Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
141 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 138 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,965 Year: 1,077/6,534 Month: 1,077/682 Week: 130/182 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 1482 (817644)
08-18-2017 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
05-19-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
ringo writes:

But the Bible clearly does imply dates. The days of creation are 24-hour days, humans were created on day 6 and their genealogies are laid out fairly precisely.

Where are the dates? Where does it say 24hrs? 😁

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 05-19-2017 12:00 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by CRR, posted 08-19-2017 2:18 AM DOCJ has responded
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:26 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 1482 (817684)
08-19-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by CRR
08-19-2017 2:18 AM


Re: days and dates
CRR writes:

Where are the dates? The genealogies and histories given in the Bible enable reasonably precise dating up to where they can be matched to historical events.

If you study history, the word father has been used to represent a family line. They were not direct descendants in every scenario. The genealogy does represent a period of over a hundred thousand years.

CRR writes:

Where does it say 24hrs? The numbering and morning-evening is consistent with normal solar days. Of course Adam wasn't around to witness anything before the 6th day.

Genesis 1:1 is where the universe was created. It does represent billions of years. Genesis 1:2 goes into a sequence using evenings and mornings, and maybe it does represent 24 hr periods, but maybe not. I would argue the cloud layer in vs 2 was cleared out that occurred in the early earth history. I believe some people discuss a collision with the earth, etc...

The bible's author Moses knew about these steps because he knew God.

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by CRR, posted 08-19-2017 2:18 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:30 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 359 of 1482 (817743)
08-19-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by ringo
08-19-2017 12:26 PM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
It actually does not link the ages from father to son. It reads how long some lived. And some try to dismiss the bible using it.

And days are different for God. It could be 24h and it may not be. You don't know.

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:11 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 360 of 1482 (817744)
08-19-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by ringo
08-19-2017 12:30 PM


Re: days and dates
All you have to do is ref a concordence and you will see grandfather is a definition. And the text tells you God created the heaven i.e. space, and then focused on the earth in next part. Then it comes down to earth in vs 2, discussing what was done.

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:26 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 1482 (817751)
08-19-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by ringo
08-19-2017 12:30 PM


Re: days and dates
DOCJ writes:

They were not direct descendants in every scenario.

ringo writes:

You would need to show that, not just assert it. The text doesn't support it.

I will provide you with a source of information. When I read the text and look at the concordance it looks probable. When I look at nature, and the fossil record of humanity, history, etc it is probable. Using the word father does not always mean a direct son of a person. You will find the definition is as noted below father can mean to bring forth x fathered y can mean brought forth a person many ages later.

http://www.reasons.org/...n-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity

quote:
I discuss in Who Was Adam?, a date for humanity’s origin around 150,000 years ago is not necessarily incompatible with the biblical account of human origins. Some Bible interpreters treat the genealogies in Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah) and Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham) as exhaustively complete chronologies and have attempted to determine the date for Adam and Eve’s creation from them. This approach, however, is questionable for several reasons. The Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies were not intended as chronometers, but, like all genealogies found in Scripture, were meant to communicate theological truths.4

The range of meaning for the Hebrew words translated as “father” (’āb) and “son” (bēn) can include “ancestor” and “descendant,” respectively.5 Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as “begot” or “become the father of” can mean to father an individual, or to bring forth a lineage.6 In Hebrew thought, a father is not only the parent of his child, but also the parent of all his child’s descendants. According to K. A. Kitchen, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 could be read as, “A fathered [P, who fathered Q, who fathered R, who fathered S, who fathered T, who fathered . . .] B.” Genesis 5 and 11 could then be read as “A fathered the lineage culminating in B, and after fathering the line, lived X years.”7

It is also important to keep in mind that dates for humanity’s origin derived from coalescence analysis and molecular clocks are notoriously imprecise. Calibration of molecular clocks is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.8 Researchers simply cannot determine with any real accuracy mutation rates and changes in these rates over time. Scientists typically must estimate the likely high and low values for mutation rates. The dates for humanity’s origin extracted from genetic data of human population groups must be regarded as crude estimates, not ironclad conclusions. One researcher noted that molecular clocks are best thought of as “sun dials” not “stopwatches.”9

The bottom line: There is no reason to regard the scientific dates for the origin of humanity to be in conflict with the biblical account.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ringo, posted 08-19-2017 12:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:19 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 1482 (817816)
08-20-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ringo
08-20-2017 2:11 PM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
DOCJ writes:


It actually does not link the ages from father to son. It reads how long some lived.

ringo writes:

It doesn't say that. You're making it up.

If you read the scripture, it does not link each and every case by age. It is an interpretation one way or the other. And millions agree with the interpretation of scripture that does include billions of years for the earth or in this case hundreds of thousands of years for humanity. Ref Gen 1:1 to see that the heavens and the earth just came into existence. They were created prior to what happened in Gen 1:2. And ref to the genealogies Hebrew words to help you understand them. You are welcome to quote scripture to make whatever point you want to make. I am not making anything up, it is a body, or rather a revolution of people that this thought is ultimately culminating into this tiny forum. I am merely a messenger. I was seeking the LORD and it came upon me. Honestly several doctrines and scientific theories have come my way in seeking truth and many have been found false in my interpretation. I will admit though I wish I was the individual responsible for this interpretation permitting billions or hundreds of thousands as noted, because it is leaving the possibility within scripture.

DOCJ writes:

And days are different for God. It could be 24h and it may not be. You don't know.

ringo writes:

It was written for humans so there's no reason to think it meant anything but what humans think it means.
If all you can do is make up stuff to cover up the errors, that's not very satisfying.

First the Hebrews didn't have to many words, so they reused the same words. IT is likely in consideration of all the definitions, Moses meant to use the genealogy for merely showing family lines to Noah, not to use it as a way to calculate age. Thus many generations are actually left out. You find this in the new testament when listing how Jesus was linked to Abraham. Matthew 1:1. If they had meant to use the genealogy to calculate the age of the earth, or humanity than it would have provided every generation. Ref Message 361

IF this was Science, and you were in the lab with a purpose, you would expect to be given the chance to use the lab per your purpose. You should give the author the same consideration. You don't actually KNOW his purpose with the genealogies but if you read them it is pretty clear it is to link person A to person B. IT is not there to be used to calculate the age of the earth. It is MEN putting the age of things into the Bible while READING it, not the AUTHOR putting the age of the earth when writing it. So when reading it whether it is thought that the age of things is billions or thousands it is not actually stated in the Bible. I realize this point and SO should YOU.

I also want to make another note regarding scripture because it is clear you are lost. Scripture is not just written for humans per-say. Scripture is written for truth. Meaning if it is written, it will reflect truth when kept in the context of each scripture. What different people see or interpret at different periods in history may or may not be that truth. IF they see the truth then that is what they see but many are fine just being faithful and do not care about the Science because they have revelation. Others want revelation and love Science and they can see where in using Science, even the main stream ideas such as the big bang fit right in with scripture. The fact they they are able to fit and make sense together, as long as you don't try to see it from a evolutionist lens, then that is good. I don't expect when looking at scripture, and Science, to see creation if you are merely looking at it from the lens of evolution. I have seen things differently in the past and understand other ways of thinking. After seeing and experiencing those other ways of thinking, I disagree with them.

quote:
2 tim 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : Err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:19 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 1482 (817832)
08-20-2017 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ringo
08-20-2017 2:26 PM


Re: days and dates
DOCJ writes:

And the text tells you God created the heaven i.e. space, and then focused on the earth in next part.

ringo writes:

It says he created the heavens and the earth. There's no "then". There's certainly nothing to suggest billions of years.

It should be logical grammatically since the translators put a "." after Gen 1:1. Clearly that was the end of that point....

Scripture for reference below. And you can see in Gen 1:1, it does make a point that space and earth were created first, which in Gen 1:2 it goes on to discussing the earth from the perspective of being on the earth. Looking up at the heavens vs looking down from the heavens. I also want to note that there is nothing to suggest any time at all to be able to figure out what the scripture is telling you regarding the age of the earth. IT is using Science and Math that people come up with those things. However scripture does allow for a old earth. If scientists determine they screwed up with the age, that is fine because the Bible does not actually give an age for the earth.

quote:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.


Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err

Edited by DOCJ, : err


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:28 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 371 of 1482 (817853)
08-21-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by ringo
08-20-2017 2:19 PM


Re: days and dates
You can use the word probable in different circumstances. I suppose if you wanted to turn the issue into a math problem, what the mathmatical probability in this case is equal to depends on the scenario. I will let the readers decide. The genealogy in genesis is used to show a family line from adam to noah, just like the genealogy in matthew is used to show the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus. The genealogy in both cases are not used to calculate the age of the earth. So if you use it for calculating the age of the earth I would expect it to be incorrect. Therefor it should not be used to calculate the age of the earth and it is probable it would be incorrect. This does suggest that scripture is not in contradiction to the age of the earth or the age of humanity. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you want to use a concordance look up the hebrew words and you will see for yourself the english word father, i.e. begat can mean "to bring forth" which doesn't quantify to merely gave birth directly to.

Example

Gen 5:6
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

I.e. and begat ( bring forth) enos.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?...

Does not mean as is interpreted by some that he directly gave birth to..

Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Edited by DOCJ, : Link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ringo, posted 08-20-2017 2:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:42 PM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 1482 (817939)
08-21-2017 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by ringo
08-21-2017 12:42 PM


Re: days and dates
The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation. Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth. And if you look at the big bang model it does two things. 1, there was an expansion (as is noted in scripture since it came into existence) from an unexplainable point. 2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it. If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 11:51 AM DOCJ has responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 409 of 1482 (827233)
01-21-2018 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by ringo
08-22-2017 11:51 AM


Re: days and dates
DOCJ writes:

The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation.

ringo writes:

Does it really suggest that or do you just wish it did? If you were reading Genesis 1 with no preconceived notions, would you conclude that there were billions of years?

quote:
1 In the beginning, God created the (1)heavens and the (2)earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. -ESV

IF you read the passage in order, the (1)heavens (space) and the (2)earth (material) were created by God and then God created everything in the earth that we know and understand. There are inferences you can draw out of the passage but they would only become apparent with a further understanding of reality (no pun intended). The author didn't have to understand the universe as we do today in order to get the order correct as we understand it within the scientific realm of thinking (i.e. space first then material). FYI: I am not claiming to know what the author is aware of regarding his understanding of the universe or multiverse, etc.

DOCJ writes:

Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth.

ringo writes:

Well of course Genesis 1:1 is looking down on the earth; there was nowhere to stand on earth yet. How can you stretch a different viewpoint to billions of years?

I think how you interpret the passage does depend on who is reading it. In order to avoid pointless conversation I will not use any example.

DOCJ writes:

2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it.

ringo writes:

No, the Big Bang didn't expand "into" anything. It was an expansion OF everything.

I was referencing a point that the big bang hypothesis would need to explain a larger outside space to exist for it to expand. In any other case it would not explain itself because something expanding does need a place to expand. However, where that place came from could not be explained within the realm of Science. You will continually have the issue of needing an explanation to further explain the issue of where the space came from initially.

DOCJ writes:

If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.

ringo writes:

That's like saying that Ian Fleming mentioned Paris and Paris exists so the James Bond stories must be true. Even if there are some congruencies, it's the incongruencies that determine whether or not the Bible is reliable.

The issue you speak of is created by the interpreter. In my point of view using Science, whether popular or not, is not always the solution. In some situations, and I'm sure you will find this wrong in this context, you determine the conclusion by trial, being the judge and the jury. You can't specifically reproduce some of these issues in a lab.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 08-22-2017 11:51 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by ringo, posted 01-26-2018 11:53 AM DOCJ has not yet responded
 Message 429 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2018 8:26 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 410 of 1482 (827234)
01-21-2018 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by ringo
08-21-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
ringo writes:

That isn't what it says. There is no "prior to" time frame mentioned between verse 1 and verse 2.

IF you read the passage in order and if space were to be created time would have been ticking regardless of if the author realized it.

ringo writes:

I agree that it's a revolution of Biblical revisionism that came up with your interpretation. It wasn't Bible scholars who discovered that the earth was billions of years old. Bible revisionists have been struggling to shoehorn the Bible into reality ever since science was invented.

I will make the same point above. The author didn't have to be aware of the Science in order to author the correct sequence of events. What you don't seem to be understanding is that, and I'm being objective in this context, if the author was picked by God to author the passage then God would know what was going to be written and that is all that is required for it to be the truth. And further God would also know the people who would be reading it and how they would be interpreting it from generation to generation. If you are being objective you will have to accept this point. There is absolutely no way around it.

ringo writes:

So which is it? Are you looking for possibilities within scripture or are you looking for the truth?

If God knew what would be authored, that is all that is required for it to be the truth....

I think the issue here is that what you preconceive being the inspiration of God. I will help you out a bit, probably a waste of my time. However, God, if it be GOD, is omniscient and the author was an ancient human. FYI: I am not suggesting the author didn't know the Science, I am just allowing for an objective reason of thought. IF you are going to argue God is just imaginary then you are not being objective.

ringo writes:

Huh? Are you disputing the length of time from Abraham to Jesus? Are you inserting untold generations in there? Remember that Abraham was from Ur and we can date Ur independently of the Bible.
The biggest problem in Biblical dating of the earth is that the gap before humans is way too small. You can't insert generations there.

I was making another point regarding the generations of mankind in scripture. The reason we have generations in scripture is to link to the savior. IT was NEVER, at least it is not scriptural in my opinion, that the generations were used to provide every person that lived from Adam to Jesus, or an age of things (refer to a concordance on "begat" and "son" rooted in the Hebrew. Defined as: x begat a lineage that lead to y). And there is not a single jot in scripture that limits mankind to being less than hundreds of thousands of years old. Further if you study the order of creation it is correct all the way to when mankind came on the seen from a Scientific perspective. Of course this is presuming that dating methods provide accurate information which is under dispute. I do realize within the conventional world of Science they think they are gods but if they are being reasonable and objective there are alternative "theories" to a gravitational based universe. I prefer an electric universe that is described using the Birkeland current.

ringo writes:

Indeed. That includes your interpretation. That's why we need to look at what it actually says instead of trying to rewrite it to conform to the science of the day.

I presume according to you, that we should JUST listen to your side because you know what God is thinking, eh? I mean if it be God is real, somehow you just seem to know the truth regarding God. It's your version of reality because you say it.

Edited by DOCJ, :

Edited by DOCJ, : 😊😊😊😃😃😁


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by ringo, posted 08-21-2017 12:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by ringo, posted 01-26-2018 12:03 PM DOCJ has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022