Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 286 of 316 (508966)
05-17-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
05-17-2009 9:28 AM


quote:
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.
You are probably correct that the majority throughout history have seen the "days" as literal, 24-hour periods. However:
1) There has always been a significant minority who did not see them as literal days. This includes Augustine in the 4th century, who believed all of creation occurred in a single instant and that the "days" were figurative.
2) Many who held to literal 24-hour days did not hold to a recent creation of the earth and cosmos. Many have viewed the "days" as a completion or re-creation of what had already been created in Gen 1:1, which could have been long earlier. This was a dominant view (probably the majority view) from the mid-19th through mid-20th centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 9:28 AM Percy has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 287 of 316 (508982)
05-17-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by bluescat48
05-16-2009 1:24 AM


bluescat48 writes:
quote:
what does Moses have to do with Genesis?
Traditionally, the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) is said to have been written by Moses. Of course, Deuteronomy contains a description of the funeral of Moses, so clearly somebody else was involved, but that is the teaching.

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 275 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 1:24 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2009 8:23 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 288 of 316 (508983)
05-17-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by bluescat48
05-16-2009 8:28 AM


bluescat48 writes:
quote:
What I am saying is there is no evidence to whether the Day is literal or not
Incorrect. All the evidence points to a literal, 24-hour day.
The concept is pretty much identical to how English uses the word "day." The English word "day" can mean a whole bunch of different time periods from just a few hours ("a work day") to many years in length ("in Charlemagne's day").
The way you tell what "day" means has to do with context and phrasing. If I say, "On the first day of freshman orientation," everybody knows that I'm talking about literal days, not weeks on end.
In Genesis 1, the phrasing is what is used for literal, 24-hour days: "And there was evening and there was morning, one/a second/third/fourth/fifth/the sixth day." That phrasing is not indicative of long periods of vaguely defined time. It is indicative of literal, 24-hour days.
After all, god is powerful and creating the universe in six days is nothing for him.
Peg is trying to say that "human history" is only 6000 years old, but that simply isn't true. It goes back at least six times that far.
Obsession with Naked Women Dates Back 35,000 Years
If human culture seems obsessed with sex lately, it's nothing new. Archaeologists have discovered the oldest known artistic representation of a woman a carved ivory statue of a naked female, dating from 35,000 years ago.
When some friends of mine got married, they went to Italy for their honeymoon and commented on how, standing in the Senate, they had a huge sense of time...that there were people standing right where they were. When the Olympics were in Greece, I decided to go and went to the Archaeological Museum and the Museum of Cycladic Art, both of which have objects that are over 5000 years old and I had that same sense of time...that this carved stone in front of me was made so long ago.
This new figure makes that feeling I had seem puny in comparison. "Human history" only 6000 years old? Please.

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 277 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 8:28 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2009 8:28 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 297 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 10:34 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 289 of 316 (508984)
05-17-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by kbertsche
05-16-2009 11:25 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
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.
But you're making my point. The first verse is introductory: "In the beginning." You're about to hear a story about how everything was created. When was it created? "In the beginning." There was no earth, it being "unformed and void," so god moved and created.
And your obsession with verses is touching considering that there are no verses in the original text. The line breaks are impositions we have put upon the text to help make it readable.
quote:
Notice the start of verse 3, "and then."
Not in my translation. Both my Torah and my KJV both simply say, "And god said." Again, you are seemingly fixated on this idea that the line breaks actually mean anything. Instead, this is a huge run-on sentence:
In the beginning, god created everything for there was no earth, it being unformed and void, and god moved and said, "Let there be light," and there was and god saw it and it was good and he divided the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night" and there was evening and morning, a day.
quote:
Nothing fixes the length of time between the first and second events.
Huh? The "first event" was the creation of the light. There was no event prior to that. If there were, it wouldn't be "the beginning." It would be "later." There certainly wasn't any creation of the earth because the text directly states that "the earth was unformed and void" ("ve.ha.a.rets hai.ta to.hu va.vo.hu") and thus didn't exist.
quote:
What is so difficult about this?
You tell me. You're the one having the trouble. You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" which is a failure on at least two counts: It couldn't be "the beginning" if the earth was already around but instead it would be "later." Too, the text directly and clearly states that the earth didn't exist.
When did "unformed and void" come to mean "existing and present"?

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 278 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2009 11:25 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by kbertsche, posted 05-18-2009 11:11 PM Rrhain has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 290 of 316 (508985)
05-17-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Rrhain
05-17-2009 7:55 PM


Traditionally, the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) is said to have been written by Moses. Of course, Deuteronomy contains a description of the funeral of Moses, so clearly somebody else was involved, but that is the teaching.
My statement:
what does Moses have to do with Genesis?
was, in a sense, sarcastic & rhetorical. Of course I know that the first 5 books were attributed to Moses, but I was somewhat taken back that people still believed that.

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 287 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 7:55 PM Rrhain has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 291 of 316 (508986)
05-17-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Rrhain
05-17-2009 8:09 PM


mys statement:
What I am saying is there is no evidence to whether the Day is literal or not
was inferring that it did not matter in the sense of this topic, my point was that there is no physical evidence to what the compiler of Genesis believed. For this topic
The timeline of the Bible
, the timeline would have to be 24 hour days or one would go bananas trying to go through the same thing the the life of those between Adam & Noah.

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 288 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:09 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 292 of 316 (508987)
05-17-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Peg
05-17-2009 2:12 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
I dont believe the earth is 6,000 years old...i believe MANKIND is 6,000 years old
But we're much older than that.
Side and front views of the Venus of Hohle Fels. Credit: H. Jensen; Copyright University of Tubingen
Thirty-five thousand years old. Now what?

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 280 by Peg, posted 05-17-2009 2:12 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 293 of 316 (509029)
05-18-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
05-17-2009 9:28 AM


Percy writes:
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.
Yes perhaps i'm taking it for granted...it just makes so much more sense to me (and others of the minority) and it surprises me that others dont accept it as a basis of evidence for an erroneous teaching
here are a few examples of how 'Yohm' or 'Day' can be used...
1. the 12 hour period of 'light' is called day (yohm) at Gen 1:5 "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night"
This is obviously not 24 hours in length...or are we to beleive that it is 24 hours in length because of the word 'day'???
2. at Genesis 2:4 ALL the creative periods are called one 'day'(yohm)
does this mean that chapter 1 is a complete mistake???
3. William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens"
here is one of the minority scholars who believe 'day' is of any length of time
4. The word Yohm/day is used at Zechariah 14:18 with reference to the "Day of Harvest" which includes several days.
again are we to assume that the harvest was completed in 1 literal day...we KNOW thats not the case
5. In Ps 90:4 A thousand years are likened to one 'day'
with so much evidence for the minority view it makes me wonder if there is another agenda for the majority view. If we let the bible speak by taking it all into consideration, then we have to conclude that the 'minority' view is correct.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 9:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Rrhain, posted 05-19-2009 3:24 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 294 of 316 (509030)
05-18-2009 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Rrhain
05-17-2009 6:28 AM


Rrhain writes:
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.
and this itself is a very interesting point
You know that Day 1 is where it is said "let light come to be and there came to be light and the came to be morning and evening a first day"
and yet the sun and moon did not appear until DAY 4
why is that?
how could a day and night be complete without the sun and moon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 6:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by bluescat48, posted 05-18-2009 10:19 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 296 by Rrhain, posted 05-18-2009 9:46 PM Peg has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 295 of 316 (509060)
05-18-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Peg
05-18-2009 6:03 AM


Peg writes:
how could a day and night be complete without the sun and moon?
to be blunt, it couldn't. It couldn't if one assumes that current accepted idea of what a day is. The point is that the primitve branze age men who came up with these stories had no idea what caused the light on earth, that it was the sun only, that the moon only gave reflected light from the sun. Without the sun there would be 24 hours of darkness each day. Again as I have said a number of times in various topics, one cannot read the Bible through 21st century eyes, one must read it through bronze aged eyes.

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 294 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 6:03 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 296 of 316 (509128)
05-18-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Peg
05-18-2009 6:03 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
how could a day and night be complete without the sun and moon?
Because most people are not idiots. A "day" is a period of time and thus is easily reckoned without celestial signs. By your logic, astronauts on the space shuttle record 16 "days" every 24 hours since the orbital period of the shuttle is about 90 minutes and thus they see the sun rise and set 16 times, right? Anybody who stayed indoors and never saw the sun experienced no days at all, right?
Ah, but no...we're not idiots. There is more to telling time than just your position with respect to the sun. There is no confusion in describing a "day" even though there is no sun or moon.
If you're looking for a more spiritual reason, it would seem that light and heaven are more important and/or basic, more "fundamental," if you will, than the earth, the sun, and the moon and thus it would seem appropriate that they be created first with distinctions between their creations. But, that is a theological argument, not a textual one. It doesn't really matter why they used phrasing indicative of a literal, 24-hour day. The simple fact of the matter is that they did.

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 294 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 6:03 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 297 of 316 (509132)
05-18-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Rrhain
05-17-2009 8:09 PM


Rrhain writes:
In Genesis 1, the phrasing is what is used for literal, 24-hour days: "And there was evening and there was morning, one/a second/third/fourth/fifth/the sixth day." That phrasing is not indicative of long periods of vaguely defined time. It is indicative of literal, 24-hour days.
The sun doesnt appear until day 4, not day 1, so how can there be an 'evening and morning' without the sun on each of these 'days'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Rrhain, posted 05-19-2009 3:31 AM Peg has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 298 of 316 (509133)
05-18-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Rrhain
05-17-2009 8:19 PM


quote:
And your obsession with verses is touching considering that there are no verses in the original text. The line breaks are impositions we have put upon the text to help make it readable.
I agree that the line breaks or verse breaks are irrelevant to the grammar. But at least for the first few verses, the verse breaks (but not the line breaks) occur between clauses. Each verse starts a new clause.
quote:
quote:
Notice the start of verse 3, "and then."
Not in my translation. Both my Torah and my KJV both simply say, "And god said." Again, you are seemingly fixated on this idea that the line breaks actually mean anything.
Are you reading the Torah in the Hebrew, or in an English translation? The original was written in Hebrew, not in English. The implication of the Hebrew is "and then God said". Or you can check a number of other translations (NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, God's Word, Holman, NLT, NRSV) which all render it "then God said." This is the second event in the account, not the first one.
quote:
You keep claiming that the earth existed before "the beginning" ..."
False. I have never claimed this.
My claim is that "the beginning" occurs before "and then God said."
quote:
Too, the text directly and clearly states that the earth didn't exist.
False. The text says that the land was "tohu wa bohu" i.e. "shapeless and empty" or "waste and empty", i.e. not yet finished. It does not say "non-existent."
quote:
When did "unformed and void" come to mean "existing and present"?
Always.
This phrase "tohu wa bohu" occurs one other place in the Bible, in Jer. 4:23:
NASB: I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
NET: I looked at the land and saw that it was an empty wasteland.
And the two words "tohu" and "bohu" occur near one another in one other passage, Is. 34:11:
NASB: And He will stretch over it the line of desolation And the plumb line of emptiness
NET: The LORD will stretch out over her the measuring line of ruin and the plumb line of destruction.
In neither instance do the words "tohu" and "bohu" mean "non-existent." They refer to something which is "existing and present," but is in some way incomplete.
Once again, here is the sense of the first few verses (but this time with commentary):
GEN 1:1 In the beginning God created everything.
[This is not a title or heading for the account; it is a main clause telling us the first event in the account. First, God created everything. This was done before He said "Let there be light."]
[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.)
[This is a circumstantial clause telling us the state of "everything" after God created it in v.1. It existed, but was not yet completed. Note that "waters" specifically exist here, even before God says "Let there be light."]
[3] And then God said,
"Let there be light";
and then there was light.
[This is the second event in the account, as indicated by the preterite (or waw-consecutive) grammatical construction. And it marks the start of Day 1. Everything had already been created before Day 1, but was not yet completed. The 6 "Days" complete the creation by addressing the condition of "shapeless and empty" noted in v. 2. The first three "Days" are primarily shaping and forming, addressing the "shapeless" condition; the next three "Days" are primarily filling of the shapes/forms from the first three Days, addressing the "emptiness" condition.]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Rrhain, posted 05-19-2009 3:45 AM kbertsche has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 299 of 316 (509162)
05-19-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Peg
05-18-2009 5:52 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
1. the 12 hour period of 'light' is called day (yohm) at Gen 1:5 "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night"
This is obviously not 24 hours in length...or are we to beleive that it is 24 hours in length because of the word 'day'???
Of course not. Please stop pretending to be an idiot. We use this same construction in English. If I say, "I go out during the day," we all know that I'm talking about daylight. However, the reason that we know that "day" means "daylight" as opposed to "24 hours" is because of the phrasing used.
The passages in Genesis 1 do not phrase "yowm" to mean an indefinite period of time but instead a literal, 24-hour day:
"And there was evening and there was morning. A day."
quote:
2. at Genesis 2:4 ALL the creative periods are called one 'day'(yohm)
does this mean that chapter 1 is a complete mistake???
No. Please stop pretending to be an idiot. We use the same construction in English. If I say, "In my day," we all know that I'm talking about a generic period of time. However, the reason that we know that "day" means "a period of time" as opposed to "24 hours" is because of the phrasing used.
The passages in Genesis 1 do not phrase "yowm" to mean an indefinite period of time but instead a literal, 24-hour day:
"And there was evening and there was morning. A second day."
quote:
3. William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens"
here is one of the minority scholars who believe 'day' is of any length of time
Huh? "Minority"? Please stop pretending to be an idiot. Nobody has ever claimed that "yowm" in Hebrew cannot mean an indefinite period of time, conceivably lasting years. The only claim is that it only means that when it is phrased in a particular way.
The passages in Genesis 1 do not phrase "yowm" to mean an indefinite period of time but instead a literal, 24-hour day:
"And there was evening and there was morning. A second day."
quote:
4. The word Yohm/day is used at Zechariah 14:18 with reference to the "Day of Harvest" which includes several days.
again are we to assume that the harvest was completed in 1 literal day...we KNOW thats not the case
5. In Ps 90:4 A thousand years are likened to one 'day'
So what. Please stop pretending to be an idiot. We aren't talking about Zechariah or Psalms. We're talking about Genesis. Surely you aren't saying that "yowm" always means an indefinite period of time and never means a 24-hour period, are you?
quote:
with so much evidence for the minority view
Huh? "Minority view"? What "minority"? Nobody anywhere in this or any other discussion has ever said that "yowm" cannot mean an indefinite period of time. Instead, the only argument made here is that specifically in Genesis, "yowm" means a literal, 24-hour day. And the reason we conclude that is because the specific phrasing used in Genesis 1 is indicative of a literal, 24-hour day:
"And there was evening and there was morning. A third day."
Of course "yowm" can mean a whole bunch of things. But the way you determine what is meant is by the phrasing. This is just the way we do it in English: The word "take" has over 100 meanings, but the way you mean it is determined by the way you phrase it.
The passages in Genesis 1 do not phrase "yowm" to mean an indefinite period of time but instead a literal, 24-hour day:
"And there was evening and there was morning. A fourth day."
It makes me wonder if you have an agenda. When we let the Bible speak for itself, taking the context into consideration, then the only conclusion is that Genesis 1 is talking about 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 293 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 5:52 AM Peg has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 300 of 316 (509163)
05-19-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Peg
05-18-2009 10:34 PM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
The sun doesnt appear until day 4, not day 1, so how can there be an 'evening and morning' without the sun on each of these 'days'?
Because most people are not idiots. A "day" is a period of time and thus is easily reckoned without celestial signs. By your logic, astronauts on the space shuttle record 16 "days" every 24 hours since the orbital period of the shuttle is about 90 minutes and thus they see the sun rise and set 16 times, right? Anybody who stayed indoors and never saw the sun experienced no days at all, right?
Ah, but no...we're not idiots. There is more to telling time than just your position with respect to the sun. There is no confusion in describing a "day" even though there is no sun or moon.
If you're looking for a more spiritual reason, it would seem that light and heaven are more important and/or basic, more "fundamental," if you will, than the earth, the sun, and the moon and thus it would seem appropriate that they be created first with distinctions between their creations. But, that is a theological argument, not a textual one. It doesn't really matter why they used phrasing indicative of a literal, 24-hour day. The simple fact of the matter is that they did.

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 297 by Peg, posted 05-18-2009 10:34 PM 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