Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[exchemist]

Are you sure? That seems like a awful bold statement.

Well, literal interpretation of Genesis is not part of the theology of Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland, so far as I can discover. And that would make sense, because any denomination with theologians who are scholars will be aware that literal reading of the bible was rejected by such early fathers of the church as Augustine of Hippo, back in 400AD.

Biblical literalism is largely a c.19th invention, by sects that have decided to reject most of the learning of the last one thousand six hundred years.

 

[Audie]

OK,,, insects breath through many little tubes through their body not mouth.... semantical

Whales might be biblically in category of fish, not using the modern mammal categories not a problem No reason the biblical categories must match modern taxonomies

but in any case God made the way creatures breathe to be marvelous
Gasp! A Breathing Puzzle

No, it is not just "semantical". Through skin, and through tube
are not remotely the same. If you want a semantics game,
you too breathe thro' tubes that, yes, go through your skin.

The bible is not being faulted for failure to match
"modern taxonomy" (or modern astronomy, earth
history, human history, etc) ss such, but its failure
to correspond with reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

The psychology of fundamentalists is fascinating.

I am not anti-science

This coming from a person who said "science is a giant fraud factory".

And then later she adds...

the 'scientific method' is an invention of flawed humans. Nowhere is man seen to be more flawed than in the various branches of science.

It's fascinating how someone can be so obviously self-contradicting yet be completely unaware of it.

Then we have the stereotypical fundamentalist black/white thinking...

You all admit that there are no 'proofs' in science. If you have no proof, then that places what you 'believe' clearly in the realm of 'faith'.....doesn't it?

In the mind of the fundamentalist there are only things that are proven or beliefs taken on faith....no other possibilities even exist.

If I tried to tell someone that people think and behave this way, they likely wouldn't believe me. It's something you have to witness firsthand.

 

[Jose Fly]

You still don’t understand after all the years you have been here....

Can you at learn these science basics?

I hope you appreciate what you just did. First you note that despite the amount of time she's been here and presumably the countless times multiple people have tried to get her to grasp the simple concepts of basic science, she still doesn't understand.

But then you try to explain it all again and wonder if maybe this time she'll get it.

I gotta ask.....what makes you think this time will be any different than all the other ones before?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Have you researched the word "`owph" in Strongs by any chance?



Oh dear gnostic, here you go again.....why do you keep doing this to yourself?

What does Strongs say about this word translated "bird" (H5775) in many Bibles?

Let me show you.....

"`owph" means :

1. flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
   1. fowl, birds
   2. winged insects."

Let me show you how else this word is translated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.....

"Leviticus 11:20-21..."‘All the H5775 insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. ‘Yet these you may eat among all the H5775 insects which walk on all fours:"

11:23..."But all other H5775 insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."

Deuteronomy 14:19...“And all the life with wings H5775 are unclean to you; they shall not be eaten."

This word included both insects and birds.....OK? Not a JW source.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

Seriously mate, I have no faith in your ability to research anything. You have been shown numerous times that I do not post what I cannot back up. You however continue to make a fool of yourself by challenging what can easily be researched online. Do you not know how to access Strongs Concordance? It never fails to give us the right answers...even shows up erroneous translations of the Bible.



I feel that you need to apologise for presenting false information about the Bible and myself.....

All adult insects have 6 legs, not 4. Only in the developmental stages do some species have 4 legs.. Roughly, only 15% of all insect species can fly.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The psychology of fundamentalists is fascinating.


This coming from a person who said "science is a giant fraud factory".

And then later she adds...


It's fascinating how someone can be so obviously self-contradicting yet be completely unaware of it.

Then we have the stereotypical fundamentalist black/white thinking...


In the mind of the fundamentalist there are only things that are proven or beliefs taken on faith....no other possibilities even exist.

If I tried to tell someone that people think and behave this way, they likely wouldn't believe me. It's something you have to witness firsthand.

and remarkably secular people can be even more dogmatic in defending their faith based assumptions

 

[whirlingmerc]

Well, literal interpretation of Genesis is not part of the theology of Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland, so far as I can discover. And that would make sense, because any denomination with theologians who are scholars will be aware that literal reading of the bible was rejected by such early fathers of the church as Augustine of Hippo, back in 400AD.

Biblical literalism is largely a c.19th invention, by sects that have decided to reject most of the learning of the last one thousand six hundred years.

Ummm... so... actually Augustine favored a shorter time creation than 6 days in his interpretation
he was more like a 6 minute creationist

Not a good source to try and make your point

Moses on the other hand wrote "In six days God made the world so rest on the 7th"

 

[Audie]

and remarkably secular people can be even more dogmatic in defending their faith based assumptions

Whaboutism is cheap

Producing an example of your faith (cross that out) made up-based assertion
not so much.

Nope, not a chance.

 

[jhwatts]

Well, literal interpretation of Genesis is not part of the theology of Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland, so far as I can discover. And that would make sense, because any denomination with theologians who are scholars will be aware that literal reading of the bible was rejected by such early fathers of the church as Augustine of Hippo, back in 400AD.

Biblical literalism is largely a c.19th invention, by sects that have decided to reject most of the learning of the last one thousand six hundred years.

There is a long list of very recognized theological scholars who a very literal perspective on Genesis.

Well, literal interpretation of Genesis is not part of the theology of Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland, so far as I can discover. And that would make sense, because any denomination with theologians who are scholars will be aware that literal reading of the bible was rejected by such early fathers of the church as Augustine of Hippo, back in 400AD.

Biblical literalism is largely a c.19th invention, by sects that have decided to reject most of the learning of the last one thousand six hundred years.

Please see the following. I have so graciously highlighted some things that show that a literal perspective was taken both by Josephus and the early Presbyterian Church in the Westminster Confession of Faith (from around 1648 ish). Genesis really has always been perceived as literal by the early church as literal. On top of this there is very long list of very established theologians from the early church to the present that take a very literal approach to Genesis. If you find one that doesn't, they are not the rule. Also see Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia concerning its value in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

Josephus

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book 1/Chapter 1/Section 2

2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living.

Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confesion of Faith

Of Creation

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, * for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, * in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. *

II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, * with reasonable and immortal souls, * endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; * having the law of God written in their hearts, * and power to fulfil it; * and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. * Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; * which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. *

 

[WalterTrull]

I do love gracious. It's well... so gracious, and not a bit patronizing.

 

[exchemist]

Ummm... so... actually Augustine favored a shorter time creation than 6 days in his interpretation
he was more like a 6 minute creationist

Not a good source to try and make your point

Moses on the other hand wrote "In six days God made the world so rest on the 7th"

The point is Genesis was not taken as verbatim. It was an allegory, needing interpretation.

And then again, another father of the church, Origen, had this to say: "Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?"

 

[exchemist]

There is a long list of very recognized theological scholars who a very literal perspective on Genesis.


Please see the following. I have so graciously highlighted some things that show that a literal perspective was taken both by Josephus and the early Presbyterian Church in the Westminster Confession of Faith (from around 1648 ish). Genesis really has always been perceived as literal by the early church as literal. On top of this there is very long list of very established theologians from the early church to the present that take a very literal approach to Genesis. If you find one that doesn't, they are not the rule. Also see Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia concerning its value in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

Josephus

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book 1/Chapter 1/Section 2

2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living.

Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confesion of Faith

Of Creation

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, * for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, * in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good. *

II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, * with reasonable and immortal souls, * endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; * having the law of God written in their hearts, * and power to fulfil it; * and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. * Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; * which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. *

You are wrong about the early church. See my quotation from Origen in post 111. This was in about 200 AD.

But you have a point regarding the Westminster Confession for the Presbyterians, I grant you. My information was from the Church of Scotland and informal, so I suspect it may be the case that this bit of the Westminster Confession is in practice honoured nowadays more in the breach than in the observance.

 

[jhwatts]

You are wrong about the early church. See my quotation from Origen in post 111. This was in about 200 AD.

But you have a point regarding the Westminster Confession for the Presbyterians, I grant you. My information was from the Church of Scotland and informal, so I suspect it may be the case that this bit of the Westminster Confession is in practice honoured nowadays more in the breach than in the observance.

How am I wrong? Not only that but Origen perception of that scripture is symbolic but not all of it is considered symbolic. Here is Augustines view.

/Confessions/Book XII/Chapter VIII Heaven and Earth Were Made "In the Beginning;" Afterwards the World, During Six Days, from Shapeless Matter.
8. But that heaven of heavens was for You, O Lord; but the earth, which You have given to the sons of men, to be seen and touched, was not such as now we see and touch. For it was invisible and "without form," and there was a deep over which there was not light; or, darkness was over the deep, that is, more than in the deep. For this deep of waters, now visible, has, even in its depths, a light suitable to itsnature , perceptible in some manner unto fishes and creeping things in the bottom of it. But the entire deep was almost nothing, since hitherto it was altogether formless; yet there was then that which could be formed. For Thou, OLord, hast made the world of a formless matter, which matter, out of nothing, You have made almost nothing, out of which to make those great things which we, sons of men, wonder at. For very wonderful is this corporeal heaven, of which firmament, between water and water, the second day after the creation of light, Thou said, Let it be made, and it was made. Which firmament You called heaven, that is, the heaven of this earth and sea, which You made on the third day, by giving a visible shape to the formless matter which You made before all days. For even already had Thou made a heaven before all days, but that was the heaven of this heaven; because in the beginning You had made heaven and earth. But the earth itself which You had made was formless matter, because it was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep. Of which invisible and formless earth, of which formlessness, of which almost nothing, You might make all these things of which this changeable world consists, and yet consists not; whose very changeableness appears in this, that times can be observed and numbered in it. Because times are made by the changes of things, while the shapes, whosematter is the invisible earth aforesaid, are varied and turned.

Again, very literal.

I really think you are grasping at air with this. Also you made the statement, that a literal interpretation of Genesis actually surfaced in the 19th century. That also is untrue and I have shown that by showing many pieces of early literature that disproves that.

 

[Deeje]

What's rather funny here )if not instructive) is that you've managed to "misinterpret" my statement.

Yet you still fail to tell me how I did that....

Do you understand the difference between translate and interpret?

It is at the crux of all scriptural conflict. We have to figure that out for ourselves.

Never mind. If you're truly interested, see the opening verses of Genesis as rendered by the NJPS or Friedman or Alter or Fox. You can use Sefaria to access the first online.

I use the Jewish Tanach but I have not found Jewish sources adequate enough as I am not a Hebrew speaker. That is why I rely on Strongs, which I find explains things very adequately for an English speaker.

What is clear here is that the sentence

Insects evolved from a group of crustaceans.[2]The first insects were land bound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so.​

conflicts with Genesis 1. Do you acknowledge this?

I will acknowledge it when science can prove it...otherwise it is just scientists making guesses based on other guesses. You do understand the power of suggestion I assume?

How on earth can scientist in this 21st century predict with any accuracy what happened on this earth 400 million years ago? Who said insects evolved from crustaceans? Or that insects were land bound at first? Or that one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so....? Seriously you guys will swallow anything that science tells you when they also say that they can "prove" nothing. SMH.

 

[gnostic]

I use the Jewish Tanach but I have not found Jewish sources adequate enough as I am not a Hebrew speaker. That is why I rely on Strongs, which I find explains things very adequately for an English speaker.

You don’t use the Jewish Tanakh. You only directly used translations.

The Strongs Concordance as I understand it, isn’t even translation of the bible, but translations of words or phrases, in the form of dictionary.

If you are just using the Strongs Concordance on its own, you really aren’t reading the translation of Tanakh.

All the current English translations from Hebrew sources, mainly come from two sources,

1. the medieval manuscripts or codices of the older original Masoretic Text (MT),
2. and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), found at the Qumran caves in 1947.

Actually most newer translations, always used the Masoretic Text, but used the DSS in the footnotes for comparison purposes.

The DSS is the older of the two, and when comparing it with the Masoretic, and there are some similarities and some differences, but too many of the scrolls are badly damaged or completely missing, making it difficult to piece together.

The KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, etc, mostly used the one of MT codices (mostly the Westminster Leningrad Codex, which is the source for modern Hebrew printings, eg Biblia Hebraica (BHK, 1937), and the newer Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS,1977).

The Aleppo Codex is older than Leningrad Codex by a couple of decades, but AC is missing some chapters and books of the Tanakh, that’s why the LC is more frequently used.

I tends to use Tanakh, translated in the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) as the Jewish translation, and I have the blue book as well as the kindle version of this Tanakh.

With Christian translations, I tends to use NRSV, and only occasionally used NASB & KJV, mainly as comparison to the other two.

The problem with KJV, it is old, and supplement some passages in the Old Testament with the Greek Septuagint, mainly to match any New Testament passage that quote from the OT. This is done to give Christian overtones or Christian context in a non-Christian texts.

 

[Deeje]

So you really cannot think for yourself, that you have to rely on Strongs Concordance?

Since I am not a Hebrew or Greek speaker, I rely on those who can give me an accurate understanding of the original words and how those words are used in other parts of the Bible. You should try it sometime.

I showed you what it says....it is regarded as a very credible resource by many Bible students.......but obviously not by you.

You are demonstrating very poor biblical scholarship.

But of course you are not.

You are attempting to equate verses from Deuteronomy and Leviticus with Genesis 1.

It's the same word.....if you bothered to do some research, you would know this. The word means both birds AND insects. It means "flying creatures" since insects can fly but they are not birds, the word can apply to both....your denial is a bit ridiculous.

Seriously, I don’t really care what Leviticus and Deuteronomy have to say, since it isn’t really relevant to this thread

Oh dear.....how does one respond to something as ignorant as that?

So basically you are deliberately using different words from different books (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) and equating with that of Genesis.

What is the point of any discussion with you gnostic....you have your fingers firmly planted in your ears. They are not different words from different books....they relate to the same word used in other parts of the Bible.....it's one book, ya know.

You seriously don’t know how weak your argument is.

Or you don't know how awfully childish your own argument is.

I have no interest in continuing any discussion with someone who cannot admit their very obvious mistakes. If you think you know Hebrew better than Strongs.....then all the best with that......

Bye.....

 

[jhwatts]

The KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, etc, mostly used the one of MT codices (mostly the Westminster Leningrad Codex, which is the source for modern Hebrew printings, eg Biblia Hebraica (BHK, 1937), and the newer Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS,1977).

If these four translations come from the same collection of scripts there some serious issues with translators.

All translations have inherent biases in them that reflect the hot button issues of the day. Regardless if these biases are intentional or not, they will be present. In short, by choosing a translation that was written before the advent of evolutionary theory these biases are avoided. An example would be this.

Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9 (NIV) 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

If these two versions came from the same manuscripts. Why the difference? This just doesn't seem like something that should be that different. On the other hand, is this just a bias intentional or unintentional from the translation during a time when evolutionary theory is a hot button issue?

Any thoughts?

 

[Deeje]

Whether cannot or will not or dare not,
thinking, for self or otherwise, is a unitarian
thing, not a JW.

I expect "dare not" is number one.

For someone who said that "the forum would be better without so many posts dripping with ponderous (and misplaced) sarcasm"....and what else did you call it?...."sarcastic ignorance" or " arrogant ignorance".....I guess you'd better eliminate yourself from this forum then, following your own advice.

I personally find it amusing when ignorantly arrogant people call others, ignorantly "arrogant" as if they had not noticed their own.....but that is just my opinion.

 

[gnostic]

I showed you what it says....it is regarded as a very credible resource by many Bible students.......but obviously not by you.

You should be looking at what Genesis 1 saying, not Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14.

You are using different word from Deuteronomy and Leviticus to justify your point in Genesis 1:20-22 & 1:24-25.

The themes are different, the words are different, and therefore the contexts are different.

The words used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy may be about insects, or even the more generalised “winged creatures” or “flying creatures”, but that isn’t the words used in Genesis 1:20-22.

The word used in 1:20 & 22 is aof֙ (וְעוֹף֙), which is translated to bird” or “fowl”, not “flying creatures” or “flying insects”.

And in verse 21 the words used cl-a֤of cnf֙ (כָּל־ע֤וֹף כָּנָף֙), which are translated to “every winged birds”.

If I break down this phrase in verse 21, it would be as followed:

1. cl (כָּל) “every”
2. a֤of (ע֤וֹף) “bird”, “fowl”
   
3. cnf֙ ( כָּנָף֙) “wing”

That’s what it say Genesis 1:21. It is not “winged insects” or “winged creatures”, it is “winged birds or “winged fowls”.

There are no mention of winged or wingless insects in Genesis 1. And Genesis 1 is not about what people can or can’t eat, and it is not about clean and unclean food. So your points about Deuteronomy and Leviticus are irrelevant.

And beside all this, my original point is not about how the words being translated, but about the order of creation, are wrong.

In palaeontology, land animals exist tens of millions of years before the first true birds appearing in fossils. Ancient land dwelling reptiles, mammals as well as dinosaurs, all appeared in the fossil records before birds.

That’s the reasons why I brought up the 5th and 6th days of creation, where Genesis 1 have birds before land animals, which is scientifically wrong.

And you are being biased.

The Strong’s Concordance is index to words found and used in the KJV.

The KJV is an English translation of the Masoretic Text, which supplemented some passages with the Septuagint, and more rarely with the Vulgate Bible.

But Concordance isn’t actual translation. The translation is KJV, and it is the KJV that Strong used.

Here, is the Strong’s Concordance online, providing the KJV translation:

God said,4 Let the waters bring forth abundantly4 the moving creature that hath life,and fowl [that] may fly34 above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.



God created4 great whales, and every living creature that moveth,6 which the watersbrought forth abundantly,1 after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and Godsaw4 that [it was] good.



God blessed17 them, saying,2 Be fruitful,3 and multiply,3 and fill3 the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply4 in the earth.

So what words were used above translation?

It is “fowl”, not “insect”. And “fowl” has been used in verses 20, 21 & 22.

Surely you are not so blind that you cannot even read the translation as they are, without your false and silly interpretations.

 

[gnostic]

I think we can agree that the order in Genesis is not the order that evolutionists believe

regarding insects... they may be Biblically in a different category than birds or land animals since they do not have the breath of life in the same sense as they breath through skin. Animals like jellyfish as well... no brains.. might be considered more like plants

Why bring up jellyfish?

You bringing up jellyfishes, is irrelevant, just as Deeje’s insects is irrelevant, because neither of them are mentioned explicitly in Genesis 1. They aren’t even implied.

Brain or no brain, is really have nothing to do with the order of creation being right or wrong.