-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abrahamics: Do you accept 6 Days Creation interpretation by your Prophets and Saints?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
You confuse simple with convenient. The simple explanation is that Berei**** is myth promulgated by those whose understanding of astronomy was meager at best.
Moishe3rd
Yehudi
Wow. A tad antagonist towards simple Judaism during this Season of our Rejoicing, nu?
What's with that?
Is it so difficult to imagine that G-d actually gave His Torah to His Jewish People and that what is written in His Torah is true?
Why is that harder than imagining that modern astronomers or any other folk understand Creation and Time better than G-d?
Wow.
Wow. I feel no antagonism whatsoever. I simply choose not to turn our Season of Rejoicing into a Season of Willful Ignorance - an attitude fully shared by folks such as Sarna, Plaut, and Berlin.
captainbryce
Active Member
The Sun and Moon were created "In the Beginning", well before the fourth day!
... a fourth day.
captainbryce
Active Member
IN THE BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the Earth!
I guess you didn't read through the entire thread where this was already explained. So let me just re-post my interpretation of Genesis 1 (so that we don't end up running in circles).
Genesis 1 (Captainbryce Translation)
1 In the beginning God created Jesus Christ as a spiritual being [extrapolated from John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15], through which he created the entire universe and everything in it (to include the angels in heaven, the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Planets, and all matter, energy, space and time). 2 The earth was formless and empty, and it was dark on the surface of the planet because thick clouds were covering the entire planet and blocked out the sunlight. [extrapolated from Job 38:9] The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and the atmosphere was transformed and made translucent, so that the light from the sun could penetrate the clouds. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God spun the earth on it's axis, so that once every rotation, one side of the planet could be light, while the other side is dark. [also extrapolated from Job 38:12-13] 5 God referred to the period of light hours as “daytime”, and referred to the period of the hours of darkness as “nighttime.”
And these events marked the end of the first age, and the beginning of the second.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters on the surface from the water in the upper atmosphere, thereby establishing the earth's natural water cycle. 8 God called the space “sky.”
And these events marked the end of the second age, and the beginning of the third.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters on the surface flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear.” And then plate tectonics caused the continental land masses to form. [extrapolated from Psalm 104:8-9] 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the waters “seas” and oceans. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 Over time land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. [also extrapolated from Psalm 104:14-15] And God saw that it was good.
13 And these events marked the end of the third age, and the beginning of the fourth.
14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And the atmosphere again was transformed, this time from translucent to transparent, and the heavenly bodies could now be seen for the first time. 16 God made the sun to light the day, and the moon to light the night. He also made the stars which you can now see at night too. [also extrapolated from Psalm 104:19] 17 God set ALL these lights in the sky to light the earth, in different ways that help us 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And these events marked the end of the fourth age, and the beginning of the fifth.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with flying animals of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of flying animal—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, and allowed them to reproduce in great numbers. The fish and sea creatures filled the seas, and flying animals filled the skies on the earth.”
23 And these events marked the end of the fifth age, and the beginning of the sixth.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God (or one of the angels that he previously created) said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”
27 So God created human beings in his own image. First he created Adam, who was male, but then after so much time by himself Adam became lonely so God gave him a female partner, named Eve. But this will be discussed in more detail later in Genesis 2.
28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” And human beings eventually populated the entire world and became the dominant species on the planet.
29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the animals” And that is what happened.
31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
And these events marked the end of the sixth age, where God completed creation, and the beginning of the seventh age where God is no longer actively creating.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Out of the 40+ bibles in my collection, I could not find the term "age" preceded by a numeral in the Old or New Testament. However, I would admit sometimes "yom" can mean an indefinite period of time. but I'm also aware that it's possible to establish a particular meaning by considering the qualifying words. If we exclude the usage in Genesis 1 from the argument, it is found as an invariable rule that in all other cases whenever the word day is accompanied by a numeral, it refers to an actual literal day.
Do a google search on the Gap Theory. It makes sense out of the creation account using a wholly syntactical and grammatical approach absent the assumptions and dubious references to "ages".
captainbryce
Active Member
Not exactly!
Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
Most biblical scholars agree that the prophetic days used in this verse refer to a period of "thousands of years", not 24 hours.
HOSEA 6:2 (1611 KING JAMES BIBLE) After two daies will he reuiue vs, in the third day he will raise vs v...
Hosea 6:2 And The 2nd Coming - Gracethrufaith
"When is a Day Not a Day?An Exegetical Note on Hosea 6:2" by Robert I Bradshaw
I totally believe in the Gap theory. But I don't believe that is ALL of the equation. The Gap Theory itself doesn't solve the problem of how trees are able to grow and reproduce in 24 hours, or how Adam was able to tend the Garden, name every species, and still have time to go to sleep, wake up, and meet Eve.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Not exactly!
Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
Most biblical scholars agree that the prophetic days used in this verse refer to a period of "thousands of years", not 24 hours.
HOSEA 6:2 (1611 KING JAMES BIBLE) After two daies will he reuiue vs, in the third day he will raise vs v...
Hosea 6:2 And The 2nd Coming - Gracethrufaith
"When is a Day Not a Day?An Exegetical Note on Hosea 6:2" by Robert I Bradshaw
*Hosea 6:2*
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
Most biblical scholars agree that the prophetic days used in this verse refer to a period of "thousands of years", not 24 hours.
HOSEA 6:2 (1611 KING JAMES BIBLE) After two daies will he reuiue vs, in the third day he will raise vs v... (HOSEA 6:2 (1611 KING JAMES BIBLE) After two daies will he reuiue vs, in the third day he will raise vs v...)
Hosea 6:2 And The 2nd Coming - Gracethrufaith (Hosea 6:2 And The 2nd Coming - Gracethrufaith)
"When is a Day Not a Day?An Exegetical Note on Hosea 6:2" by Robert I Bradshaw ("When is a Day Not a Day?An Exegetical Note on Hosea 6:2" by Robert I Bradshaw)
Other scholars interpret this to be an allusion to Christ's resurrection. There are many examples in scripture where the term day undoubtedly means a 24 hr period and you want to support the day=age theory with a "vague" and highly disputed interpretation? But even if you reject this interpretation, don't you think your interpretation of the term makes the questionable exception the rule? Most Hebrew scholars asked by Arthur Custance, a Christian Anthropologist with a Masters in Greek and Hebrew, who focused on the study of the Genesis account for 30 yrs, agree the meaning of "day" is a 24 hr period. He says this of the meaning of the term day in his work titled, "TIME AND ETERNITY: CREATION AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY":
"In an effort to obtain a reasonably unbiased opinion from prominent contemporary Hebrew scholars on the probable meaning of this word, a letter was sent personally to the appropriate department heads of nine major universities (three in Canada, three in the United States, and three in England). Among other things they were asked: Do you consider that the Hebrew yom as used in Genesis 1 accompanied by a numeral should properly be translated
(a) a day as commonly understood,
(b) an age,
(c) an age or a day without preference for either.
Seven out of nine replied, and all of these stated that it means a day as commonly understood, in their opinion. They were also asked whether it could be taken as a rule that whenever the word day is accompanied by a numeral, it must normally be interpreted as a period of twenty-four hours. Five said "yes," one said "no," and one said "hardly." (29)
pg 16 of 20(a) a day as commonly understood,
(b) an age,
(c) an age or a day without preference for either.
Seven out of nine replied, and all of these stated that it means a day as commonly understood, in their opinion. They were also asked whether it could be taken as a rule that whenever the word day is accompanied by a numeral, it must normally be interpreted as a period of twenty-four hours. Five said "yes," one said "no," and one said "hardly." (29)
I think I'll play with the majors on this one while you wallow in the "minors"
Only if one defines a 'biblical scholar' as one who subscribes to such silliness.
captainbryce
Active Member
What "many other examples" are irrelevant! What's important is whether or not your suggestion, that when a day is allied to a number it ALWAYS represents 24 hours, is true or false. Hosea 6 indicates that this is not the case. Some scholars believe the idea that this is a reference to the resurrection, others reject it. In any case, unless there is some consensus that it means literal, 24 hour days, your assumption can easily be dismissed.
In the past many have taken this passage figuratively as referring to the resurrection on Christ on the third day. This interpretation is now generally rejected. The following discussion will be limited to the literal interpretation presented by scholars.
You can "play" with whoever you want on the issue. The answer to your question is NO. I do not believe that this interpretation is an exception to the rule, because I don't recognize that such a rule exists. If there are exceptions, then it's NOT a "rule" (by definition). More to the point, I'm really not concerned about what scholars say or think. I'm only concerned about whether or not they can justify their view with a sound argument. If/when they can't, their credentials become meaningless. The creation days of Genesis 1 ARE "ages" because that's the only interpretation that is logical according to the text. Plants do not grow in 24 hours, therefore the creation days are not 24 hours. It's that simple! The fact that science disproves a 6 (24 hour) creation day process means that this view isn't true (irrespective of what scholars believe). If Yom can mean more than 24 hours, and the story depicts events that require more than 24 hours, then that is the only meaning of Yom that makes sense to use. The facts are the facts!But even if you reject this interpretation, don't you think your interpretation of the term makes the questionable exception the rule? Most Hebrew scholars asked by Arthur Custance, a Christian Anthropologist with a Masters in Greek and Hebrew, who focused on the study of the Genesis account for 30 yrs, agree the meaning of "day" is a 24 hr period.
I think I'll play with the majors on this one while you wallow in the "minors"
Do you deny that the earth is 4.5 billions years old?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. The verse's translation of a numeral along with "yom" signifying a 24 hr period is not in question, only its interpretation is disputed. I side with the 24 hr day interpretation (the majority) making my suggestion true to me and the majority who support it.
2. I suppose it cannot be dismissed as I just posted a majority consensus of scholars who interpret the days in the Genesis account as literal 24 hr days.
3. What you are saying is that a rejection by modern scholarship renders the older interpretation false? I could have a lot of fun with that fallacy (appeal to novelty) but I'll restrain myself.
4. Your rejection of rules, including grammar rules, has been duly noted and well documented
5. Neither am I. It was you who initiated their inclusion in our discussion. Although, I do find it rather amusing you were quick to use them to prove your point but when they were used to refute your premise their credentials suddenly become meaningless.
.
6. Not exactly. There is another logical explanation supported by the text.
7. Neither do people yet Adam and Eve, the animal, and insect kingdoms seem to have been created as mature adults. Logic would dictate he did the same with plant life on day 3.
8. If the days in Genesis were "ages", there would be a unanimous consensus to that fact. Yet we find wide disagreement actually leaning more toward the "fact" the days in Genesis were 24 hrs.
9. see point 7 oh ye of little faith
..10. No. The grammar and syntax of Gen 1:1-2 coupled with science suggests the ages you believe occurs between each creation day occurred between these two verses. The six-24 hr per day renovation, which included the creation of mature life, began after verse 3.
PS if you want to experience Jayhawker's good side, try making his ignore list
.
captainbryce
Active Member
I agree (and that wasn't even my point). It's your interpretation that is illogical (as I will demonstrate below).
This is an illogical statement. A suggestion doesn't become "true" merely because you interpret someone else's writing a certain way. It becomes true when it can be supported by the context of the surrounding passages. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a majority of anybody supports YOUR interpretation of Hosea 6:2. Your interpretation is illogical because, a literal 24 hour interpretation makes no sense given who this passage is talking about. If it is a reference to the resurrection of Christ, then a 24 hour makes sense ONLY if it is applied specifically for that event. But this scripture isn't talking about the resurrection of Christ. It's talking about the repentance and restoration of the nation of Israel. The "us" in the passage refers to the Jewish people, not Jesus Christ. At best, it could be interpreted as having a figurative and symbolic connection with the death and resurrection of Christ, but to interpret the period of time associated with that event literally as applied to the restoration of Israel makes no sense, and that is NOT the interpretation of the majority of scholars.
The expression of time here employed denotes a comparatively short period, and implies that Israel's revival would be speedily as well as certainly accomplished. Paucity is signified by the binary number in Old Testament language, just as we speak of two, or a couple, in the sense of fewness. In 1 Kings 17:12 we find "two" used in this way: "Behold, I am gathering two sticks;" so in Isaiah 7:21, "A man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep;" in Isaiah 17:6 a small number is spoken of as "two or three;" while a short period is similarly described in Luke 13:32, "Behold, I east out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." The important idea of this verse connects itself with the terms corresponding to revival, resurrection, and restoration to the Divine favor and protection.
Hosea 6 Pulpit Commentary
"After two days he will revive us (that is, in a short time, in a day or two), and the third day, when it is expected that the dead body should putrefy and corrupt, and be buried out of our sight, then will he raise us up, and we shall live in his sight, we shall see his face with comfort and it shall be reviving to us. Though he forsake for a small moment, he will gather with everlasting kindness. Note, The people of God may not only be torn and smitten, but left for dead, and may lie so a great while; but they shall not always lie so, nor shall they long lie so; God will in a little time revive them; and the assurance given them of this should engage them to return and adhere to him. But this seems to have a further reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the time limited is expressed by two days and the third day, that it may be a type and figure of Christs rising the third day, which he is said to do according to the scriptures, according to this scripture; for all the prophets testified of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.
Hosea 6 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)
Yes, Yom along with a numeral represents 24 hours, but only when taken literally. This story is not told from a literal perspective, it is told from a figurative perspective. The point of using "24 hour days" as a measure of time is to illustrate that period of repentance and restoration represents is a "short period of time". However, this short period of time had in fact been thousands of years! (A day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day). Suffice it to say, Israel was not restored in 3 literal days (nor was it the intent of the author to suggest this), thus Hosea 6:2 is NOT referring to 3 literal days.
Hosea 6:1-3 (New Living Translation)
1 Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces; now he will heal us. He has injured us; now he will bandage our wounds. 2 In just a short time he will restore us, so that we may live in his presence. 3 Oh, that we might know the Lord! Let us press on to know him. He will respond to us as surely as the arrival of dawn or the coming of rains in early spring.
One of the advantages of the thought-for-thought translation is that it doesn't remove the focus away from the intent of the message by concentrating on the literalism of the words used. This is how the passage was intended to be understood to the nation of Israel. He uses the word "days", but clearly that was meant only an expression.
And yet...
Other Christian leaders who are/were open to the old-earth perspective include: John Ankerberg, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, and Lee Strobel. The following comments represent the views of many conservative Bible scholars and theologians:
Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible and the way the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word day is not limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely undefined length.... There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length. R.A. Torrey (1856-1928),founder of Talbot Seminary and editor of The Fundamentals.
It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox Princeton theologians.
But then there arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like. Edward J. Young (1907-1968), regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy.
And,
[Young earth] creationists insist that the days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes the word day is used with a broader meaning... it can mean a period of indefinite duration. Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old. James Montgomery Boice, chairman of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.
The Six Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture
captainbryce
Active Member
Well the fallacy would be yours because this is a straw-man argument. I'm merely pointing out the futility of your position. You just said that the majority of scholars interpret the days in Genesis as 24 literal hours. I've just shown that this is not an accurate statement. But even if it was, you indicated that you would side with this supposed majority. You are using scholarship as a discriminator for what should be "believed" or not. Yet, when I show that that modern scholars believe differently, you reject their views in favor of older interpretations that fit your beliefs. This is called hypocrisy! You are picking and choosing here. Either scholarship means something, or it means nothing. Don't retreat from it when it becomes inconvenient for your argument! Should we believe the interpretation of other people just because they happen to be "scholars" or should our interpretation be based on our own understanding of the text (using the Holy Spirit). If you choose to believe scholars, then perhaps it would be more logical to believe the modern ones (who are generally more educated and have access to more material than old scholars did). More to the point, the interpretation that makes sense is the one that you (the individual) can make sense of within the context of the rest of the passage (the intent of the author). If it doesn't, then that interpretation must be false!
Genesis 1: Are the Six Days of Creation Literal or Figurative? | Grace Communion International
So has your red-herring!4. Your rejection of rules, including grammar rules, has been duly noted and well documented
You are mistaken. I'm not using scholars to prove my point. I'm using their reasoning to prove my point. Reasoning that has yet to be challenged! Again, it isn't the fact that they are scholars that makes what they say important, it's what they actually say, how they back it up, and whether or not it makes sense!
But since neither you (nor any biblical scholar) has actually shown one, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
You're logic is flawed! Adam and Eve were not created as infants. They did not "grow" in 24 hours, they were fully formed. On the other hand the text indicates that the plants and the trees were created as seedlings that "sprouted" from the ground. It indicates a naturalistic life cycle that is impossible in 24 hours. It says that the plants and animals reproduced after their own kind (which is also impossible in 24 hours).
First of all, that a non-sequitur! If chocolate really tasted better than vanilla, there would be unanimous consensus to that fact! And yet...
...you see where I'm going with this? Nothing that is open to interpretation should be expected to have a unanimous consensus! Secondly, I said that the fact that Yom has meanings other than 24 hours is a fact. So you're kind of using a straw man argument here as well. That IS unanimously agreed to. It's just a fact that happens to be ignored by young earth creationists (and you apparently).
See my response to it. Faith is irrelevant in this case. Biblical consistency is what must be questioned!9. see point 7 oh ye of little faith
Explain?
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
He's already on my ignore list. Once he attacked me for no reason and proved that he was incapable of rational debate, I blocked him. I don't see his posts anymore, nor do I have any inclination of getting on someone like that's "good side" (assuming there is such a thing). He seems to have no respect for the forum. There are plenty of more reasonable people here (like you) I could debate with instead.PS if you want to experience Jayhawker's good side, try making his ignore list
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. As well as the broader context of the term’s usage elsewhere in scripture. (ie..,the many scriptures proving a numeral preceding a day is 24 hrs.)
2. Precisely, this passage is believed, by some scholars, to be in the prophetic perfect.
3. You’re focusing on one verse with a debatable interpretation while dismissing the hundreds of passages undoubtedly supporting the 24 hr per day argument. In the world of logic this is called an irrelevant conclusion.
4. But didn’t you say :
“I'm really not concerned about what scholars say or think”?
I guess it’s only applicable when they do not support your conclusions. And BTW. I’m not a Young Earth creationist
5. This is what I really said:
"Most Hebrew scholars asked by Arthur Custance"
No strawman. Just stating the facts. Your statement was a definite appeal to novelty. And you have not shown how my statement is inaccurate. Especially after taking my statement out of context—low blow..
7. You mean the ones whom you don't care what they say or think?
8. And this coming from someone who introduced biased, scholarly quotes to our discussion??
9. I’ll take a red-herring over ignoring grammar and syntax any day
10. The scholar and their reasoning cannot be separated. Semantic somersaults are entertaining, but less than convincing.
11. Never said A&E were created as infants, I said they were created as adults:
"yet Adam and Eve, the animal, and insect kingdoms seem to have been created as mature adults"
You are misrepresenting my statements. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a simple brain cramp. I get them myself from time to time especially when I skip the morning java
12. Yet you support your position like it has unanimous consensus.
13. Did I mention I am not a Young Earth Creationist?
14. No doubt my friend. Let’s try and focus on what we do agree upon. I’m sure we can find something.
15. We spoke about this. Another brain cramp, perhaps?
see point 1 here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3390558-post38.html
16. Even more challenging would be to have the privilege of being placed on his ignore list without getting banned. Thanks for the kind words. That’s all the time I have for now…Cheers
Last edited:
captainbryce
Active Member
And I take that into consideration. My point still stands. The issue regarding Hosea 6:2 isn't whether or not 24 hour days is being used as an example, it's whether or not it is "literal" as applied to the deliverance of the Jewish people. The evidence indicates that it is not. That being the case, there is no reason why a literal 24 interpretation must be applied to the creation days of Genesis 1 either.
Okay, well then doesn't this defeat your argument about the days of creation having to be 24 hours then?
It's not irrelevant. Your argument was that whenever yom is attached to a number it represents 24 hours, and you've used that to draw a conclusion that the days of creation must also be 24 hours. You called it a "rule" remember? But I've just proven that it is NOT a rule insomuch as that it is based on the context of the passage. Hosea 6:2 uses 24 hour days to represent something that is a period of time much longer than 24 hours. I'm not dismissing other text that refer to 24 hours. Those other texts are irrelevant because your so-called "rule" is irrelevant. Hosea 6:2 proves that the rule it dependent on the context, not vice-versa. Therefore, it is no longer about the rules of ancient Hebrew, biblical grammar, it's about the intent of the author. The intent of Hosea was not to imply 24 hours because he wasn't speaking literally, he was speaking figuratively (on purpose). My argument is that the same logic applies to Genesis 1 creation days.
It doesn't matter if you are or not, you are supporting their illogical interpretation. I don't need biblical scholars to affirm my beliefs. The plain reading of the text makes it clear that the creation days are not 24 hours. But I think you are forgetting how the conversation actually started. This was your original post (recently):
Out of the 40+ bibles in my collection, I could not find the term "age" preceded by a numeral in the Old or New Testament. However, I would admit sometimes "yom" can mean an indefinite period of time. but I'm also aware that it's possible to establish a particular meaning by considering the qualifying words. If we exclude the usage in Genesis 1 from the argument, it is found as an invariable rule that in all other cases whenever the word day is accompanied by a numeral, it refers to an actual literal day.
Now, the obvious question here is "how did you come to this conclusion" The answer is, you got this information from what you think represents the consensus of Hebrew scholars. Unless you happen to be a Hebrew scholar yourself (which you probably would have made evident by now if you were), you didn't get it on your own, you got it from what "scholars" say. And that's the only reason you choose to make this part of your argument in the first place! :yes:
I think that this alone justifies my inclusion of what scholars actually believe as an appropriate rebuttal. But as I said, I don't need their beliefs to justify my point of view (which is why I didn't use them to justify my interpretation of scripture in the first place). I think you'll notice that for the first 7 pages of this thread, I haven't mentioned scholars at all. It wasn't until you used that as part of your argument that I choose to CORRECT (actually squash) such assumptions. You started the scholarly debate when you made the grammatical usage of Yom with numbers as part of your argument. That is something Hebrew scholars came up with, not YOU!
Okay, so you provided a statement BY SOMEONE ELSE, who uses the opinion of "most Hebrew scholars" to justify the argument you're trying to make now. Is that about right? "Oh, but I didn't say that, HE DID! I just quoted what he said." Sorry, but that's the same thing! Arthur Custance's opinion is of no more value than these alleged scholars opinions are. But you're making that part of your argument. You're still using scholarship as part of your argument (otherwise, why would you put that quote in). You're still being hypocritical by criticizing my rebuttal to that.
Correct. I don't care because I can justify my interpretation using scripture alone (as I have previously done for the first 7 pages of this thread).7. You mean the ones whom you don't care what they say or think?
But are you going to actually answer the fact that you're being hypocritical here and picking and choosing which scholars are "correct"?
Uh, no that was actually you who did that (without even realizing it apparently) :yes:
I haven't ignored any grammar or syntax anywhere. This is another straw-man argument.9. Ill take a red-herring over ignoring grammar and syntax any day
Of course it can. Because scholars are not the only ones capable of making sense of scripture. It is the "opinion" of scholars that whenever Yom is used with a number is must represent 24 hours. That's your argument! But this is an opinion that seems to be of little value when it comes to the interpretation of Hosea 6:2. Their reasoning is flawed based on that scripture because their reasoning doesn't take into consideration the context (literal or figurative) of the statement. And you are ignoring that fact. Only when a scholars reasoning actually makes sense should you give any credence to their position. If it doesn't, then you probably shouldn't use such a position as part of your argument.
You're missing my point (and avoiding the issue). I'm not misrepresenting your statements because I never said you said that! I'm merely pointing out the futility of your argument by showing you the biblical difference between Adam and Eve and the plants and trees. You attempted to equate Adam, Eve and the animals with plants, suggesting that they were ALL created as adults. I've just shown that this is contrary to what scripture says. Therefore you cannot apply the same logic to "growth" and "reproduction" to the plants as you would with Adam and Eve. The question (and we still haven't gotten an answer for this yet) is, how do you justify the position that plants and trees grew to "adult" size and reproduced others of their kind in less than 24 hours? That question is already answered for Adam and Eve (they were created as adults). The plants and trees were not. So how could they have grown and reproduced in the time allotted?11. Never said A&E were created as infants, I said they were created as adults:
"yet Adam and Eve, the animal, and insect kingdoms seem to have been created as mature adults"
You are misrepresenting my statements. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a simple brain cramp. I get them myself from time to time especially when I skip the morning java
On the contrary, I have done no such thing. In fact, if you've followed me on other threads, I think you'll find that I'm usually the first person to acknowledge that my belief is the MINORITY view. I have NEVER suggested that my view represented the consensus. Clearly it does not! And I'm actually comforted by that fact.
Nor did I ever say you were. But did I mention (irrespective of this fact) that you are using exactly the same arguments, ignoring many of the same facts, and using similar hypocrisy to what they use to justify a young Earth? I just wanted to remind you of that in case it slipped by you. It is precisely BECAUSE you are not a YEC that you should find such arguments especially disturbing!
captainbryce
Active Member
I would surmise that we agree on the fact that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, and that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old?
I don't think that forgetting a post from July 4th counts as a brain cramp. You'll have to forgive me but post 38 was a very long time ago. I didn't realize you were referring to a part of the conversation that was had almost 3 months ago. I thought you were referring to a point you made more recent then that.15. We spoke about this. Another brain cramp, perhaps?
see point 1 here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3390558-post38.html
In any case, let's evaluate what you actually said here (since it's been a while)
There are so many problems with this line of reasoning, I don't even know where to begin! But since I have to begin somewhere, let's start with the fact that this entire argument is predicated on the opinion of SCHOLARS that YOU brought up, and agree with. I think I can rest my case on the scholarly argument on this basis alone. You state that (according to them) verse 2 CAN grammatically be rendered "the earth became without form and void". But not only is it NOT rendered that way, but there is no evidence beyond your "pause" that would suggest that it SHOULD be rendered that way. No evidence whatsoever! You've drawn about a dozen, unsupported conclusions based on the fact that there happens to be a pause between verse 1 and verse 2. Don't you think that's a HUGE leap? You state that the Earth was in a state of "confusion" and "ruined". But there is no evidence to support that. The only being/beings who existed at that point in time were heavenly beings (God and the angels). So there was no confusion because there was nobody on Earth to be "confused". You say the earth was ruined because it was void, but is a canvas "ruined" because an artist hasn't painted yet? No. If the Earth had not been formed yet (and there is ZERO evidence to suggest that it had been), then it was not ruined. The scriptures you listed as inspiration to support your view (Isa 45:18; 1Co 14:33) do NOT support your view because they do not contradict the account of creation in Genesis 1.
Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the Lord sayshe who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabitedhe says: "I am the Lord, and there is no other.
Guess what, he DID inhabit the Earth. It was inhabited on creation day 5 and 6. So how does this support the notion of a prior creation? It doesn't!
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder but of peaceas in all the congregations of the Lords people.
This passage has nothing to do with creation, it has to do with the rules governing prophecy when speaking in tongues. But let's just apply it to creation (for argument's sake), God created Satan (the first sinner who rebelled against him and caused disorder in heaven). He then banish Satan and his angels to Earth to tempt mankind into sin, thus leading to chaos and disorder on Earth. So if we applied this passage to creation, then it essentially contradicts itself. God is not a god of disorder, but he allowed disorder to affect his creation (from the beginning). Thus, we CANNOT conclude that the Genesis account was not the Earth's initial creation. On the contrary, we MUST conclude that, unless God intended to deceive mankind with his word.
Finally, Psalms 104:30 has nothing to do with the Earth's initial creation (or it's alleged second creation), it has to do with the cycle of life which is in God's hands. Applying it to the creation of Earth would be taking if FAR out of context.
Psalms 104:30
27 All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time. 28 When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. 30 When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
captainbryce
Active Member
[youtube]TaQr-G-YPW0[/youtube]
Young Earth vs Old Earth debate - YouTube
Young Earth vs Old Earth debate - YouTube