Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:41 PM
102 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, glowby, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 93 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,590 Year: 3,627/19,786 Month: 622/1,087 Week: 212/212 Day: 27/27 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 271 of 316 (508724)
05-15-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Peg
05-15-2009 8:22 AM


Peg writes:

quote:
The apostle Paul wrote

Just one parboiled second? Who cares what Paul wrote? You're trying to impose a Christian meaning on a Hebrew text. How many times do we have to spin this merry-go-round?

quote:
So from this it must be concluded that each creative day could have been several thousands of years in length.

No, it can't because the phrasings used for the "days" in Genesis mean literal, 24-hour days.

quote:
This also agrees with the Hebrew word yohm which can be used to represent any length of time

Indeed...but only if you phrase it a certain way. That phrasing is not used in Genesis 1, so that is not what it means.

The same thing happens in English. "Day" can mean a whole lot of time, but if I were to say to you, "On the first day of my freshman orientation," you would know that I was not talking about any period of time greater than 24 hours. The only way to make the word mean something other than a literal day is to phrase it in a specific way such as "back in my day."

quote:
similar to the way 'ages' can be used in english to say 'a very long time'

Hebrew has a different word to express "ages." So if the text meant to say "ages," why didn't it?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:22 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 272 of 316 (508747)
05-15-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Modulous
05-15-2009 9:17 AM


Re: Heavens and the earth
Modulous writes:

I assume that you are arguing that the break in the Biblical timeline is somewhere before God created humans?

Yes i am because the preparation of the earth, the six days, are not literal days.

One was still in progress when Moses wrote it, and it was still in progess according to Paul centuries later.

Its still in progress today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2009 9:17 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 6:09 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 273 of 316 (508748)
05-15-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Rrhain
05-15-2009 7:50 PM


Rrhain writes:

So since you knew that this was what we were going to do, why do you insult us by playing the fool? For crying out loud, nearly 300 posts and you dare to claim you don't understand what's going on?

I took issue with your OP statement saying:.

"I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything."

its pointless having a discussion about he timeline of the bible if you insist on including the creation of the universe with it.

The timeline of Human History, Adams creation to today is the only timeline the bible gives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 7:50 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 6:16 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 274 of 316 (508750)
05-15-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Rrhain
05-15-2009 7:53 PM


Rrhain writes:

Incorrect. It is the timeline since "the beginning."

Or are you saying that when the text says, "the beginning," it doesn't actually mean, you know, the "beginning" but is rather referring to "later"?

If it didn't mean the beginning, why did it say, "the beginning"?

the beginning of the creation of the universe includes when God made the earth... the 6 creative days, where he worked on the earth to prepare it for habitation, is NOT the beginning of the universe.

Rrhain writes:

Why can't we include those six, literal, 24-hour days?

you say they are literal days, but Genesis does not. At Gen 2:4 Moses refers to all six creative days as ONE day. "This is the history of the heavens and the earth in the "DAY" of their being created"

There is further evidence of this on the first creative day, "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." So only a portion of the 24-hour period was being defined by the term "day."

There is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 7:53 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 1:24 AM Peg has responded
 Message 284 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 6:28 AM Peg has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 275 of 316 (508759)
05-16-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Peg
05-15-2009 11:35 PM


Peg writes:

There is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

And no evidence that it doesn't and what does Moses have to do with Genesis?


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

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:35 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Peg, posted 05-16-2009 5:45 AM bluescat48 has responded
 Message 287 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 7:55 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 276 of 316 (508778)
05-16-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by bluescat48
05-16-2009 1:24 AM


bluescat48 writes:

And no evidence that it doesn't and what does Moses have to do with Genesis?

not good enough.

I present evidence to show why 'day' is not a literal 24 hours and you ignore it and continue on your merry way with "there is no evidence"

I see your eyes are closed on this one because you know the earth was not created in 6 literal days and you are glad to hear some bible folk persist in this teaching...it reinforces to you that the bible is wrong and unscientific and therefore God did not inspire it because God does not exist.

If its not to challenge such ideas, what is the purpose of the debate???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 1:24 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 8:28 AM Peg has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 277 of 316 (508794)
05-16-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Peg
05-16-2009 5:45 AM


The point of this topic is not whether God inspired the writers or what the meaning of Day is. As I said earlier it is the timeline. What I am saying is there is no evidence to whether the Day is literal or not and that it is not relevant to the topic. You seem to want it both ways, the earth is 6000 years old but yet it is not 6000 years old.


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

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Peg, posted 05-16-2009 5:45 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Peg, posted 05-17-2009 2:12 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:09 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 278 of 316 (508812)
05-16-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Rrhain
05-11-2009 3:42 AM


quote:
Incorrect. It is exactly the other way around. The creation of the heavens and earth were during the six days delineated in Genesis 1. There was no "before." I see we're never going to get anywhere with this.

I don't see the confusion or misunderstanding. Here's the sense of the first three verses:

GEN 1:1 In the beginning God created everything.
[2] (Now the land was shapeless and empty,
and darkness was over the face of the deep;
but the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.)
[3] And then God said,
"Let there be light";
and then there was light.

The pattern of the account is that each "day" begins with "and then God said." Thus the first day begins at v. 3. Ther first two verses fall outside of the "day" pattern.

Notice the start of verse 3, "and then." This means it is not the first event in the account. First, God created everything (v.1). Second, God said "Let there be light" (v.3). Nothing fixes the length of time between the first and second events. What is so difficult about this?

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2009 3:42 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:19 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 279 of 316 (508817)
05-16-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cedre
05-14-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Peg
quote:
The minute we get into the whole ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language’, we begin digging a hole for ourselves one that once we fall inside we will never be able to come out of.

The thing is in line with your reasoning we can't really rely on our English bibles so we should toss out all our English bibles and enroll in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic language courses simultaneously given that these are the three languages the English bible is translated from.

Since this is highly improbable we might as well just stick to our current bibles and agree on the interpretations they offer us. We have no other choices but to put our trust in the translators believing that they did their best in view of all their linguistic skills to faithfully translate a particular passage and therefore the entire bible as a whole.


Sorry, but no. The goal of biblical interpretation is to determine the thing you wish to avoid, i.e. ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language.’

Some of the science discussion on EvC Forum gets quite detailed, and one would actually have to study science to understand it. Sometimes people even bring up new data or research results, which others have not studied. Let's just agree on ONE easy-to-read science text for all of our science discussions, shall we? Do you see how ridiculous this is?

This sort of restriction might be fine for playing a game, but it is not acceptable in a search for truth. If we want to understand "What does the Bible really mean?" we cannot allow such restrictions in biblical study, either.

The main message of the Bible is simple, cross-cultural, and clear, irrespective of Bible translation or language. But when one wants to dig into the details and nuances, it is necessary to work back as closely as we can to the original text, which means the original languages. For this it is best to actually learn the languages, of course, but much information can also be found in notes of good study Bibles, e.g. the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cedre, posted 05-14-2009 8:10 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 280 of 316 (508883)
05-17-2009 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by bluescat48
05-16-2009 8:28 AM


bluescat48 writes:

You seem to want it both ways, the earth is 6000 years old but yet it is not 6000 years old.

that just goes to show that you havnt understood what i've been trying to say.

I dont believe the earth is 6,000 years old...i believe MANKIND is 6,000 years old

The earth of Genesis 1:1 was a product created by God when he created the Universe....the creation of the universe incl the earth was complete before Gen 1:2 says that God began to work on the planet earth to prepare it for habitation.

Kberscht just pointed out that Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of the 'Days' of Genesis 1:3 are not one in the same. He makes a very fine point and one that everyone seems to keep missing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 8:28 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-17-2009 3:15 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 9:28 AM Peg has responded
 Message 292 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:32 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 408 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 281 of 316 (508893)
05-17-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Peg
05-17-2009 2:12 AM


Peg writes:

i believe MANKIND is 6,000 years old

And you believe this because... that's the timeline implied by the specific genealogy provided in the Bible?

If you don't accept the YEC view of the six days being literal 24-hour days (because you do accept the physical evidence regarding the age of the universe and the age of the earth), then why do you not apply the same reasoning to the age of homo sapiens? Why reject the evidence of the fossil records, the cave paintings in France, and genetics? Rejecting just these things leads to unavoidable contradictions with the evidence that points to a 14-billion-year-old universe and a 4-billion-year-old earth, which in turn leads to an inconsistent (and ultimately incoherent) view of the world.

I'm assuming that Rhain's purpose in this thread is to nail down the untenable falsehood of the Genesis creation story, to somehow nullify any tendency to consider it "historically" valid in any regard, and defeat any "looser" interpretation of it that would reconcile it with observed evidence. (Then again, maybe I'm missing his point entirely -- I find this to be a confusing thread.)

Whatever his purpose may actually be, I think there is no sense in trying to "interpret" (i.e. distort) reality in an attempt to reconcile it with some literal reading of (any portion of) the Genesis account. Maybe the genealogy is based (roughly) on some stuff that actually happened in a particular family, but that bears no relation to the age of mankind, and the stories around the genealogy (the creation, the flood, the Tower of Babel) are pure fabrication, whose importance and relevance are due solely to their metaphorical value, and what the metaphors tell us about the nature of the deity that the Hebrews had in mind when they worshipped.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Peg, posted 05-17-2009 2:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 282 of 316 (508907)
05-17-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Peg
05-15-2009 11:17 PM


Peg writes:

quote:
Yes i am because the preparation of the earth, the six days, are not literal days.

Not according to the text. The text instead indicates that they are literal, 24-hour days. "Yowm" in Hebrew only means long periods of time when it is phrased in a particular way. Such phrasings aren't used in Genesis 1 but instead phrasing that indicates a literal, 24-hour day is used.

quote:
it was still in progess according to Paul centuries later.

Who cares what Paul says? We're talking about Genesis, a text written by Jews and for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Christian impositions upon the text are irrelevant.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:17 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 283 of 316 (508908)
05-17-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Peg
05-15-2009 11:23 PM


Peg responds to me:

quote:
its pointless having a discussion about he timeline of the bible if you insist on including the creation of the universe with it.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? Again, I have to ask you to please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop acting like an idiot. From my opening post:

Now, I know there will be some people who claim that the six days of creation mentioned in Gen 1 aren't literal, 24-hour days, but let's just for the sake of argument say that they are.

If you were incapable of accepting that as the foundation for the discussion, why did you join in? You claimed that the Bible doesn't say that life, the universe, and everything is about 6000 years old and now that you've been shown that yes, it does say, you're trying to claim that it doesn't really say it because, well, you're not allowed to go all the way back to the beginning?

Is there a reason you decided to waste my time?

quote:
The timeline of Human History, Adams creation to today is the only timeline the bible gives.

Incorrect. The timeline goes all the way back to "the beginning," not "later."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:23 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 284 of 316 (508909)
05-17-2009 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Peg
05-15-2009 11:35 PM


Peg responds to me:

quote:
the beginning of the creation of the universe includes when God made the earth

Indeed. And according to the text, the earth didn't get made until the third day.

quote:
the 6 creative days, where he worked on the earth to prepare it for habitation, is NOT the beginning of the universe.

Incorrect. They are the days that immediately follow "the beginning" for in "the beginning" god made the heavens and the earth. The heavens were made on the second day and the earth was made on the third.

quote:
you say they are literal days, but Genesis does not.

Incorrect. The phrasing used in Genesis 1 is indicative of a literal, 24-hour day.

quote:
At Gen 2:4 Moses refers to all six creative days as ONE day.

First, Gen 2:4 is a different story from Gen 1.

Second, the phrasing used for Gen 2:4 is different from the phrasing used for Gen 1. For the umpteenth time, of course "yowm" can be used to mean longer periods of time. English has the same thing to use "day" to mean long stretches.

However, in order to do so, you have to phrase it in a certain way. The phrasing used in Genesis 1 is not of a long period of time but rather a literal, 24-hour day. Events are given and the text simply says, "Evening and morning. A day." That doesn't mean potentially thousands of years.

It means a literal, 24-hour day.

quote:
There is further evidence of this on the first creative day, "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." So only a portion of the 24-hour period was being defined by the term "day."

So? You're seemingly hung up over the fact that words can have more than one meaning and you determine that meaning by the context. "Day" means both the period in which the sun is in the sky as well as 24-hour as well as long periods of time.

Thank heaven you don't speak Spanish or you'd be absolutely flabbergasted by the simple phrase, "mañana por la mañana." That means "tomorrow morning." According to your logic, that is absolutely impossible for how could one word mean "tomorrow" and "morning" all at the same time? My head hurts! Waaa!

Because people are not fools. It would be nice if you would stop pretending to be one.

There is no basis in the text for stating that the six days of Genesis 1 were anything other than literal, 24-hour days.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:35 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 6:03 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 285 of 316 (508927)
05-17-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Peg
05-17-2009 2:12 AM


Slevesque posted something relevant in Message 29. He quotes "Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr" as follows:

… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that

1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.

Barr commits the fallacy of appeal to authority when he expresses doubt that anyone at a world-class university believes otherwise concerning the 24 hour days, and I'm willing to grant for the sake of discussion that other interpretations of the days in Genesis deserve sincere consideration. My point is that the 24 hour interpretation as the intended meaning of the original authors has very wide acceptance that is much greater than your own interpretation. In fact, your interpretation seems confined to those attempting a reconciliation of the Bible with the scientific evidence of an ancient earth. Traditional YEC creationists attempt no such reconciliation, believing that science is simply wrong and that when the Bible says days it means real honest-to-God 24 hour days.

Of course, the evidence for a line of descent of great antiquity leading to modern man is equally unequivocal, as is evidence for modern man going back a hundred thousand years.

But this thread is in the religious forums where scientific views usually take a back seat. The relevant point I'm trying to introduce is that your view that 24 hour days were not the original intent of the authors is definitely a minority view within the broad range of Biblical scholarship. Certainly there are scholars on the other side of the issue, but they're in the minority. Being in the minority in a debate doesn't mean you're wrong, but you seem not to comprehend the minority status of your view. You propose it as if it's the most obvious thing, as if no one reasonable would ever think otherwise.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Peg, posted 05-17-2009 2:12 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by kbertsche, posted 05-17-2009 5:04 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 293 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 5:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019