Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 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?
Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 319 (489689)
11-29-2008 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Integral
11-28-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
This is all pretty farfetched stuff, but is all backed up by scripture.
Backing up a fairytale by using a fairytale book isn't really that impressive.
If the young Earth was backed up by anything external to the Bible then that would be a different quality of evidence.
Not something i could imagine a middle eastern man 4000 years ago could make up...
Then you are obviously not a student of ancient history.
Also, where do you get the idea that Genesis was written 4000 years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Integral, posted 11-28-2008 6:33 PM Integral has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 18 of 319 (489810)
11-30-2008 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:22 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
So, what is it that you find so believable about it?

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 19 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:38 AM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 319 (489814)
11-30-2008 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:38 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
I believe that sits pretty well with current scientific knowledge
Excellent.
So you also believe the current scientific views that there was no worldwide flood, people have never lived to 969 years of age, the universe is 12 billion years old, there was no Exodus from Egypt, and there was no conquest of Canaan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:38 AM Peg has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 23 of 319 (489820)
11-30-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Granny Magda
11-30-2008 8:23 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Genesis is written by at least two hands.
The general academic view is that there are 4 sources (individuals or schools) that have been spliced together in Genesis.
The splicing is really quite easy to spot in many cases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Granny Magda, posted 11-30-2008 8:23 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 11-30-2008 5:59 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 319 (489982)
12-01-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
11-30-2008 5:59 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi GM,
We also have the Deuteronomist (D) source in Genesis, which is subdivided by some scholars into Deuteronomist redactor 1 and 2. This is an interesting article that discusses D in Genesis.
Anbar Moshe Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 39-55
The other source is the Elohist (E), here are three articles that discuss this.
White, Hugh C. The Divine Oath in Genesis Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), pp. 165-179
Fox, Michael V. Wisdom in the Joseph Story Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 51, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 26-41
Gnuse, Robert K. Redefining the Elohist Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 201-220

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 11-30-2008 5:59 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 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

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 154 of 319 (492922)
01-04-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by jaywill
01-03-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Hind Sight
Some of us believe that the woman's seed refers to the virgin born Savior Jesus who was to come latter. Every other seed of offspring in the Bible is a man's seed.
I think there are other examples in the Bible that refers to a woman’s seed. The one that immediately springs to mind is that of Rebekah.
In Genesis 24:60 we are told:
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
I’d say this refers to a woman’s seed wouldn’t you?
Also, what about Hagar in Genesis 16:10?
And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
The angel is speaking to Hagar here and says that her seed will be multiplied exceedingly, I wonder if that’s a pun!
I am pretty sure that Hannah’s seed is mentioned too.
There may be others, but I don’t think Eve’s seed is the only woman’s seed mentioned in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2009 8:10 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2009 6:29 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 155 of 319 (492923)
01-04-2009 11:52 AM


7th day
If we are still in the 7th day then God is still resting, that would explain a lot.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 7:03 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 01-09-2009 10:25 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 262 of 319 (495368)
01-22-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
01-21-2009 6:06 PM


What original text?
I have said the original text was inerrant.
Another great example of your delusion.
How on Earth can you possibly make this claim when:
A) There are no original texts.
B) When the texts we do have are heavily edited.
c) There are many different varying texts of the same books.
As I have been saying, you do the Bible a disservice every day of your life.
I suppose I better support a claim here.
Look at the texts of The Septuagint, The Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic in regard to the ages of certain Biblical folk heroes, info is taken from the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (1962) page 581.
Tell me, what age was Lamech when he died? The LXX says 753, the SP says 653, and the MT says 777. So, which one of these is close to the original? What age was Lamech when he died in the original text?
Or, what about the time span between the creation of Adam and the Flood?
The LXX says it was 2242 years, the SP says it was 1307 years, and the MT says it was 1656 years!
So, same question, which of these is close to the original? How many years does the original text say there was betweenthe creation of Adam and the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 10:13 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 272 of 319 (495558)
01-23-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
01-22-2009 10:13 PM


Re: What original text?
First I would have to know which Lamech you are talking about.
There is only one whose age is given, so its obviously him, but I'll post Bible references from now on to keep things clear.
Now as to your question which one is the closest to the original, I would say probably the LXX as it was closer to the events in question.
As you may have seen in my reply on the other thread the LXX has Methuselah living 14 years after the Flood, quite a serious error that, an error that the other two texts do not make. This does show a flaw in your argument that the closer to the original the more likely it is to be accurate.
But they all are probably wrong.
Well they most definitely are wrong if we take them as historical texts. if we take them as an accurate transmission of the original text then one may be correct. But there's no way to know what was in the original, it is sheer guesswork or desperation.
Did I say there was original manuscripts available today.
I don't recall that I said you did.
That doesn't mean they did not exist in the past and those are inerrant.
I know. But my argument is that there is no way to know if the original were inerrant or not. You claim that they were and I am intrigued as to how you arrive at that conclusion.
We do have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies etc.
Yes, and the oldest copies we have are seperated by more than a thousand years from the events they describe. You would think that they would have been a bit more careful when copying them. I mean God gives you a book and you make a right arse of copying it, does seem a bit odd.
That is the reason when Jesus left He sent the Holy Spirit to lead His followers in all truth.
That HS does seem to have a great tendancy to blind people.
Take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 10:13 PM ICANT has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5070 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 310 of 319 (496815)
01-30-2009 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Peg
01-29-2009 8:51 PM


these are just two very good reasons why i cannot believe that the genesis 'day' was 24hrs long.
Why can't the days be 24 hours long and the story be a creation myth?
the earth is much older then 6,000 years old. That is fact.
how do you know the Earth is much older than 6000 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Peg, posted 01-29-2009 8:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 5:43 AM Brian 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