Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 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?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2816 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 10 of 319 (489641)
11-28-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Integral
11-28-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi, Integral. Welcome to EvC!
Integral writes:
And it says in Isaiah 45 also that whatever God creates is good and perfect, so the verse 1 creation we must assume would not have been desolate.
What really upsets me about scripture study is that it always degenerates to arguments about semantics. For instance, you have no evidence that Isaiah 45's "good" and "perfect" referred to Genesis 1:1 creation or Genesis 1:2 creation: you assumed that. Nor do you have any reason to believe that "perfect" and "good" cannot coexist with "desolate" and "void," unless you impregnate the words with a preconception that empty space cannot be "perfect."
Bible scholars spend aeons arguing till their hearts fibrillate about what the word "day" or "perfect" or "beginning" or "desolate" means, and never once think that it might not matter a damn bit what it means. For all you know, Moses (or whoever the writer actually is) is up there in Heaven right now wishing he had used a different word, anyway. I know I feel like that when reading some of my older manuscripts.
If Moses had chosen a different word, that would have profoundly influenced the theologies of countless Christian scholars around the world. Yet, no scholar ever considers the possibility that Moses might not have chosen the right words, even though Moses is described in the Bible as “slow of speech and slow of tongue.”
Doesn't that bother you even a little bit?
In the end, you’re just going to have to rely on your own understanding and interpretation anyway. So, why not just accept that from the beginning instead of trying to torture some personal validation out of the Scriptures?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2816 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

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2816 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 319 (490197)
12-03-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
12-02-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Post Hoc Rationalisation
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
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.
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
Okay, that wasn't even close to the point I was making.
Look, you pointed to where the Bible says, "an expanse was placed between the waters," and interpreted it as, "the atmosphere was thicker in the beginning than it is now."
This is called a non sequitur (that's Latin for "It doesn't follow"): there is absolutely no connection between the biblical text and what you inferred from it. There is absolutely no biblical support for the "thicker atmosphere" line that creationists have been towing for years.
Speaking as a life-long Christian myself, I would highly recommend that you stop trying to reconcile science with the Bible, and just learn when to let things go. Learn to accept the possiblity that much of the Bible is simply mythology. It's easy when you realize that the mythology changes drastically throughout the Bible (e.g., the Jews didn't even mention an afterlife until after they were taken into Babylon, where, curiously enough, the local religions included the concept of an afterlife).

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

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