answersincreation.org (Literal Genesis AND Old Earth Creationism?)

i'll have to give thata look. i'm well verse in both areas, and i fail to see how they could work together.

---

אָרַח

that argument annoys me. yom does not mean anything besides a literal day in that context. the whole thing could be metaphorical -- but the words don't change their literal meaning.

---

אָרַח

1. יוֹם אֶחָד, "one day."
2. יוֹם שֵׁנִי, "monday"
3. יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי, "tuesday"
4. יוֹם רְבִיעִי, "wednesday"
5. יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, "thursday"
6. יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, "friday"
7. יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, longer version of "shabbat," saturday.

genesis 1:1-2:4 is the etiology of the hebrew work-week. בְּיוֹם, or "in the day" means "when" and is indefinate. yom has four usages:

• "day" as in 24hrs
  --"...And the evening and the morning were the first day."
  ​
• "day" as in "daytime"
  --"And God called the light Day"
  ​
• "days" as in "the days of someones's lives" numbering out to years
  --"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years"
  ​
• "in the day that" meaning "when."
  --"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

these usages don't leave room for an interpretative day-age reading. {editted to add verses}This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 01:17 AM

---

אָרַח

i'll see what i can arrange.

i addressed this above. it's a common hebrew idiom. "b'yom" is indefinate, and does not mean the other usages of "yom" are not specific.

quote:

---

• "in the day that" meaning "when."
  --"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

---

step 2: restate initial premise.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 06:44 PM

---

אָרַח

four specific contextual usages, one of them as part of an idiom, may be considered a varied set, but it doesn't mean you can ascribe any meaning you want. it MUST mean one of those things, depending on HOW it's used. that doesn't even make sense. and what part of the word "context" do you not understand? "yom" does not mean "when." ever. "b'yom" does, nearly always. that extra bet on the beginning is what makes the phrase "in the day." with out the b' it simply means "day." as an interpretation, sure. but it's still an interpretation that conflicts with both the p'shat and dresh readings of the text.simply put, genesis 1:1-2:4 is the etiology of the hebrew week. it's the reason why they take saturday (shabbat) off, and it's the reason days start at sunset. it describes evenings and mornings, in modern terminology. and i wasn't joking when i said they're the days of the week. they are. for monday through thursday, that's what they're called today. for friday, it's spelled slightly differently now. for saturday, shabbat is clearly derived from term they use.literally, it says "day" and must mean "day" because of the associations of the days of the week, and the terms morning an evening. as applied, it's why we should take saturdays off. it's the hebrew etiology of the week. so they HAVE TO BE 24hr periods for these reasons. if you can't accept that -- you're arguing with the bible, not me. if you think it's metaphorical, whatever. that's another debate. but LITERALLY it says "day" and MEANS "day."

---

אָרַח

oh. my. god. no.listen. see the subtitle of this particular thread? the days of the week? it says the days of the week, monday through friday, and shabbat.b'yom is an idiom for "when." yom alone is not. yom shani is "second day" or "monday." it actually matters WHAT it says, and HOW it says it. context is important.please, please, try to see the difference. this is not a very hard concept. and you can't just make stuff up, and think it will fly.

---

אָרַח

Main Entry: sim·i·le
Pronunciation: 'si-m&-(")lE
Function: noun: a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses) -- compare METAPHOR

---

אָרַח

you are aware of two facts, right?1. genesis 1 doesn't talk about "Adam" the proper name of a man, it says "ha-adam" or THE man.2. most translations render that as "fill the earth." it's teh same word as in verse 22, that he tells the fishies.

---

אָרַח

the words might be related, but adam still means "man" and ha-adam means "the man." check, i dunno, every bible translation ever. ish is the modern word for A man SINGULAR, yes. man as opposed to woman, not mankind. the female is ishah. it's plural is nashim, and the female plural is anashim. as far as i know, there is no feminine for "adam." learn to read basic hebrew, then come back and call me incompetant, or a darwinist. let's look at genesis 1:27.

quote:

---

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.

---

quote:

---

v-bara elohym et-ha'adam b'tzelemo, b'tzelem elohym bara otov: zachar v-neqevah bara otem

---

quote:

---

and-created god {d.o} the man in his own image, in the image of god created he them: male and-female created he them.

---

"them" refers back to adam, which is a singular word. et-ha is a common combination, it signifies something specific. it doesn't make sense for "adam" to be a proper name here, unless he was two people, and a hermaphrodite. which i doubt is the case.adam has to refer to mankind -- a singular word describe multiple (but at this time specific) people. it's all in the grammar. this stuff matters.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-21-2005 09:47 PM

---

אָרַח

no, the days are clearly defined from day one. it says evening and morning, and the day's number for every day except the 7th, which god takes off.are you concered with the sun and moon being created after light and dark are divided? the evenings are mornings were clearly already there beforehand. but god sets sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night. and light, apparently, already exists prior to sun.if you're asking me for an explanation of that, well, i don't know. but that's what the bible says. maybe light from dark was a definition or properties, and day's weren't light until day four? maybe they were, but god created the light? genesis doesn't really elaborate -- anything else is a guess, and probably an ad-hoc interpretation.

---

אָרַח

haha! i'm starting to like you, riverrat.

---

אָרַח

i'm only learning. i can't read anywhere near fluently yet. it's kind of a tired reading, actually, but i think it perverts the meaning of that verse in second peter (which is NOT in hebrew, btw). he's saying that a day to god is like 1000 years to us, and that god can accomplish in a single day what would take us 1000 years. he's not saying that 1 god-day is literally 1000 years to us. it's simile, a comparison, but they're not the same thing. i suspect that "1000 years" is alo hyperbole -- he just picked a large number.it actually sort of makes the genesis account make more sense. how did accomplish so much in just a day? right, but i think they're changing the meaning of the words to justify the bible against reality, in an apologetic sense. i couldn't really care less, myself, if the bible relates to reality. i'd rather know what it says and what it means than try to force my own meaning on it. i think that they are two different kinds of truth -- the bible speaks of spiritual truths, and those are most important. we don't need to be inerrant, or even true in the other sense of the word for the spiritual truths to be valid. you can have truths in complete fictions, like parables.i have no desire, really, to try to match genesis up with geology. they don't fit; i know because i've tried before myself. everyone always starts out ignorant, no matter the field. learning takes time. i think it's important, really, that we separate faith from religion, science, and the world around us. i've had bad experiences with the church myself too -- but you have to realize that other people are not god. they can't even claim to adequately represent him.faith is a personal thing, really, and has little to do with church and religion.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-04-2005 11:50 PM

---

אָרַח

yes, he's sort of trying to explain eternity, being outside of time. time is something that god created, i presume, so god would not be subject to it. well, except that it says "days." there's no sign of it being an extended metaphor, or that peter's simile applies in that way. if time doesn't apply to god, why couldn't god have created the world in 6 24hr cycles? i see no reason to read the bible as saying anything else. i haven't either, but that's an entirely different point. like i said, i could care less about accuracy and inerrancy. there have been a couple ways that people try to rectify science with the bible, though, and there are other brands of old-earth creationism. i think the one about pre-existance before creation holds a little more water. not much though. it really doesn't. i find that alot of people here accuse me of somehow not being a christian or not believing in god because i know a little science. what's really ironic is that i tend to read the bible a good deal more literally than the literalists... but, see, lying to people about it being scientifically accurate is even worse. when they find out, the disillusionment tends to cripple faith: "if they were lying to me about that, what else were they lying about?" you get all the wonderful fallout of dishonesty.i think we need to take a healthy attitude to the bible. it's a great collection of books, one that holds some importance to our lives even today, and contains a great many spiritual truths. but it is not always up to modern understandings, and it's not a science book, and it was written by people 2000 years ago who were just as fallible as us, even if we believe they were "inspired" somehow.people who contend that the bible is all 100% true, the word of god, inerrant, unchanging, and a factual and scientific history simply haven't read it. how do the books of psalms fit in there? are they literal truths? are they the word of god? it's people praising god, sure. but that's like calling your hymnal the word of god.by far the vast majority of the bible really doesn't have to do with history or science or events. even when it uses those things to frame something, that's all it is: a framework. the point of the story is usually some moral message or teaching.i think an honest appreciation and study of the text, an appraisal of it through common sense, is a lot more valuable than a dishonest interpretation designed to weasle whatever meaning you want out of it. i've seen the bible used to claim support for any number of atrocities. usually, it does not. and when it DOES, it's usually contradicted by something else, like the words of jesus. i find that christians are too fast to include only the parts they like (for instance, death to gays) but often forget the words of the person who started the whole thing (love and compassion). and that's a good attitude. because they really have nothing to do with each other. people mess up, and make mistakes, and often do the wrong thing. all we can do is forgive them, and not let it bother us.

---

אָרַח

bible + science = disillusionment. i wonder what the waterspots on my film mean? probably hard water. what exactly does that orb bs have to do with jesus anyways? are people that desperate to prove that spirituality is even possibile that they'll swallow any old newage crackpot's crap?i think that people have lost their bullshit-detecting ability. we're favoring homeremedy and faith healing over medicine, pseudoscience for science, and all kinds of just plain crazy stuff like this.i think it's this very problem that many religious leaders prey on -- but it's just really damaging to the actual integrity of the religion. i don't think people really take christians serious anymore. we can't make up our own minds, cycling through guilt and revival, we don't listen to words of the person at the center of our religion in favor of creationists and bible thumpers and homophobes...it's the same problem you described earlier - confusing the church with christianity. the world sees us as representing christ -- if we do it by acting like nutjobs, lies and deceptions, and judging and condemning, then we're not really representing christ. they're getting the wrong picture. you can find traditions like that earlier in the bible, too. the argument they use is that they are unrepentant, in a lifestyle of sin. if you think about it really, none of us ever stop sinning -- it's just in our nature. why should we throw stones? what makes us better? doesn't say. but i imagine he'd treat them like all of the other sinners he talked to. mostly people who judged others, and hypocrites.

---

אָרַח