It is people like you that argue that if there is even the tiniest error in the Bible then the whole thing is worthless.

Jacob was living when Shem was still alive.

The information I found said that Shem died in 2158 after creation and Jacob was born in 2168 after creation.

Thank you

Guess we better throw out Aristotle, Hypocrites, Plato, and all the other great minds... Because their work was recorded far later after the events than any bible documents.

I wasn't aware that people have built a religion around what Plato said and did and then said anyone that doesn't accept Plato's words is going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.

Nor am I aware of anyone being killed for believing the wrong interpretation of Plato's Republic.

There are more bible documents and less time from when they happened to when they were written, than any other commonly accepted work that contradicts the biblical accounts... People have a hard time accepting things that go against the hive mind.

Umm, as you are so amply demonstrating here, the hive mind in question is Young Earth Creationism, and anyone who questions that is a heretic and will burn.

Except that they match letter to letter with unexpected precision, to the documents we have to date.

And if they are both copies of the same imperfect copy?

So, if they are not copies... maybe they are the originals....

The oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls only date to around 400 BC. If they are the originals I guess that blows your theory of Enoch writing them out of the water, doesn't it?

Somehow they are exact replicas. Even, to the dismay of the atheistic scholars.... who have to accept that they are exact duplicates, for points necessary.

Except that they aren't exact copies. I don't know where you got that idea.

Strikingly, some biblical manuscripts feature differences from the standard Masoretic biblical language and spelling. Additions and deletions in certain texts imply that the writers felt free to modify texts they were copying.
Source

I'm sorry. I really am. That you have problems with our supernatural God, describing an supernatural event.

The Bible does not describe the Temptations as a supernatural event.

Let me ask you..... did it happen?

If it didn't, was Christ really tempted. If not, was He falsely given the right to die for my sins?

Of course the Temptations happened, but not as literally described. There is not a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world.

You have the ability to follow some hoecus pocus about bacterium changing to other organisms and then, finally to man.... yet you cannot believe the things in the Bible that are written?

Ah yes nothing like frustration setting in and being unable to continue a conversation like an adult. Having to throw in terms like "hocus pocus" because you can no longer construct a logical argument?

All the while... you will hold to the fact that Jesus was God and died for your sins....

So, how do you know what to take from man's wisdom and what to take from God's truth?

I take from God's Word that which matches up with God's direct fingerprints.

So, what do you do with all the things that afford you salvation but are not possible to be scientifically possible, cannot be studied by science. Not repeatable, test able or observable..... Yet, you trust your eternal soul on these events.

Umm, the only things that afford me salvation are God's Grace, Christ's sacrifice, and my repentant faith and acceptance of Him as my Savior.

Believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that there was a world-wide flood 4,000 years ago, or knowing the exact number of blind men healed at Jericho are all unnecessary for salvation.

I guess it is necessary to believe these things, or you wouldn't have salvation. However the events of creation can be tossed aside and you follow the foolishness of man because they are not infringing on your ability to have eternal life.

The foolishness of man is in keeping God in the box required by YECism instead of acknowledging the direct evidence of His creation that He left behind.

Well you wish that were true.

No, I know it is true.

However, let's be honest. Without life.... both creation and the TOE are toast.

I've never claimed otherwise.

So, I'll go with the one that actually gives the origin of life. Not the one that conveniently leaves that little detail out.

How could I? You have no method to explain it. Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many.

Exactly. Life already existing is all that is necessary.

You're still on the hook as to where this organism came from.

Wait. Didn't you just say that "Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."?

Please make up your mind.

That class is a prerequisite for graduation to a believable concept.

No more so than explaining where atoms come from is a prerequisite for Atomic Theory being a believable concept.

Not only that, but, the people who claim that the TOE is "fact" have no explanation, refuse to attempt it and are proud to say that it doesn't matter to them... Good job boys.

Just like the people that claim Atomic Theory is a fact but don't explain where atoms come from, or the people that claim Germ Theory is a fact but don't explain where germs come from.

None conclusive thus far... hmm Well, that's just ducky... keep going lads. Keep working on that thing that doesn't concern your theory..

So, does it or doesn't it concern the theory. Cause, if I had a theory about "XYZ" and keep telling everyone that it has no relation to fact of "123" I certainly would not be wasting anytime or money trying to connect the two.... savy?

Well that's just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that scientists are investigating the origins of life solely to support the Theory of Evolution?

You do know there is more than just the Theory of Evolution in Biology, right? There's Cell Theory, Homeostasis, Gene Theory. The origin of life is another.

I'm pretty sure we can all presume that life began.... Thing is, you don't get to tell me that "you're right" with what came after "life began" if you don't have a sniff of "how life began"....

Why not? They are two different concepts. Just because you claim they aren't separate doesn't make it so.

Sorry, you don't get to play with the material that God supplied, to build a structure that says we don't need God. PERIOD.

Ah yes, the old "if evolution is true, then God doesn't exist argument". The only people I've ever seen use that argument in more than 15 years of participating in the debate, is YECs.

Keep dancing.

When you have the truth on your side, dancing is unnecessary.

Well, with my simple mind, you would have to first have all the complex protein structures that need to exist before you even think about assembling the incredible amount of information that is stored inside the molecules of DNA.

So,,, ya, I'm aware.

If you're aware, then why did you say this:

Let alone the enzymes and proteins and complex DNA would have to, somehow, form, on their own, when it supposedly happened spontaneously.

They don't form on their so what you said was nonsensical.

Why would I? God created germs.... I'm pretty much covered no matter what theory you want to put out there.

And God created life so I'm covered as well.

The fact that the TOE doesn't address it does not get it off the hook of having to explain it.

If "God created germs" gets Germ Theory off the hook for not having to explain how germs came about the "God created life" gets the Theory of Evolution off the hook for explaining how life came about.

You can't say that your going to fly to Hawaii to all your friends and when they say "well we don't have a plane" answer... oh don't worry about that.

Your analogy is flawed. The correct analogy would be saying that you're going to fly to Hawaii but no one's invented the plane. But since someone did invent the plane (whether it be God, space aliens, or the Wright brothers) we can fly to Hawaii.

You want the "Origin of Species" you need LIFE.. period.

You're right all I need for the Theory of Evolution is for life to exist. I don't have to explain how life got started.

 

[Queller]

It happened in God's mind, and that is the only reality that matters. There is no deception.

All of creation exists only in God's mind? That's an interesting claim.

 

[Queller]

You think time is a 'physical force'??? Ha. Talk about digging.

When I talk about the physical forces of the universe I'm talking about things like the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Things you claim are capable of changing at a moments notice.

 

[Queller]

Not now. But when water from below was freed to flood the earth, we can't compare that to 'fountains' today. As mentioned Walt Brown even did the math using physics and found that much flood year debris from the founts of the deep likely ended up in space. That would take FORCE. So we would call that an impact at the surface, from below.

An impact at the surface wouldn't leave a crater.

The stuff you think is debris from a meteor! It is not clear what this came from, science assumed it..golly gee just had to have been a meteor. I would ask for evidence of this.

Science knows exactly where it came from, you even posted about it. The problem is that you have to explain where it came from if it wasn't a meteor.

Distances are not known. But we wait to see the details of what we could see a few light years away? Would we see a star the size of earth? or..? If you make claims show some support eh?

I don't need to change yet, you have not shown support of your claim a star that was small could not be seen a few light years away.
If you do support that, well, we can maybe try to deduce what distance and size might be involved.

"In a cosmic version of the old needle-in-a-haystack finding, astronomers have spotted an object less than a mile wide that is 4.2 billion miles away, in the outer solar system."

Smallest Object in Outer Solar System Spotted

Not that object was not all lit up like a star, so we could probably see a bright object that was small a lot further.

On what do you base this claim?

So why not research your off the cuff claims?

Tell us in your own words then how this applies to an object a mile wide, or a thousand miles wide, or a yard wide? (in space far away)
Well, that is time! In many cases, six MONTHS! So we have time. Time and space are also woven together, so whenever we have space in the world or solar system, we have time.

Yes. Time here on earth. That we can directly measure here on earth in the present state.

You cannot take time away and make it not exist can you?

I'm not trying to.

Therefore hundreds of millions of miles in the solar system must involve time.
The base line is basically a time line!

Yes, it is. A time line here on earth as measured by instruments here on earth in the present state.

Space and time line!
You have NO distances known by using parallax in deep space. No. No. No.

Then I guess we have no way of knowing how far away the moon is, or Mars, or even the sun. Because those distances were all initially confirmed exactly the same way as the distance to Proxima Centauri; via parallax.

In other words the space between things...which must include time.(here in the earth and solar system where time exists)
All you have done is try to extend this time (and spacetime) by drawing a line to stars! As if time also existed there. Why? Because 'golly gee it just must..

It doesn't matter whether time exists at Proxima Centauri for the purposes of parallax. As long Proxima Centauri exists and is closer to us than the stars behind it (which we can tell it does since the motion of the earth causes its position to change relative to the stars behind it) we can use parallax to determine how far away it is.

Easy. The stars were CREATED to help us mark time for one thing! Time FOR US. In a watch the big cogs move at a different speed than the little ones you know! We ever have only seen the little ones in this world!

I wouldn't call the sun and moon "little cogs" but if you want to showcase your ignorance, go ahead.

In science, that is not known. What's left then? Bible?

The Bible doesn't give us any indication that time is different elsewhere in the universe.

The key thing here is that if you model all of the created universe we know about on the claim time IS the same, you BETTER be able to prove that...or your models are twaddle.

Why is it I have to prove my claims but you don't have to prove yours?

Rather than chant the words as if they have meaning for your claims you need to show the law, and how you think it applies to a small bright burning star far away in space.

You haven't provided any information on how brightly this star is shining. Since it's your scenario, you have to give me the numbers to work with. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of making something up for my own purposes.

So tell me there Einstein, how brightly is this fist-sized supernova 3 light years away shining in terms of luminosity and intensity? Don't forget to explain how you reached your conclusions.

 

[dad]

When I talk about the physical forces of the universe I'm talking about things like the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Things you claim are capable of changing at a moments notice.

There isn't really a good way to determine that, so just say you don't know.

 

[dad]

An impact at the surface wouldn't leave a crater.

No? Well, a great impact from below would impact the area where it came up. Do you know the geology of that area pre flood, and whether there may have been a sea or some formation that would have collapsed under great duress? Or do we know that there maybe wasn't a shallow sea or lake there that got dried up or something and left a hole? Do we know what a fountain of the deep that was active before erupting (in the way of bringing a mist of water up to water the earth) would do the the surrounding terrain? (leave a big depression or whatever)

You really have not considered the possibilities. Science has clung to the straw of an explanation that a now vanished meteor from above had to have dunnit. No. They deal in fake news and fantasy and selective deduction based on narrow godless criterio only!

Yes, it is. A time line here on earth as measured by instruments here on earth in the present state.

Great so do not talk about time away from here.

Then I guess we have no way of knowing how far away the moon is, or Mars, or even the sun. Because those distances were all initially confirmed exactly the same way as the distance to Proxima Centauri; via parallax.

We have a way of knowing distance where we know space and time. Our town, our world, the moon, the solar system. It is not the same to do a parallax measure INSIDE the area here where time exists and is known to exist as doing one for the great unknown deep universe! One is known, the other unknown. Last time I checked those things are not equal...known and unknown.

It doesn't matter whether time exists at Proxima Centauri for the purposes of parallax.

Yes it does. If you use a slice of space and TIME here, then simply draw a line to that star as if space and time were the same, that is religion.

As long Proxima Centauri exists and is closer to us than the stars behind it (which we can tell it does since the motion of the earth causes its position to change relative to the stars behind it) we can use parallax to determine how far away it is.

NO you sure cannot. You may cite the distance of the base line HERE though! But that does not tell us distance to the star.

I wouldn't call the sun and moon "little cogs" but if you want to showcase your ignorance, go ahead.

The analogy was about time, not sizes of things in our solar system. If the cogs here move at a certain speed in time, and ones far away are a different 'size' in regards to time and how it moves and exists, then the wheels are not equal in time.

The Bible doesn't give us any indication that time is different elsewhere in the universe.

Yes it says that God lives beyond where the stars are. Angels from there get to earth in no time, instantly. So time could not be as you think. It also says time will be no more in Rev! That could mean what it sounds like. It also says the heavens will be no more. It also indicates Adam would have or could have lived forever here. It also says one star is not the same but different in glory from another. It says the stars were created after the plants on earth and the reason given was to be fo signs, seasons, times! For US. HERE. I see nothing anywhere that suggests time has to exist the same far away from earth.

Why is it I have to prove my claims but you don't have to prove yours?

I never claimed it was any distance or size. I said we don't know. I gave an example of a distance and size and you said that was impossible because it was too small to be seen. I asked for support, and the basis for that claim.

You haven't provided any information on how brightly this star is shining. Since it's your scenario, you have to give me the numbers to work with. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of making something up for my own purposes.

Well, how far away could a bright star like object about the size of a tennis ball be seen in miles away from earth in space? Have you any idea or did you just claim it was too small to be seen on a whim? I am willing to look at the facts and evidence if you had any for your claim.

So tell me there Einstein, how brightly is this fist-sized supernova 3 light years away shining in terms of luminosity and intensity? Don't forget to explain how you reached your conclusions.

Bright enough to be seen with by science as they see other stars.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ah, the age-old creationist tactic; when you can't support a claim, add to the Bible to make it so.

Don't you mean the age old Christian tactic,... when the wisdom of men cannot comprehend something... go to the word of God?

You simply do not seem to understand how "the telephone game" works and what it demonstrates. This is the chain:

Adam->Methuselah->Shem->Isaac->Jacob

Every "->" is an opportunity for information to get lost/misremembered/misinterpreted.

The Telephone Game demonstrates that five people can't keep a couple of sentences correct when passing it along immediately after hearing it. You think five people can do that over more than 1,000 years?

Your argument was not the length of time. It was the number of times it was copied.

No, it's like gramps in his 90s, telling you that the first car he owned was dark blue but in reality was black.

No, I mean like... "I remember my wife, when she was younger, going to the beach wearing a red bathing suit." In reality your wife never owned a red bathing suit, it was orange.

That's just it. We are not talking about the color of the car or a bathing suit.

We're talking about saying the car was a space craft and the bathing suit was a shape shifting reptilian.

The argument is not about small inconsequential trivia. like the color of something. It's about the whole concept.

Except that's not what I'm arguing. My position is the early books of Genesis are allegorical, not literal.

Because? You believe the observations of men, carbon dating and the tripe that academia washed your brain with?

Look, what the men of science are touting as the truth about our whole universe, is driven by egg heads who want God out of the picture.

Ya, they make it "almost" good enough to include God. However that's Satan's best move.... almost true.

The camp you are with has the backing of the atheistic masses....

Their are no atheists in the YEC camp.

Who do you want to wake up with when Christ comes for His own?

Take a look at the company you are keeping.

My whole point with this is to demonstrate that the Bible is not inerrant and furthermore, the small things it errs on make no difference to the matter of sin and salvation.

The fact that you believe the Bible to have errors simply means that you don't know your Bible well enough.

It is people like you that argue that if there is even the tiniest error in the Bible then the whole thing is worthless.

Please find where I said that. I wouldn't want you to be guilty of assuming what someone else believes.

And......, were not talking about the tiniest errors are we? Were talking about the entire creation of the universe, by Christ Himself.

The information I found said that Shem died in 2158 after creation and Jacob was born in 2168 after creation.

Well I'm going by this time chart...... what are the odds that someone is off by a couple of decades?
timeline of patriarchs of old testament) - Google Search:

I wasn't aware that people have built a religion around what Plato said and did and then said anyone that doesn't accept Plato's words is going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.

Oh, you weren't aware of the religion based on all the pioneers of science and philosophy?

Funny, it's the religion of the TOE and all other Atheistic retorts to the Creator and God of this universe.

You see, we all have to serve somebody, as Bob Dillon said.

The founders of all science have written words, formulated laws and dreamed of philosophical things that have founded the basis for all our modern science. Nobody questions where these "written words" came from, yet these same people will attack the Bible based on the history of it's documents.

Nor am I aware of anyone being killed for believing the wrong interpretation of Plato's Republic.

What....? So, now someone has to be killed to confirm what? Sorry, don't follow.

Umm, as you are so amply demonstrating here, the hive mind in question is Young Earth Creationism, and anyone who questions that is a heretic and will burn.

Which group of people is larger, the camp of the old earth or the young earth?

I'm always told that my views must be wrong due to the shear numbers of people who disagree with my views.

SO, who is the hive mind again? Is the "hive mind" the little group of misguided strays? Or......is it the massive group of people following one another to avoid being called unintelligent?

And if they are both copies of the same imperfect copy?

Ohh good one. Do you know the odds of that? That all the manuscripts we have, agree with a very old one found in a cave....... but... they were all copied from the same one, but, with mistakes.

I very seriously doubt that this is why the scholars were so taken by the fact that it was such a perfect match to the manuscripts we already had.

The oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls only date to around 400 BC. If they are the originals I guess that blows your theory of Enoch writing them out of the water, doesn't it?

Ya, that would have been amazing... Enoch writing Isaiah.

Except that they aren't exact copies. I don't know where you got that idea.

Well, here's one:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are generally dated from around 200 B.C. to A.D. 68. This is more than 1,000 years older than any manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament that we had before their discovery. Because of their age and close similarity with the Masoretic Text, we now have an objective basis for determining that the biblical text used in our modern copies of the Old Testament is accurate.

Is the Bible True? Proof 2: Dead Sea Scrolls

And, here's another:

Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers.

(Oh Ya... that's you by the way)


However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.

The Bible does not describe the Temptations as a supernatural event.

Of course the Temptations happened, but not as literally described. There is not a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world.

So, first you say:

A/ the bible doesn't say that it's describing a supernatural event,

then you say:

B/"of course they happened",

finally you state:

C/ there is no mountain high enough.

To me..........that's a supernatural event. I don't have to have someone tap me on the shoulder and say... "hey, that's supernatural" OR the author to state:

"OK people, Jesus is now going to a place where the Devil and Him can see the entire world's kingdoms, all at once... so, I'm just going to say... this is a supernatural event...Just so there's no confusion here... K... Just say'n"

Ah yes nothing like frustration setting in and being unable to continue a conversation like an adult. Having to throw in terms like "hocus pocus" because you can no longer construct a logical argument?

Sorry, I just see the whole TOE as hocus pocus. Many have called the creation story "magic". Never bothered me at all. I know God is "magic". If that's what you want to call it when a deity can speak "let there be light" and the universe obliges.

I take from God's Word that which matches up with God's direct fingerprints.

So you determine what you want to accept, based on what the observations of other men allow you to believe as truth about the scriptures?

Umm, the only things that afford me salvation are God's Grace, Christ's sacrifice, and my repentant faith and acceptance of Him as my Savior.

True, unless....... there was death before the creation of Adam which totally negates the need for Christ and Jesus life is a waste of suffering.

Not only that, but, this means you will believe supernatural events, that contradict science, IF they bring you salvation. However, if there are other events, that contradict science... you choose the wisdom of men.

Believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that there was a world-wide flood 4,000 years ago, or knowing the exact number of blind men healed at Jericho are all unnecessary for salvation.

True enough. You can actually not even know there was a flood, or that there was a Jericho or crossing of the read sea and still receive salvation.
But were talking about someone who is aware of all these things and consciously determines to pick and choose what things in the Bible they agree happened or decide didn't happen.

This is not a limit of knowledge due to lack of knowledge and ignorance. NO...This is ignorance due to perceived arrogant wisdom.

You really should read:

Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?

Exactly. Life already existing is all that is necessary.

No, not exactly, life did not already exist. Christ breathed into Adams body and he became a living soul.

God created life, it did not already exist.

Wait. Didn't you just say that "Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."?

Please make up your mind.

I was stating directly what the evolutionists concept is and how they neglect to ever explain what got that little organisms engine running.

No more so than explaining where atoms come from is a prerequisite for Atomic Theory being a believable concept.

Just like the people that claim Atomic Theory is a fact but don't explain where atoms come from, or the people that claim Germ Theory is a fact but don't explain where germs come from.

You keep this up and I won't have to do anything to show how absurd it is that the universe needs a creator.

The atomic theory needs someone to create the atoms. The germ theory needs living germs.............. If you cannot explain where the atoms came from or the life that allows germs to even exist, how can you have anything.

Well that's just ignorant. Do you honestly believe that scientists are investigating the origins of life solely to support the Theory of Evolution?

Oh, I'm ignorant? What do you think the first thing they would say would be, IF they created life?????

I'll tell you.... "There is no need for God" .... "We proved it by creating life"...

IF the TOE needs no explanation for the appearance of life... out of nowhere... why bother trying to prove that it can come out of nowhere?

You do know there is more than just the Theory of Evolution in Biology, right? There's Cell Theory, Homeostasis, Gene Theory. The origin of life is another.

Really? I did not know that.... WHY bother.... God told us how He did it... now go play baseball or something.

 

[BobRyan]

You are aware of the concept of tectonic uplift, right? It's a process we can directly measure today. Uplift is measured in terms of centimeters per year.

It has not raised the pacific plate above North America... no matter the billions of years of "cm-per-year" uplift.

Plates are spreading in the mid-atlantic rift meanwhile they subduct on the other side. the result is that we do not have north america - "all under water" nor all the oceans "all above water'.

Obviously,.

So then - back to our limestone covered mountains and sea life fossil remains at the tops.

 

[BobRyan]

Do we have the originals, yes or no? It really is a simple question.

And the answer was that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a "distance check" where many centuries are "checked" to see the rate of change that was coming in due to copy errors...and the "check" shows that the answer is "zilch". You are arguing "from the void". Making claims that we need to have autographs before we can measure copy errors over time.

A flawed argument at best.

 

[Queller]

There isn't really a good way to determine that, so just say you don't know.

I do know. You're just too scared to look at the evidence.

 

[Queller]

And the answer was that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a "distance check" where many centuries are "checked" to see the rate of change that was coming in due to copy errors...and the "check" shows that the answer is "zilch". You are arguing "from the void". Making claims that we need to have autographs before we can measure copy errors over time.

A flawed argument at best.

Umm, no.

Strikingly, some biblical manuscripts feature differences from the standard Masoretic biblical language and spelling. Additions and deletions in certain texts imply that the writers felt free to modify texts they were copying.
Source

 

[Queller]

It has not raised the pacific plate above North America... no matter the billions of years of "cm-per-year" uplift.

Plates are spreading in the mid-atlantic rift meanwhile they subduct on the other side. the result is that we do not have north america - "all under water" nor all the oceans "all above water'.

Obviously,.

If this made any sense in standard English I would attempt to respond but ...

"oceans above all water"? Seriously?

So then - back to our limestone covered mountains and sea life fossil remains at the tops.

They got there via geological uplift over long periods of time. Exactly as they are moving today.

 

[dad]

I do know. You're just too scared to look at the evidence.

The evidence you can't post? How would we look at that?

 

[Queller]

Don't you mean the age old Christian tactic,... when the wisdom of men cannot comprehend something... go to the word of God?

No, I mean Creationist.

Your argument was not the length of time. It was the number of times it was copied.

My argument involves both.

That's just it. We are not talking about the color of the car or a bathing suit.

We're talking about saying the car was a space craft and the bathing suit was a shape shifting reptilian.

The argument is not about small inconsequential trivia. like the color of something. It's about the whole concept.

You really need to at least learn about the Telephone Game and read the links I gave about memory.

Just like in evolution, just like in evolution, small changes can, over time, add up to big changes.

And as I told you (and you seem to ignore) I believe Genesis is allegorical, not literal. So small changes in the story over time as told to different listeners don't matter in the slightest.

Because? You believe the observations of men, carbon dating and the tripe that academia washed your brain with?

I believe the observations of men using their God-given abilities to understand the evidence He left behind.

Look, what the men of science are touting as the truth about our whole universe, is driven by egg heads who want God out of the picture.

This is a lie. Most of the scientists, including those who originally disproved the worldwide flood were, and are, Christians. See Kenneth Millier, Francis Collins, Adam Sedgwick, and many others.

Ya, they make it "almost" good enough to include God. However that's Satan's best move.... almost true.

Ah yes, nothing like paranoia to make you fail to consider evidence.

The camp you are with has the backing of the atheistic masses....

So what? It also has the backing of hundreds of millions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and many other faiths.

Their are no atheists in the YEC camp.

So? Is that supposed to mean something?

Who do you want to wake up with when Christ comes for His own?

I'll wake up with the saved.

Take a look at the company you are keeping.

Millions of Christians who use their God-given talents, abilities, and intellects to examine the evidence He left behind in the real world.

The fact that you believe the Bible to have errors simply means that you don't know your Bible well enough.

Then by all means explain to me why the below is not an error. Provide evidence from the Bible to support your conclusion.

• Two Gospels state that one blind man was healed at Jericho, one Gospels that two men were healed.
• Two Gospels state that the man/men were healed as Jesus left Jericho, one states the man was healed as Jesus arrived at Jericho.
• Two Gospels state the men were healed by faith alone, one Gospels states the men were healed by faith and Jesus touching their eyes.
• One Gospel was written by a man who was there to witness the miracle, two were written by men who heard about the event at least second- or third-hand, possible more.

Which Gospel do you think is likely to be most accurate and hold the true story?

Also, is the number of blind men healed the important part of the story or is it the demonstration of Jesus' power and glory that we should be concerned with?

Please find where I said that. I wouldn't want you to be guilty of assuming what someone else believes.

So you don't believe that if the Bible had a few small errors, the whole thing is worthless? Good for you!

And......, were not talking about the tiniest errors are we? Were talking about the entire creation of the universe, by Christ Himself.

Again, and I don't understand why you are having such problems remembering this, I believe Genesis to be allegorical, not literal.

Well I'm going by this time chart...... what are the odds that someone is off by a couple of decades?
timeline of patriarchs of old testament) - Google Search:

Which chart are you using? Most of the top charts on that search don't give actual dates of birth and death, they just show bars.

The one I used is this one;

third row down, third from the left in my browser.

It gives the year of Shem's death as 2158 after Creation and the year of Jacob's birth as 2168 after creation.

Oh, you weren't aware of the religion based on all the pioneers of science and philosophy?

What religion is that? And don't say Atheism because there's nothing in Atheism that is based on "all the pioneers of science and philosophy".

Funny, it's the religion of the TOE and all other Atheistic retorts to the Creator and God of this universe.

How does a scientific theory have a religion?

You see, we all have to serve somebody, as Bob Dillon said.

The founders of all science have written words, formulated laws and dreamed of philosophical things that have founded the basis for all our modern science. Nobody questions where these "written words" came from, yet these same people will attack the Bible based on the history of it's documents.

That's because the people who treat the written words of the founders of modern science (most of whom were Christians of one form of another) as a religion only exist in the imaginations of Creationists.

What....? So, now someone has to be killed to confirm what? Sorry, don't follow.

You are aware of people being killed for not being Christian and for even being the wrong kind of Christian aren't you?

Can the same be said for those who follow Plato's writings as a religion (if those people even exist)?

Which group of people is larger, the camp of the old earth or the young earth?

In the US, YECism has a larger following. Worldwide? Old Earth has the higher acceptance rate.

Doesn't change the fact of what I said in the comment you responded to.

I'm always told that my views must be wrong due to the shear numbers of people who disagree with my views.

No, the number of people who hold to a view has no bearing on whether that view is correct. That's a logical fallacy called either (depending on how it is phrased ) Appeal to Belief or Appeal to Popularity.

SO, who is the hive mind again? Is the "hive mind" the little group of misguided strays? Or......is it the massive group of people following one another to avoid being called unintelligent?

And that is the logical fallacy called Begging the Question. You're assuming that the reason people say they accept evolution is because they don't want to appear stupid.

Ohh good one. Do you know the odds of that? That all the manuscripts we have, agree with a very old one found in a cave....... but... they were all copied from the same one, but, with mistakes.

I very seriously doubt that this is why the scholars were so taken by the fact that it was such a perfect match to the manuscripts we already had.

Ya, that would have been amazing... Enoch writing Isaiah.

Well, here's one:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are generally dated from around 200 B.C. to A.D. 68. This is more than 1,000 years older than any manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament that we had before their discovery. Because of their age and close similarity with the Masoretic Text, we now have an objective basis for determining that the biblical text used in our modern copies of the Old Testament is accurate.

Is the Bible True? Proof 2: Dead Sea Scrolls

See that part in red there. That's from your link and doesn't say they are exact matches, does it?

From that same link:

He provides evidence from comparative studies of the Isaiah scroll revealing that a word-for-word identity exists in 95 percent of the text.

Only 95% of the text is word-for-word identical? Didn't you say they were exact copies? Let's see:

Except that they match letter to letter with unexpected precision, to the documents we have to date.

So, if they are not copies... maybe they are the originals....

Somehow they are exact replicas. Even, to the dismay of the atheistic scholars.... who have to accept that they are exact duplicates, for points necessary.

Why yes, yes you did. You even doubled down on it.

And that part in red? That's where I got the idea that you claimed we have the originals.

And, here's another:

Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers.

(Oh Ya... that's you by the way)

Actually no, I have never claimed that they "contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents"

My point remains, as it always has, that small errors do not undermine the true message of God's Word but they do destroy the idea that the Bible is inerrant. An idea that is not necessary to be a Christian and receive God's Grace.

However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.

So, first you say:

A/ the bible doesn't say that it's describing a supernatural event,

Because it doesn't

then you say:

B/"of course they happened",

Which they did.

finally you state:

C/ there is no mountain high enough.

Correct.

To me..........that's a supernatural event.

I love how you leave out the part of my statement where I acknowledge that it was indeed not a literal event.

I don't have to have someone tap me on the shoulder and say... "hey, that's supernatural" OR the author to state:

"OK people, Jesus is now going to a place where the Devil and Him can see the entire world's kingdoms, all at once... so, I'm just going to say... this is a supernatural event...Just so there's no confusion here... K... Just say'n"

You do understand that all the examples you gave previously, Jacob's dream of a staircase, etc. were all identified in the text, as being not literal events, right? And that the Temptations of Christ are written as if they are literal events, right? And that the only reason you acknowledge them as a supernatural event is because the evidence of your knowledge and sense tells you that it is not possible for there to be a mountain tall enough to see the entire world, correct?

When you understand why you reject the Temptations of Christ as literal events you'll understand why I reject the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts as literal events.

Sorry, I just see the whole TOE as hocus pocus.

If so, then you don't understand it at all. At no point is there any need for waving a magic wand around for the TOE to be a robust, viable, scientific theory.

Many have called the creation story "magic".

And they're wrong to do so. One of the rare things I agree with creationists about is when they correct people for saying God is "Magic"

Never bothered me at all. I know God is "magic". If that's what you want to call it when a deity can speak "let there be light" and the universe obliges.

It's not magic, it's a miracle. When you say God works magic, you equate God to Penn & Teller. While they are funny, nothing about their act is Godlike.

So you determine what you want to accept, based on what the observations of other men allow you to believe as truth about the scriptures?

No more so than you do. I actually examine as much of the evidence myself as I can and draw conclusions from it.

Have you personally examined the Dead Sea Scrolls or do you determine what you want to accept based on the observations of other men?

True, unless....... there was death before the creation of Adam which totally negates the need for Christ and Jesus life is a waste of suffering.

That's a rather child-like view of it. It makes far more sense to believe that the death being spoke of is spiritual death and separation from God.

Even a literal reading of Genesis supports me on this one. Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death upon eating the apple as the serpent claimed, did they? Nope, they died a spiritual death and were separated from God. They were literally kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

Not only that, but, this means you will believe supernatural events, that contradict science, IF they bring you salvation. However, if there are other events, that contradict science... you choose the wisdom of men.

You are aware that men wrote the Bible, right? Inspired men to be sure, but still men. You are aware the men interpret the Bible right? Even the men who taught you?

True enough. You can actually not even know there was a flood, or that there was a Jericho or crossing of the read sea and still receive salvation.

But were talking about someone who is aware of all these things and consciously determines to pick and choose what things in the Bible they agree happened or decide didn't happen.

This is not a limit of knowledge due to lack of knowledge and ignorance. NO...This is ignorance due to perceived arrogant wisdom.

No, it is accepting the reasoning of our God-givens senses, abilities, and intellect.

You really should read:

Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?

I've read it before. I'm not impressed. This is the same group that has an article of faith that

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

IOW, they presume their conclusion, and a priori reject any evidence that does not conform to their beliefs. And that last line is ridiculous. They seem to arrogantly forget that they are also "fallible men who do possess all information.

No, not exactly, life did not already exist. Christ breathed into Adams body and he became a living soul.

God created life, it did not already exist.

That is not at all what I was referring to with that statement and you know it.

I was explicitly referring to your comment that

"Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."

Nothing more.

I was stating directly what the evolutionists concept is and how they neglect to ever explain what got that little organisms engine running.

Because as you yourself noted

"Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."

It's not about "what started the engine", it's about where the car goes.

You keep this up and I won't have to do anything to show how absurd it is that the universe needs a creator.

The atomic theory needs someone to create the atoms. The germ theory needs living germs.............. If you cannot explain where the atoms came from or the life that allows germs to even exist, how can you have anything.

Then why aren't you asking nuclear physicists why they don't explain where atoms come from?

Oh, I'm ignorant? What do you think the first thing they would say would be, IF they created life?????

I'll tell you.... "There is no need for God" .... "We proved it by creating life"...

Yep that's a pretty ignorant claim. Seeing how many scientists are Christian, it's just as likely that the first words out of their mouth would be, "we just proved how God created life".

IF the TOE needs no explanation for the appearance of life... out of nowhere... why bother trying to prove that it can come out of nowhere?

First off, who says they are trying to prove it came out of nowhere?

Second, why can't they be looking solely for the purpose of expanding man's knowledge about the universe?

The idea that all scientists are part of some massive, incredibly well-hidden plot to destroy God is nothing more than a paranoid delusion.

Really? I did not know that.... WHY bother.... God told us how He did it... now go play baseball or something.

And that is why YECism will always be a backwater idea. The very idea that "God told us everything we needed to know so let's not learn anything else" is part of the mindset that keeps the US out of the top ranks in the world in math and science.

 

[St_Worm2]

Additionally your claim "the Hebrew gives us no indication that the length of the first three days of Creation were different than any of the days that followed" is simply untrue. In Genesis 1, the first 5 days lack the article which is included on day 6 in the construct and day 7 in the absolute. Day one is a cardinal, but days 2-7 are ordinals. Most English translations do a good job of "sanitizing" the text, the NASB is one of the few that allows the anomalies of the Hebrew text to be seen in their English translation. While these anomalies are hidden from view in most other English translations, they still do exist in the Hebrew text.

Hi Benelchi, I meant to reply to this as well the other day, but I didn't get back to it until now (sorry about that). The NASB is a great translation (it is my principle translation, in fact, and the translation I use for memorization), and I appreciate its accuracy like you do

That said, I agree with you (that there are these minor differences in the Hebrew text), but I am also confused , since our discussion concerned the "length" of the Creation days (but these "anomalies", as you called them, don't indicate a difference in the length of a day).

All six creation days are described/qualified with the same language, “there was evening and there was morning”, language which describes normal solar days or 24 hour days*. So taking that fact into consideration, as well the fact that ordinal and cardinal numbers do not adjust the length of a day for us, I see no reason to assume that the first day is different in length from the other 5 or 6 in this sequence here in Genesis 1.

*(even the first day is described as consisting of evening and morning, a very "literal day" indication )

Also, it was one day, a second day, a third day, and whether an ordinal or cardinal number, numbered days (especially those with ordinal numbers used in Scripture), refer to literal days.

Finally, all seven days, 6 days of work and 1 day of rest, is the basis for God’s instructions for man to observe 6 days of work and 1 day of rest, which are understood by all as literal days. We don’t work 6 ages and rest one God was setting up a literal work week, based upon His Creation week. So in all of this I see no indication that the first three days should be seen as different in length than the next three . . or than the seventh for that matter.

If you do, please tell me/us why you do, and why you believe that the Hebrew text "anomalies" indicate such a thing.

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[JacksBratt]

No, I mean Creationist.

My argument involves both.

You really need to at least learn about the Telephone Game and read the links I gave about memory.

Just like in evolution, just like in evolution, small changes can, over time, add up to big changes.

And as I told you (and you seem to ignore) I believe Genesis is allegorical, not literal. So small changes in the story over time as told to different listeners don't matter in the slightest.

I believe the observations of men using their God-given abilities to understand the evidence He left behind.

This is a lie. Most of the scientists, including those who originally disproved the worldwide flood were, and are, Christians. See Kenneth Millier, Francis Collins, Adam Sedgwick, and many others.

Ah yes, nothing like paranoia to make you fail to consider evidence.

So what? It also has the backing of hundreds of millions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and many other faiths.

So? Is that supposed to mean something?

I'll wake up with the saved.

Millions of Christians who use their God-given talents, abilities, and intellects to examine the evidence He left behind in the real world.

Then by all means explain to me why the below is not an error. Provide evidence from the Bible to support your conclusion.

• Two Gospels state that one blind man was healed at Jericho, one Gospels that two men were healed.
• Two Gospels state that the man/men were healed as Jesus left Jericho, one states the man was healed as Jesus arrived at Jericho.
• Two Gospels state the men were healed by faith alone, one Gospels states the men were healed by faith and Jesus touching their eyes.
• One Gospel was written by a man who was there to witness the miracle, two were written by men who heard about the event at least second- or third-hand, possible more.

Which Gospel do you think is likely to be most accurate and hold the true story?

Also, is the number of blind men healed the important part of the story or is it the demonstration of Jesus' power and glory that we should be concerned with?

So you don't believe that if the Bible had a few small errors, the whole thing is worthless? Good for you!

Again, and I don't understand why you are having such problems remembering this, I believe Genesis to be allegorical, not literal.

Which chart are you using? Most of the top charts on that search don't give actual dates of birth and death, they just show bars.

The one I used is this one;

third row down, third from the left in my browser.

It gives the year of Shem's death as 2158 after Creation and the year of Jacob's birth as 2168 after creation.

What religion is that? And don't say Atheism because there's nothing in Atheism that is based on "all the pioneers of science and philosophy".

How does a scientific theory have a religion?

That's because the people who treat the written words of the founders of modern science (most of whom were Christians of one form of another) as a religion only exist in the imaginations of Creationists.

You are aware of people being killed for not being Christian and for even being the wrong kind of Christian aren't you?

Can the same be said for those who follow Plato's writings as a religion (if those people even exist)?

In the US, YECism has a larger following. Worldwide? Old Earth has the higher acceptance rate.

Doesn't change the fact of what I said in the comment you responded to.

No, the number of people who hold to a view has no bearing on whether that view is correct. That's a logical fallacy called either (depending on how it is phrased ) Appeal to Belief or Appeal to Popularity.

And that is the logical fallacy called Begging the Question. You're assuming that the reason people say they accept evolution is because they don't want to appear stupid.

See that part in red there. That's from your link and doesn't say they are exact matches, does it?

From that same link:

He provides evidence from comparative studies of the Isaiah scroll revealing that a word-for-word identity exists in 95 percent of the text.

Only 95% of the text is word-for-word identical? Didn't you say they were exact copies? Let's see:

Why yes, yes you did. You even doubled down on it.

And that part in red? That's where I got the idea that you claimed we have the originals.

Actually no, I have never claimed that they "contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents"

My point remains, as it always has, that small errors do not undermine the true message of God's Word but they do destroy the idea that the Bible is inerrant. An idea that is not necessary to be a Christian and receive God's Grace.

Because it doesn't

Which they did.

Correct.

I love how you leave out the part of my statement where I acknowledge that it was indeed not a literal event.

You do understand that all the examples you gave previously, Jacob's dream of a staircase, etc. were all identified in the text, as being not literal events, right? And that the Temptations of Christ are written as if they are literal events, right? And that the only reason you acknowledge them as a supernatural event is because the evidence of your knowledge and sense tells you that it is not possible for there to be a mountain tall enough to see the entire world, correct?

When you understand why you reject the Temptations of Christ as literal events you'll understand why I reject the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts as literal events.

If so, then you don't understand it at all. At no point is there any need for waving a magic wand around for the TOE to be a robust, viable, scientific theory.

And they're wrong to do so. One of the rare things I agree with creationists about is when they correct people for saying God is "Magic"

It's not magic, it's a miracle. When you say God works magic, you equate God to Penn & Teller. While they are funny, nothing about their act is Godlike.

No more so than you do. I actually examine as much of the evidence myself as I can and draw conclusions from it.

Have you personally examined the Dead Sea Scrolls or do you determine what you want to accept based on the observations of other men?

That's a rather child-like view of it. It makes far more sense to believe that the death being spoke of is spiritual death and separation from God.

Even a literal reading of Genesis supports me on this one. Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death upon eating the apple as the serpent claimed, did they? Nope, they died a spiritual death and were separated from God. They were literally kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

You are aware that men wrote the Bible, right? Inspired men to be sure, but still men. You are aware the men interpret the Bible right? Even the men who taught you?

No, it is accepting the reasoning of our God-givens senses, abilities, and intellect.

I've read it before. I'm not impressed. This is the same group that has an article of faith that

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

IOW, they presume their conclusion, and a priori reject any evidence that does not conform to their beliefs. And that last line is ridiculous. They seem to arrogantly forget that they are also "fallible men who do possess all information.

That is not at all what I was referring to with that statement and you know it.

I was explicitly referring to your comment that

"Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."

Nothing more.

Because as you yourself noted

"Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many."

It's not about "what started the engine", it's about where the car goes.

Then why aren't you asking nuclear physicists why they don't explain where atoms come from?

Yep that's a pretty ignorant claim. Seeing how many scientists are Christian, it's just as likely that the first words out of their mouth would be, "we just proved how God created life".

First off, who says they are trying to prove it came out of nowhere?

Second, why can't they be looking solely for the purpose of expanding man's knowledge about the universe?

The idea that all scientists are part of some massive, incredibly well-hidden plot to destroy God is nothing more than a paranoid delusion.

And that is why YECism will always be a backwater idea. The very idea that "God told us everything we needed to know so let's not learn anything else" is part of the mindset that keeps the US out of the top ranks in the world in math and science.

Ok, there is absolutely no way I have time to go through every point and counter point here.

From what I see here is... you are a man who believes in Christ as his savior.

However, although you believe that Christ was born of a virgin, did numerous healings, preformed numerous miracles, lived a sinless life, fulfilled hundreds of prophesies, was arrested, tortured, hung on a cross, died, had a spear shoved through His body, caused darkness and an earthquake at His death, rose again conquering death, appeared to at least 500 people and ascended to heaven in plain site of many others.

Although you believe all of this, you doubt other similar supernatural events as they are described in the Bible.

This puts you in a group of people that I categorize as those who will believe supernatural, un provable, un testable, unrepeatable, events with no scientific evidence IF it is necessary for their salvation.

Otherwise, they leave it to their own intelligence, wisdom and attained knowledge, to decide which of the other supernatural, events, of Biblical scriptures, that do not agree with any empirical scientific protocol....are true and worthy of their belief.

You basically take from the Bible what you need, what suits you, what, with your finite mind, is the bare minimum you have to accept........... for the sake of your mortal soul.

I truly hope that some day I can sit with you in glory and discuss our differences, errors in belief and look back as we thank God for His grace.

 

[benelchi]

Hi Benelchi, I meant to reply to this as well the other day, but I didn't get back to it until now (sorry about that). The NASB is a great translation (it is my principle translation, in fact, and the translation I use for memorization), and I appreciate its accuracy like you do

That said, I agree with you (that there are these minor differences in the Hebrew text), but I am also confused , since our discussion concerned the "length" of the Creation days (but these "anomalies", as you called them, don't indicate a difference in the length of a day).

The only issue isn't just the length of day but whether these days were even consecutive i.e. some early Jewish commentators who noted the lack of the article have suggested that the lack of the article was there to indicate gaps i.e. a second day of creation, a third day of creation, etc..., and additionally the whole sequence starts with the phrase "one day" and not "first day," and some who have noted this anomaly and have suggested that gaps could exist before this "one day." NOTE: Even translations that use "First day" for "יום אחד" in this verse, translate this same phrase as "one day" consistently throughout the rest of the bible which raises a pretty big question i.e. Why "first day" in this verse?

All six creation days are described/qualified with the same language, “there was evening and there was morning”, language which describes normal solar days or 24 hour days*. So taking that fact into consideration, as well the fact that ordinal and cardinal numbers do not adjust the length of a day for us, I see no reason to assume that the first day is different in length from the other 5 or 6 in this sequence here in Genesis 1.


*(even the first day is described as consisting of evening and morning, a very "literal day" indication )

Also, it was one day, a second day, a third day, and whether an ordinal or cardinal number, numbered days (especially those with ordinal numbers used in Scripture), refer to literal days.

However, it should be noted that the only other place in the bible that speaks of a day with a number, and an evening is also speaking of an eternal day. And there are numerous places where "day" is used to speak of longer periods of time. Additionally, the fact that a number of the early church fathers believed that each of these days were 1,000 years long demonstrates that the language itself did not limit their understanding to a literal 24hr. day.

Finally, all seven days, 6 days of work and 1 day of rest, is the basis for God’s instructions for man to observe 6 days of work and 1 day of rest, which are understood by all as literal days. We don’t work 6 ages and rest one God was setting up a literal work week, based upon His Creation week. So in all of this I see no indication that the first three days should be seen as different in length than the next three . . or than the seventh for that matter.

If you do, please tell me/us why you do, and why you believe that the Hebrew text "anomalies" indicate such a thing.

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
David

If one tries to argue that it must be literal because of the work week pattern, then they have an even bigger problem. In Gen. 2 we are not told that the 7th day ended, and in Hebrews were are told that it is still continuing (that is a very, very, long day).

The point is that there is much that we cannot answer definitively about the days of the creation week; the text is just not nearly as clear as some would like to believe. Can the text be understood to be referring to a literal 6 - 24hr day creation? Absolutely! However, it is not absolutely clear that it was intended to communicate the idea that creation took place during a period of 6 -24hr days. Those who insist that the grammar and vocabulary are limited to this particular interpretation have stepped beyond the evidence just as much as those who try to argue that the grammar and vocabulary excludes this interpretation. The Hebrew language of the bible paints with a pretty broad brush and, in the absence of other evidence, trying to read into the text all of the fine details about how creation took place is trying to push the text into a mold it does not fit. What the text does tell us is that God was, and is, intimately involved in every step of his creation and that he had a clear purpose for everything he has done. The text tells us that from the very beginning he did what only an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God alone could of done. While Scripture is clear that the heavens declare his handiwork, it also recognizes that there is a mystery about God's creation that we are all unable to fully grasp. It would be far better for the church to recognize this mystery and be gracious with those in the body of Christ who interpret the relatively minor detail about the length of time that passed when God created everything differently, and focus instead on the miracle of God's creative work that is undeniable.

 

[pat34lee]

You simply do not seem to understand how "the telephone game" works and what it demonstrates. This is the chain:
Adam->Methuselah->Shem->Isaac->Jacob

If you're going to write a book, try breaking it up into chapters. Most people don't have time to read, much less respond to everything at once.

Telephone is not the same as oral traditions of people. Native Americans have stories going back centuries or even millennia, and dozens of generations.

Passing down history for even 6-8 generations, when you have possibly hundreds of years to teach that information, is not only likely but easily done, especially when their brains were a lot closer to perfect than ours. Anyway, why suppose only the main players were taught? Adam probably taught all his sons, and Noah taught all his. Seth could have taught several generations of his offspring.

 

[St_Worm2]

Telephone is not the same as oral traditions of people. Native Americans have stories going back centuries or even millennia, and dozens of generations.

Passing down history for even 6-8 generations, when you have possibly hundreds of years to teach that information, is not only likely but easily done, especially when their brains were a lot closer to perfect than ours. Anyway, why suppose only the main players were taught? Adam probably taught all his sons, and Noah taught all his. Seth could have taught several generations of his offspring.

Hi Pat34Lee, I think I have to agree with Queller about the "Telephone" game in this case, and this is why. The Jews teach us that along with the written Torah, God gave Moses an oral "Tradition", an "oral" Torah, that he passed down along with the written one. If this is true (that there really was an "oral" Torah), then we have a big problem, because we KNOW that it didn't make it down to the First Century intact (because we know that Jesus spent much of His time here on earth correcting Jewish tradition/showing the Jews how their "oral" tradition actually nullifies the word of God ).

So either it was wrong because there never was an "oral" Torah to begin with, or it was wrong because they lost the original words to the oral "tradition" that God gave them because they tried to pass them down via the "Telephone" method, rather than writing them down like they should have done (and which they've finally done).

Yours in Christ,
David

Matthew 15
1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”
6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ​

8 “ ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
.​

 

[pat34lee]

Hi Pat34Lee, I think I have to agree with Queller about the "Telephone" game in this case, and this is why. The Jews teach us that along with the written Torah, God gave Moses an oral "Tradition", an "oral" Torah, that he passed down along with the written one. If this is true

Since we know it (the oral tradition) isn't true, no problem. There are proofs in Deuteronomy and in Joshua, plus the fact that the written Torah was lost two times for years, so any oral tradition would have been lost with it. The so-called oral laws came into being at the same time as the Rabbis; in Babylon. They learned to mimic the Babylonian mystery religion, down to the way they taught, the ineffable name, and keeping part of the religion secret, so the masses were kept in the dark. That is why it was never supposed to be written. And why the Catholic church so opposed translating the bible into the common language of the people.