Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 31 of 319 (489998)
12-01-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:22 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Except it's not very believable at all.
The plant kingdom was the last to emerge. It did not exist before animals.
Man is not the last creation.
The moon, for example, is not a lesser sun, as is implied by genesis (one light to rule the day, one to rule the night). It's a rocky planet-like body that even had volcanism.
Dry land did not appear from out of water. If anything, water came after dry land (planet had to cool enough to not vaporize bodies of water, after all).
Genesis simply isn't believable in a scientific manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 3:05 AM kuresu has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2804 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 319 (490005)
12-01-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
11-30-2008 10:22 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
in a thick atmosphere, the light from the sun could have reached the earth without the sun being visible. Just like on an overcast day, there is still light coming through but no sun. there is nothing unscientific about that.
I'm pretty sure Genesis 1:16 says that God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day (KJV, NKJV,and NIV, at least), not that He made them on or before the first day and made them visible on the fourth day. If you want to interpret it as "made them visible," I won't argue with you, but I will demand that you be consistent, because, once you allow a non-literal interpretation of one part of the Bible, you automatically question the correctness of interpreting the rest of the bible literally (e.g., "Did Jesus really walk on water, or was He just standing up in a little boat that the disciples didn't see?").
If you apply both literal and non-literal interpretations in your Bible study, you really forfeit the right to use the Bible's text as an authority in debate. You should admit that this argument is coming from your personal perspectives, and not from the Bible, as you are currently claiming.
-----
Peg writes:
the next day is the 2nd day in which it is said that an 'expanse' is made between the 'waters above and the waters below' this same expanse is later said to be where the flying creatures fly, therefore, the primitive atmosphere was a lot thicker and its logical that the light from the sun came thru it gradually.
I'm afraid I don't understand how creating a firmament/expanse/atmosphere between the oceans and the clouds translates into Adam's time having a thicker atmosphere than today.
-----
Peg writes:
and finally, in the first instance of Genesis the expression 'let light come to be' uses a hebrew word which means 'general light'
but in the second instance when its talking about the sun and moon coming to be, it uses a different hebrew word which means 'source of light'
this tells us that the initial light was coming from the sources of light, but not directly so because the atmosphere was so overcast...but once that all cleared, then the sources of light could be seen in the sky.
What it sounds like to me is that a "general light" was created before a "source of light" was created, which does not imply that the "general light" was coming indirectly from the "source of light" by any stretch of semantics that you want to offer.
Again, I won't complain if you want to interpret the Bible's text in this manner. But, I will complain if you attempt to pass it off as a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or as proof of the divine accuracy of the Bible, because that's being extremely unscrupulous.
-----
Could you imagine a professor doing this to you on an exam? "Alright, class, on question #4, when I said, 'mix,' I actually meant, 'shake,' so, anybody who wrote 'stir' gets five points taken off. Sorry, no appeals."
But, in this case, it's actually more like God saying, "Alright, when I said 'I made the sun,' I actually meant that I just moved the clouds out of the way so you could see it. And, when I said, 'I made the animals,' I actually meant that my wife cooked a couple of them for dinner that night. If this confusion caused you to renounce your religion . well, I guess you’ll at least know that it’s not your fault you’re in Hell. But, meh, who's keeping score, right?"
I personally find that an unacceptable view of God, so I prefer to think that He either used the right words, or that He didn't actually write the Bible and won't be docking us points for things that Moses got wrong.
Edited by Bluejay, : Minor corrections.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:22 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 3:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 33 of 319 (490031)
12-01-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Granny Magda
11-28-2008 5:43 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
which pretty clearly implies a literal day.
Actually evening and morning only make half a day.
The beginning of the next 24 hour period begin with the morning mentioned in verse 5.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 11-28-2008 5:43 PM Granny Magda has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 319 (490033)
12-01-2008 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DevilsAdvocate
11-30-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
The modern translation of "In the beginning God create the heavens and earth" really derives from the Greek Septuagint of the OT which literally word for word translates to "In beginning God made the heaven and the earth". However it seems likely that the Hebrew to Greek translation process introduced some translation errors i.e. some words and phrases in Hebrew have no Greek counterpart. Thus it is more accurate to work off of the Masoratic text.
It's a shame the MT was a thousand years after Jesus or He could have quoted from it rather than the LXX.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 11:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 134 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 35 of 319 (490038)
12-01-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Integral
11-28-2008 2:46 PM


Re-6000 years old
Hi Integral,
Welcome to EvC.
Since you did not state the Title of the topic in the body of the OP I want to address that question.
"Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago."
Short answer, NO.
Long answer, NO.
Many believe that it does and teach it. But that does not make it so.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That is a declarative statement of something that has taken place by God's actions.
It is not an introduction to something that is going to happen.
Now if someone here can tell me when the beginning was I would be delighted.
Since God claims to be from everlasting to everlasting.
There could be no beginning.
Therefore the universe has always been here in some form.
It just did not have to be in the form we see it today.
Could Genesis 1:2 have taken place 6,000 years ago? That is a possiblity.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Integral, posted 11-28-2008 2:46 PM Integral has not replied

earlejones
Junior Member (Idle past 5702 days)
Posts: 4
From: Portola Valley CA US
Joined: 12-01-2008


Message 36 of 319 (490041)
12-01-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jaywill
11-29-2008 11:38 PM


In the beginning...
"In the beginning there was nothing.
And God said, 'Let there be light.'
And there was light.
There was still nothing, but you could see it a lot better."
--Woody Allen
earle
*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2008 11:38 PM jaywill has not replied

earlejones
Junior Member (Idle past 5702 days)
Posts: 4
From: Portola Valley CA US
Joined: 12-01-2008


Message 37 of 319 (490042)
12-01-2008 8:42 PM


The 6,000 year old earth
*
It was James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, who is credited (along with a few others) of tracking all of the 'begats' in the bible and coming up with the actual date of creation. According to Wikipedia, "Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."
That makes the earth 6,012 years old last October.
A belated birthday greeting, Earth!
earle
*

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 12-01-2008 9:18 PM earlejones has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 319 (490045)
12-01-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by earlejones
12-01-2008 8:42 PM


Re: The 6,000 year old earth
Great it shows that the Bishop could add.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by earlejones, posted 12-01-2008 8:42 PM earlejones has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 39 of 319 (490065)
12-02-2008 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kuresu
12-01-2008 10:41 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
hey kuresu,
i've read a lot of information to the contrary, this is what confuses me about evolutionary science....there are sooooo many different opinions
kuresu writes:
Dry land did not appear from out of water. If anything, water came after dry land (planet had to cool enough to not vaporize bodies of water, after all).
The Book of Popular Science says: “From [earliest] times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. ... Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.”
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”14 So, if everything were leveled out”if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in”the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 10:41 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2008 1:17 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 319 (490066)
12-02-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
12-01-2008 12:44 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Bluejay writes:
I'm afraid I don't understand how creating a firmament/expanse/atmosphere between the oceans and the clouds translates into Adam's time having a thicker atmosphere than today.
that atmosphere wasnt in Adams day... i dont believe the bible is talking about a literal 6 days of creation
the hebrew word translated 'day' in english, means 'period of time' ... the development of the earth for habitation would have been a long long process... we know that dinosaurs existed for instance and they died out millions of years before mankind came along
they would have been created in the 'day' or period of time where the sea monsters and land animals were created
bluejay writes:
I prefer to think that He either used the right words, or that He didn't actually write the Bible and won't be docking us points for things that Moses got wrong.
If only we could all speak ancient hebrew
thankfully, there are people who actually can....these are the ones why we do well to get our information from

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 12-01-2008 12:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2008 5:13 AM Peg has replied
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 12-02-2008 8:20 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 12-03-2008 12:24 AM Peg has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 41 of 319 (490071)
12-02-2008 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
12-02-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi Peg,
i dont believe the bible is talking about a literal 6 days of creation
Why then does it refer to evening and morning?
we know that dinosaurs existed for instance and they died out millions of years before mankind came along
Indeed, and this disagrees with Genesis and its six-day time-scale. Have you considered that the cause for the discrepancy might simply be that Genesis is wrong? That way you need not twist the text in the painful way you are doing.
The Bible authors got it wrong that's all. You can't blame them. They didn't have radio telescopes and mass spectrometers. They just had to make the best explanation they could. They got it wrong is all.
You seem insistent that they got it right, if only we could interpret the text properly and that seems like an unwarranted assumption to me.
they would have been created in the 'day' or period of time where the sea monsters and land animals were created
Peg, have you actually read the Bible that you're so keen on? You certainly don't seem to check it before posting.
Sea monsters would have been created on day 5 (Gen 1:20-23). Land animals come on day 6, just before man (Gen 1:24-25).
If only we could all speak ancient hebrew
thankfully, there are people who actually can....these are the ones why we do well to get our information from
This isn't simply a translation problem. it is a problem of two incompatible accounts; Genesis and reality. You are not going to force Genesis to comply with reality by re-translating it.
Please note my signature. Stop torturing the poor Bible. It's suffered enough!
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 3:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 5:48 AM Granny Magda has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 42 of 319 (490073)
12-02-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Granny Magda
12-02-2008 5:13 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
GrannyMagda writes:
Why then does it refer to evening and morning?
it was a simple way to explain the end of the creative period, when the sun rises again, a new day begins, its a new day
this is how moses wrote so that the people could understand
Also, an interesting point is the fact that the 7th creative 'day' did not finsih with "there came to be evening and their came to be morning"
it just finishes with "and there came to be evening a 7th day and God proceeded to rest"
more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, the Apostle Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8,11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended.
this gives proof that Moses did not have a literal 24hr period of time in mind when he wrote the account. a creative 'Day' was obviously a very long period of time.... just as the hebrew word suggests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2008 5:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2008 6:39 AM Peg has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 43 of 319 (490080)
12-02-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-02-2008 5:48 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Thanks for your reply Peg,
Granny writes:
Why then does it refer to evening and morning?
Peg writes:
it was a simple way to explain the end of the creative period, when the sun rises again, a new day begins, its a new day
this is how moses wrote so that the people could understand
So let me get this straight. To help people understand that creation took place over a period of time that could have involved millions of years, Moses (Who did not write Genesis, but we'll leave that for now) used a word that can mean "day" or alternatively can mean "period of time". Just to help make absolutely clear that he meant "period of time" and not "day", he then repeatedly used the phrase "the evening and the morning", just to clear things up. And this was supposed to help people understand?
Is that what your telling me?
I'm sorry, but that is the polar opposite of sense. Using the phrase "the evening and the morning" gives a very clear indication of a literal 24 hour day. If the intent of the author/s was to describe a longer period of time, describing evenings and mornings can only obfuscate matters, by encouraging an interpretation as "day".
Also, an interesting point is the fact that the 7th creative 'day' did not finsih with "there came to be evening and their came to be morning"
it just finishes with "and there came to be evening a 7th day and God proceeded to rest"
Which translation has that version? Also, please note this, from Gen 2:1-2
quote:
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, the Apostle Paul indicated that it was still in progress.
Paul was not omniscient , nor was he in a position to know for sure what the original intent of Genesis was. His interpretation of Genesis is as suspect as yours, mine or anyone else's. You cannot prove the intent of the authors of Genesis by reference to the interpretation of a man who lived centuries later.
this gives proof that Moses did not have a literal 24hr period of time in mind when he wrote the account. a creative 'Day' was obviously a very long period of time.... just as the hebrew word suggests.
It doesn't prove anything. All it demonstrates is that people have been interpreting scripture to suit their own ideas and purposes for a very long time.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 5:48 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 12-02-2008 7:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3750 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 319 (490082)
12-02-2008 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
12-02-2008 6:39 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Paul was not omniscient , nor was he in a position to know for sure what the original intent of Genesis was. His interpretation of Genesis is as suspect as yours
Nor was Paul the author of Hebrews

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2008 6:39 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Granny Magda, posted 12-02-2008 9:19 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 3:34 AM cavediver has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5066 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 319 (490091)
12-02-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
12-02-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
If only we could all speak ancient hebrew .. thankfully, there are people who actually can
Afraid there isn't.
Ancient Hebrew is a dead language, no one speaks ancient Hebrew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 12-02-2008 3:21 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024