God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

Genesis 1 clearly present a day in creation as a period of "an evening and a morning", not some unspecified "eon" or "era".

Six verses (1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31) are presented like the first one ("first day", 1:5):


The Hebrew transliteration - yom - may well be unspecific period of time, but it isn't unspecific, when you take in context with the whole passage together:


Clearly in verse 5, the yom or day, has been divided into light and darkness, day and night, and whenever each creative day is mentioned, divided into a morning and an evening.

I find that a person who ignored the red part of the passage, and trying to equate a day to a thousand years, like using a passage from 2 Peter 3:8:

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Although, I view Genesis 1 to be an allegory and a myth, but it is very specific as to what day or yom means here, when it state that a day is "there was evening and there was morning". So a day is a literal both morning and evening together.

When I read 2 Peter 3, and I not just talking about verse 8, I see a lot of metaphors in those verses, that are never meant to be taken literally.

What I am getting at, is that where I see metaphor, a creationist would see as literal. And when I see literal, you see metaphor. And there lies one of the problems between us.

You and any creationist who think they can change the contexts of 6 passages of "morning-evening" day or yom into a millennium, million years or billion years, is twisting those passages out-of-context.

I find your interpretations to be a very dishonest one.

BilliardsBall, if someone is trying to sell me a new mobile phone, but if I can clearly see he is only holding an old shoe in his hand, then I will tell him to sod off.

(Of course, there is very remote possibility that the salesman is selling a shoe that is really a phone too, like one of Maxwell Smart's gadgets, I'd find it highly unlikely.)

My point in that little analogy is that I don't find you to be honest person, because you like to twist logic around. In fact, since I have been here, about ten years now, I find that many of the creationists share a common trait, a dishonesty to take anything out of context, whether it be from the scriptures or from science textbooks and articles.

With my humanistic side, I would like to give you a benefit of doubt, BilliardsBall, but my times spent here have made me more of a realist and a cynic; I can no longer any word from creationists at face value.

You really want me to respect your view then stop twisting words. And if you are going to make a claim, then if someone ask for it, provide sources or evidences from non-pseudoscience sources to back up your claim. Be honest, and not evade.

Personally, I would prefer a honest person who would admit he doesn't the answer, than someone who would try to evade, lie or flatter me.

Where did I equate a day to 1,000 years? God made all in six 24-hour, literal days IMHO. No equivocation here!

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are also theist evolutionists, who accept evolution and believe in the existence of god; and at the same time these same theists also reject the young earth creationism and intelligent design.

And not all theists accept Genesis creation (including the Eden episode and the Flood) as a historical event. They view them as "allegory", in which the real values come from moral messages, not its historicity.

All I am saying is that, not all theists view their scriptures in the same way.

But the real tragic blunder is when theists, more specifically creationists view the Genesis creation as scientific or historical events.

On what basis did you decide the Bible is allegorical and not literal, regarding creation? How did you arrive at that conclusion, and why are you correct, and someone else incorrect?

 

[metis]

There are so many sources of redaction that it takes six years to learn how to "interpret" mass spectrometry readings! That is my point. It is not simply multiply by a power to calculate years "accurately".

So, you actually think that they don't take that into consideration? So, do you think they're pretty much fools, liars, or both?

 

[metis]

On what basis did you decide the Bible is allegorical and not literal, regarding creation? How did you arrive at that conclusion, and why are you correct, and someone else incorrect?

Let me deal with this, and then gnostic will chime in.

First of all, a tablet found in northern Israel is a brief account of a Babylonian epic that has parallels to the creation account that was written roughly 1000 years prior to Genesis. But, what our sages did was not to rewrite it as they must have seen it, but chose instead to refute parts of it so as to reflect what we believe. Cultures do this all the time, including even modern cultures.

Secondly, the creation accounts are pretty much poetic in form with nothing put in any kind of detail. Any serious historical attempt would logically include detail-- but that's totally missing.

Thirdly, the importance of the creation accounts is what they teach in terms of faith, especially as compared to neighboring religions that we opposed. Jewish literature abounds with such an approach, and let me just mention Revelations as just one of many examples that could be given.

Fourthly, in light of what we now know in regards to the formation of Earth and our universe, it just doesn't make any sense to look at the creation accounts as being scientifically or historically accurate, especially since their main value deals with the issue of faith in the One God and God's overall creation.

 

[outhouse]

God made all in six 24-hour

Nothing YOU will EVER substantiate.

Academically that is 100% mythology with no factual chance of ever being real.

 

[outhouse]

On what basis did you decide the Bible is allegorical and not literal, regarding creation?

Credible academic study. NOT faith alone or a perverted literal reading the ruins the beauty of the text.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, and why are you correct, and someone else incorrect?

By years of academic study, and knowing what academic reality dictates, OVER what mythology dictates.


I trust gnostic and he carries the credibility you never have possessed . You have never brought anything credible to this thread since you joined.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see it that way.....

Day Six would be Man as a species.
no names....no garden...no law....
go forth, be fruitful and multiply.

Adam is chosen son of God (new testament)
Eve is a clone....no navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

You don't understand the concept of a "clone", because a clone is a copy of one's self.

When you clone a person, you don't change the sex of the cloned person. The cloned person would have the same everything as the original person: the same gene, same chromosome, same gender, same reproduction organs, etc.

For Eve to be a clone, she would have to be a man.

Clearly, Eve is not a man, therefore she can't be a clone.

 

[gnostic]

a day in the life of God I like unto a thousand years.....
I think that can be found in Psalms....

and if the comparison has flex to it....
the evening and morning in the perspective of a God.....
would be different than our own

Yes, a thousand years as a day. Compare Psalms 90:4 with 2 Peter 3:8

Cain found a wife among one of his sisters or cousins because Adam and Eve had both sons and ' daughters ' according to Genesis 5:4 B

And both psalms and Peter's verses are clearly read and written as metaphors or similes, not as literals.

The reading skills of both of you are at the same level of a nine-year old.

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like yesterday when it is past,
or like a watch in the night.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

The word "like" is a common tool for making use of similes in writing, not meant to be taken as literal.

It doesn't mean one day IS a thousand years...or, a thousand years ARE one day.

If both translations of the two verses removed the word "LIKE", the meanings of both verses would changed from metaphorical to literal, and I would agree with both of you.

But that's not the way they are both written. Both passages used the LIKE-similes.

If I wrote a sentence using "like" -

And Thief (or URAVIP2ME) has ears like a donkey....

....my question to both of you is this:

Would you read my example of donkey's ears, that Thief(or URAVIP2ME) is a really a donkey?​

Do either of you two understand that you two shouldn't be treating the "like" similes as "literals"?

The problems are that you are both misreading the 2 verses (Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8) and treating both passages as literals. When you both start reading similes as literals, I must say that your reading comprehensions are woefully incompetent.

 

[gnostic]

Let me deal with this, and then gnostic will chime in.

Everything you have written AFTER this first line, I couldn't have written better myself...and certainly not as concise as you have, Metis.

Here...have a furball from me...

...oops, I mean "frubal". How embarrassing!

 

[Parsimony]

Not lying. The case can be made that a relatively minute number of scientists calculates the ages of rocks and then sets standards, so that a relatively large number of scientists says, "X rock here is like Y rock there, already dated (by other scientists) to X years." This is actually what happens when dating organic life to old dates. A paleontologist who finds a dinosaur fossil cannot use carbon dating on that fossil but may rely on another scientist's examination of neighboring rock that is similar to other rock.

You're still implying that those scientists who do measure the isotope ratios in rocks are falsifying data. I want a source to back up that claim.

 

[gnostic]

Where did I equate a day to 1,000 years? God made all in six 24-hour, literal days IMHO. No equivocation here!

Then, I am sorry that I am wrong about this, about you.

Some Young Earth creationists, like to use the passages from Psalms 90:4 or 2 Peter 3:8, to prove their points. Like uravip2me and thief, here.

I thought you might have been the same type of YE creationist.

Again, I was wrong. Sorry.

 

[Thief]

So time both exist and not exists to you?

and you seem to be thinking I can still speak without using everyday terms?

are you really confuse that easily?

and yes ....time does not exist.
it is not a force or substance....
just a notation in our everyDAY lives

 

[Thief]

Your calling the pot calling the kettle black?

There is a difference between open mind and those who pervert knowledge to adhere to 100% faith. They are not the same.

You have nothing to support your claim not even the mythology makes the claim you do.


That means you are proselytizing your own mythology by using imaginative leaps of faith and faith alone. Which is the opposite of an open mind.

well then post like you know something.

we believers are certain there is a Creator behind all that we see.....
your history book has little value here

 

[Ouroboros]

and you seem to be thinking I can still speak without using everyday terms?

are you really confuse that easily?

and yes ....time does not exist.
it is not a force or substance....
just a notation in our everyDAY lives

And yet you speak of it as it does exist.

I think you're the one who's confused.

 

[outhouse]

we believers are certain there is a Creator behind all that we see.....

Non sequitur.

Your particular brand of mythology makes you a minority that carries no credibility what so ever.

There is no WE here. You have your own version no one else follows or even cares about.

your history book has little value here

Exactly! many people refuse credible knowledge in favor of faith they often know NOTHING about.

 

[`mud]

hey Gnostic,
I find it somewhat strange,
you arguing over what seems to be fallicious writing.
Genesis didn't ever happen, have we forgotten that ?
~
In a tiny way, Thief is right,
the story is a clone,
followed by the belief in it !
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

And yet you speak of it as it does exist.

I think you're the one who's confused.

the passing of event can be expressed with intervals.
that doesn't mean the measure is of substance or force

back to you

 

[`mud]

Once again.......define 'now'.
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

hehehe.....ask me once more.....right now
and your answer will gel before your eyes

hehehe

 

[`mud]

Dammit....it just passed me by !
~
'mud