Can a literal interpretation of the bible be consistant with an old earth?

[Rodibidably]

In one of my other posts I mentioned (off hand) that Young-Earth Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, while Old Earth Creationists do not.

Somebody took offense to this characterization and claimed that in fact some Old-Earthers do believe in a LITERAL interpretation of the bible.

I'd like to delve into that just a bit, to see how such a thing is possible.

First off, let's define LITERAL.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal
Main Entry: lit·er·al1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual) <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo> c: free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>

As you can see a literal interpretation of something implies that it's true, word for word. For instance if I took Harry Potter to be true in a literal sense, it would imply that I believe not only in magic and wizards, but in the lives of specific characters in Britain.

To accept the bible as literal truth means that everything written in the bible is actual historical fact. So some woman 2000 years ago was the first human ever to give birth without the aid of semen, that kid grew up to be crucified, but only died for a few days, and then a while after that floated up into space to "live" in heaven.But I don't really want to focus on that part for now, I'd like to stick to the creation account, since this subject came up talking about creationism. So let's start with Genesis 1, shall we...

(for the sake of brevity, I'll only be quoting some bits of the bible, as the passages can get QUITE long. Also, BOLDING of certain parts is mine)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the [B]sixth day.

So here in Genesis 1 we see that man (well at least 2 of them) were created less than 72 hours after the sun cwas created.

If the universe is (approx) 13.7 BILLION years old,
And if the earth is (approx) 4.5 BILLION years old,
And if the Homo genus did not divde from our common ape anscestor until (roughly) 2 million years ago,
Then it seems hard to accept a LITERAL view of Genesis 1 (72 hours after the sun is created man in created) with a old earth (in which mankind was not created until just about 4.5 BILLION years after the planet.

But let's see if Genesis 2 clears things up for us.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

Here is Genesis 2 we see that god created the garden, then man, then treees, then animals.
In Genesis 1 we saw god created Light, Firmament, Dry Land and Waters, Sun Moon and Stars (makes one wonder what the light was on that first day), Birds and Sea animals, Land animals and man (specifying that man was after tha animals).

Obviously to me this can NOT be taken literally if one accepts an earth of 4.5 BILLION years old.

So I put this to Radrook (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=2997) and any others who accept an old earth AND a literal view of the Genesis: Please explain how both can be accepted as "true"...

[Originally posted at: http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/can-a-literal-interpretation-of-the-bible-be-consistant-with-an-old-earth/ ]

[Silentknight]

The usual response is that the word "yom" which translates into "day" doesn't always have to mean a 24 hour period, thus the fact that you didn't see this distinction makes you scripturally illiterate. Alternately, they might just yell at you for not recognizing that certain parts of the Bible are written as obvious metaphors, which makes your beliefs idiotic and proves you don't comprehend the English language. The third possibility is a derail into an attack on "abiogenecis" (don't ask me, that's how cdesign proponentsists spell it apparently) without which evilution would be impossible, and therefore the whole godless theory of evilution is jack in the box abracadabra pop goes the weasel mumbo jumbo.

Sometimes I think their capacity to reason got on a ship one day and sailed right off the edge of the Earth.

[Rodibidably]

The usual response is that the word "yom" which translates into "day" doesn't always have to mean a 24 hour period, thus the fact that you didn't see this distinction makes you scripturally illiterate.
Well that would imply that Genesis is not a LITERAL account, since words are being redefined to make it fit. If one can redefine words, then I could make the Star Wars saga a historical account.

Also, if this is true, then "yom" must have SOME value. Let's divide the 13.7 billion years by 6 (the number of days before god created man). This makes 1 "yom" equal to roughly 2.283 BILLION years.
If god is also "resting" on the seventh "yom" then would that imply we have another 2.281 BILLION years left before he stops resting? In which case, I wonder how he was directly involved with the flood or Sodom and Ghomorrah (since he should be "resting" according to Genesis).

I'd reject this option based on the need to redefine words to make the text literal. If somebody wants to claim it's an allegory designed to make a point I'm fine with that, but to claim the story is literal AND to claim that some words must CHANGE DEFINTION during the course of the text is not a defensible position.

Alternately, they might just yell at you for not recognizing that certain parts of the Bible are written as obvious metaphors, which makes your beliefs idiotic and proves you don't comprehend the English language.
This I think is a logical position. However this is directed as those who claim that Genesis is a LITERAL account AND that the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. To say that Genesis is allegory does not conflict with the age of the earth, but to claim it is LITERAL can not be seriously defended (as far as I am aware).

The third possibility is a derail into an attack on "abiogenecis" (don't ask me, that's how cdesign proponentsists spell it apparently) without which evilution would be impossible, and therefore the whole godless theory of evilution is jack in the box abracadabra pop goes the weasel mumbo jumbo.
*yawn* (not agaisnt you Sk, against this type of argument)

"Evolution can't be true, because my car was designed"
"Evolution can't be true, because life can not come from non-life"
"Evolution can't be true, because something can't come from nothing"
"Evolution can't be true, because Tom Cruise is short (and totally ***** nuts)"
Can you spot the similarity is ALL those arguments?
I'll give you a hand. The secopnd part of each stement has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the first.

If a creationist is willing to give the evidence that they would accept to falsify their position, PERHAPS I'd be willing to listen to this type of claim. However first I would point out exactly what it would take to disprove evolution (things like finding a rabbit fossil in the "wrong" sediment layer, etc), and ask for the evidence they have that would disput the actual ToE (and not some straw-man version they made up or something unrelated like abiogenesis or Tom Cruise's lack of height and sanity).

[gnome]

For large values of "literal", sure.

Bear in mind, "literal" stands for the words meaning what the reader thinks they should mean.

[Rodibidably]

For large values of "literal", sure.

Bear in mind, "literal" stands for the words meaning what the reader thinks they should mean.
But for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to both be taken literally, AND the earth to be 4.5 billion years old AND the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, certain words (like day) not only must change defintion, but must change multiple times within the text...

Also you must find a way in the text to get around the idea of things being created in two different orders (plants then animals then man vs. man then trees then animals)...

I just don't see how anybody with enough grasp of reality to accept an "old earth", can also claim that the text can be taken literally.

[I Ratant]

...

I just don't see how anybody with enough grasp of reality to accept an "old earth", can also claim that the text can be taken literally.
.
Ain't THAT the truth!

[Rodibidably]

.
Ain't THAT the truth!
Don't take this personally, but I despise your avatar. I can't count the number of times I tried to "clean it" off of my screen...

[fromdownunder]

In one of my other posts I mentioned (off hand) that Young-Earth Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, while Old Earth Creationists do not.
[snip]



I think in reality you will find that YECs only take the parts of ther Bible that they want to hold literally as literal, and happily claim the rest as metaphor, poetry, or whatever else fits into their world view (invoking miracles is always a good fallback position).

Any YEC who claimed that the Bible is in any way 100% literal in every situation, without falling back on supernatural events would finish up chewing on their own tail within minutes.

Unless, of course a literalist wishes to explain how 1/3rd of the stars will literally fall out of the sky and land on earth, AND LIFE WILL CONTINUE AFTERWARDS. Fact?; metaphor?; the author of Revelation eating magic mushrooms?; or science being simply wrong in claiming that the stars are really, really big, and a really, really long way away.

Norm

[cannotthinkofaname]

Well that would imply that Genesis is not a LITERAL account, since words are being redefined to make it fit. If one can redefine words, then I could make the Star Wars saga a historical account.

Also, if this is true, then "yom" must have SOME value. Let's divide the 13.7 billion years by 6 (the number of days before god created man). This makes 1 "yom" equal to roughly 2.283 BILLION years.
If god is also "resting" on the seventh "yom" then would that imply we have another 2.281 BILLION years left before he stops resting? In which case, I wonder how he was directly involved with the flood or Sodom and Ghomorrah (since he should be "resting" according to Genesis).
.

Mate I could not have said tis part of you post any better!

Your tright you cannot say it is a literal historical account you got to also take into account that it as only been relatively recently in human history that we have started to use this little gift God gave us called THE BRAIN to start looking into these "facts" from the Bible.
Dont get me I believe in God but not to get preachy here but there is more to Genesis than what is actually in Genesis in my opinion it is some where between what is said in the Bible and the Big Bang.
But like I said Im not trying to preach.

[arthwollipot]

Any YEC who claimed that the Bible is in any way 100% literal in every situation, without falling back on supernatural events would finish up chewing on their own tail within minutes.Alas, that has not been my experience.

[I Ratant]

Don't take this personally, but I despise your avatar. I can't count the number of times I tried to "clean it" off of my screen...
.
You're not alone!
I love that l'il guy!

[Radrook]

The Bible is composed of different literary genres.

Poetry = Songs or Psalms, Song of Solomon
Histoical Narrative Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges Ruth. 1 Chron 2 Chron 1 Kings 2 Kings, Esther, Gospels, Acts
Prophecy = Major and Minor prophets Revelation
Proverbial Didactics = Proverbs, Eccesiastes. Psalms
Didactical Letters Written to Churches = Hebrews, Romans. Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Peter 2 Peter 1Tim 2Tim 1,2,3 John, Jude,
Instructions concerning ceremonial Law = Deuteronomy-Leviticus

All these have smatterings of the other genres. So the answer to the question about taking the whole Bible one way or another way is no. You can't use that type of rigid approach.

[SimonD]

The Bible is composed of different literary genres.

Poetry = Songs or Psalms, Song of Solomon
Histoical Narrative Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges Ruth. 1 Chron 2 Chron 1 Kings 2 Kings, Esther, Gospels, Acts
Prophecy = Major and Minor prophets Revelation
Proverbial Didactics = Proverbs, Eccesiastes. Psalms
Didactical Letters Written to Churches = Hebrews, Romans. Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Peter 2 Peter 1Tim 2Tim 1,2,3 John, Jude,
Instructions concerning ceremonial Law = Deuteronomy-Leviticus

All these have smatterings of the other genres. So the answer to the question about taking the whole Bible one way or another way is no. You can't use that type of rigid approach.

But who decides which is which?

The R.C Church, King James, Jim Jones, you, me?

[KingMerv00]

The Bible is composed of different literary genres.

Poetry = Songs or Psalms, Song of Solomon
Histoical Narrative Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges Ruth. 1 Chron 2 Chron 1 Kings 2 Kings, Esther, Gospels, Acts
Prophecy = Major and Minor prophets Revelation
Proverbial Didactics = Proverbs, Eccesiastes. Psalms
Didactical Letters Written to Churches = Hebrews, Romans. Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Peter 2 Peter 1Tim 2Tim 1,2,3 John, Jude,
Instructions concerning ceremonial Law = Deuteronomy-Leviticus

All these have smatterings of the other genres. So the answer to the question about taking the whole Bible one way or another way is no. You can't use that type of rigid approach.

I don't see Genesis in there. Where would that fit in?

[Cavemonster]

What about this.
An old earth creationist who believes that the truth came down exactly through the channels the bible claims, but that the humans who wrote it down has a fallible grasp of the universe (given the times they lived in) and a certain amount of "telephone" was played with some facts, but it is as close to a literal and true account as humans can pass down for that many thousands of years.

After all, our literal knowledge of early greek culture from writings is flawed but serviceable.

Could this not be a valid form of literal interpretation?

[arthwollipot]

After all, our literal knowledge of early greek culture from writings is flawed but serviceable.I am a bad man. I read that as "early geek culture"... :shy:

[Robert Oz]

The usual response is that the word "yom" which translates into "day" doesn't always have to mean a 24 hour period


If "yom" can be translated into something other than a 24 hour period, then how is "the evening and the morning" translated?

13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.


Robert Oz.

[Egg]

Also, if this is true, then "yom" must have SOME value. Let's divide the 13.7 billion years by 6 (the number of days before god created man). This makes 1 "yom" equal to roughly 2.283 BILLION years.
If god is also "resting" on the seventh "yom" then would that imply we have another 2.281 BILLION years left before he stops resting? In which case, I wonder how he was directly involved with the flood or Sodom and Ghomorrah (since he should be "resting" according to Genesis).

I'd reject this option based on the need to redefine words to make the text literal. If somebody wants to claim it's an allegory designed to make a point I'm fine with that, but to claim the story is literal AND to claim that some words must CHANGE DEFINTION during the course of the text is not a defensible position.

From my understanding of it, having SOME value is what "yom" does not have. "Day" is our best English translation, but the old Hebrew concept appears to have been different from ours in that for us "day" is a unit of measurement, a meaning which "yom" supposedly doesn't carry. So this isn't a matter of changing the definition, but of trying to understand what the Hebrew text would have actually implied.

The other times "yom" appears in the Bible tend to be "day of reckoning" type uses, again not referring to a "day" in the kind of literal way that we might usually use it.

That doesn't account for the second, contradictory creation story immediately following the first though.

[Hokulele]

Proverbial Didactics = Proverbs, Eccesiastes. Psalms


I must admit, this is the first time I have ever heard Psalms referred to in this way.

[Egg]

If "yom" can be translated into something other than a 24 hour period, then how is "the evening and the morning" translated?


That's a good question. I don't think I've heard that accounted for.

[Cavemonster]

Getting really picky here.
It takes god the whole first day to create light and dark.
Then a whole second day to create the mass of the earth.

Before there is an earth relative to the sun, where does the measurement of a day come from? We readily accept a Martian day, based on it's rotation. Why not accept that, at least for the first two days, an earth based, 24 hour "yom" is meaniningless.

[Scazon]

where does the measurement of a day come from?

1 MDV (Mean Divine Day) = 7.942433849e14 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

[KingMerv00]

What about this.
An old earth creationist who believes that the truth came down exactly through the channels the bible claims, but that the humans who wrote it down has a fallible grasp of the universe (given the times they lived in) and a certain amount of "telephone" was played with some facts, but it is as close to a literal and true account as humans can pass down for that many thousands of years.

After all, our literal knowledge of early greek culture from writings is flawed but serviceable.

Could this not be a valid form of literal interpretation?

Not really. This is God we are talking about. If God tells you to write down "13.7 billion" you write it the hell down. If you don't understand what 13.7 billion is tough crap.

In addition, it calls into question the accuracy of the entire Bible. Maybe Jesus was a literal lamb.

Getting really picky here.
It takes god the whole first day to create light and dark.
Then a whole second day to create the mass of the earth.

Before there is an earth relative to the sun, where does the measurement of a day come from? We readily accept a Martian day, based on it's rotation. Why not accept that, at least for the first two days, an earth based, 24 hour "yom" is meaniningless.

I thought the sun was supposedly created on the the fourth day not the second. Even if we assume you are right, it still means that all life was created in 48 hours. Either way the order is way off:

Creation in Genesis:
0)God
1)Heavens and earth.
2)Light
3)Waters
4)The heavens (again)
5)Dry land
6)Sun and moon
7)Water and air creatures
8)Land creatures
9)Man

Correct order:
1)Light and heavens (I'll assume heavens = spacetime)
2)Matter
3)Water
4)Sun
5)Earth
6)Moon
7)Water creatures
8)Land creatures
9)Air creatures
10)Man
11)God

The Bible got the timespan AND order wrong. What did it get RIGHT?

[PaKu]

quote:
Don't take this personally, but I despise your avatar. I can't count the number of times I tried to "clean it" off of my screen...
end quote
being helpfull:
if you press ESCAPE the bug stops moving and is easier to clean of..:D

[Rodibidably]

The Bible is composed of different literary genres.

Poetry = Songs or Psalms, Song of Solomon
Histoical Narrative Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges Ruth. 1 Chron 2 Chron 1 Kings 2 Kings, Esther, Gospels, Acts
Prophecy = Major and Minor prophets Revelation
Proverbial Didactics = Proverbs, Eccesiastes. Psalms
Didactical Letters Written to Churches = Hebrews, Romans. Phillipians, Galatians, 1 Peter 2 Peter 1Tim 2Tim 1,2,3 John, Jude,
Instructions concerning ceremonial Law = Deuteronomy-Leviticus

All these have smatterings of the other genres. So the answer to the question about taking the whole Bible one way or another way is no. You can't use that type of rigid approach.
First of all, how is one to know how to take each book? Is there a glossary that I missed when I read the bible that says how each part is to be taken (literal, allegory, poetry, etc)?
If there is nothing in the book itself, then who is the authority on this subject? Different branches of christianity take each part different. For instance those christians who are Young-Earthers take Genesis to be LITERAL (i.e. over the course of 144 hours as we know of an hour today god created everything in the universe) while catholics accept the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old, and evolution as a fact, and claim that Genesis is NOT a literal account, but allegory. Who's interpriation should one accept, and how does one know they have chosen the correct one?

Also, I can't help but notice you left Genesis out of your groupings there...
I'll assume it was an honest mistake, an oversight perhaps. I mean just because the entire purpose of this thread is ABOUT Genesis, it doesn't mean that when listing various books of the bible that one would think to include Genesis. I can see how that might happen. Really, it's totally understandable... I was responding to somebody recently about the DaVinci Code, and despite rambling on for about an hour, I never once mentioned the book, although I went on forever about each of his other books. It's toally understandable that somebody might answer a question about one subject (in this case Genesis) by never mentioning the subject itself, and instead refering to other works that are not related to the topic at hand.:eye-poppi:rolleyes::confused::boggled::jaw-dropp:covereyes:faint::gasp::shocked::footinmou:yi kes:

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

As a small aside, if you agree that Genesis is NOT a literal account of the formation of the universe, could you go back to the other thread (A few questions for creationists) and answers the remaining questions? Previously you said you were not answering them because I said that old-earth creationists do not consider Genesis to be a literal account. If you now accept that Genesis is in fact not a literal account, and you consider your self an old-earth creationist, there is nothing stopping you from answering the remaining questions...

[Rodibidably]

If "yom" can be translated into something other than a 24 hour period, then how is "the evening and the morning" translated?
GREAT point...
I've often heard apologists go on about the word yom not REALLY meaning day, but they never get into the rest of the phrase being consistent with yom meaning a day as we know it (i.e. 24 "earth" hours).

[Sherman Bay]

Regarding the translation of the word "yom", according to Dr. Harry Rimmer, a long-dead Moody Bible Institute apologist, in the Authorized English Version, it is translated thusly: 1181 times as "day" (this covering several meanings) 67 times as "time" 30 times as "today" 18 times as "forever" 10 times as "continually" 6 times as "age" 4 times as "life" 2 times as perpetually"Dr. Rimmer says, "It is thus absolutely impossible to take any one meaning of the many that are permissible and say, 'Yom' must be translated thus, and this only, in every possible case."

He wrote a book in the 1930's that is occasionally reprinted by religious publishers today, Modern Science and the Genesis Record. I recommend it highly for a beautiful example of how every twist and turn in the Bible can be justified or explained by the true believer.

Rimmer feels that a 24 hour day would be the most likely, intended meaning, but he considers each of the other possibilities and is able to make them work just as well in his Christian worldview.

He is an artful writer. It appears the only argument Rimmer ever lost was with his life.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I really wish I'd seen this thread earlier as there have been a number of great replies, but I wanted to add my two cents (and some of it will be redundant since I'm compromised for time and bandwidth).

Day-Age, Gap and especially OECers have tried to reconcille an old Universe/Earth with a literal or more literal interpretation of Genesis. Hugh Ross has one of the most intelligent... but still incorrect attempts to do so which you can read on his website. Merv artfully destroyed in an earlier post though.

YECism is utterly incompatible with science as we know it.

Some TEs and Progressive Creationists chose to believe in certain parts of Genesis being literal or "literaliesque" (such as a literal Eden for the first sentient humans capible of self-awareness and 'sin, or Adam and Eve being said first self-aware humans at some indeterminate point in the past). Others approach Genesis the way we should, say Aesop's fables or fairy tales, in that they are true with regards to the message, even if they aren't literally or factually true.

And this is just the pedant in me, but your thread title is incorrect. The question in not an all or nothing of interpreting "The Bible" as literal vis. an old Earth, but a literal interpretation of Genesis. There's plenty of poetry and metaphor in the Bible as well as history which warrent being viewed through a lens of interpretation, but if you're talking about Creationism, your issue is with the interpretation of Genesis.

[Cavemonster]

Not really. This is God we are talking about. If God tells you to write down "13.7 billion" you write it the hell down. If you don't understand what 13.7 billion is tough crap.


Except that "billion" wasn't even a word or a concept to the humans who wrote genesis down.

God could easily have said
"I made the earth in six stages"
"Like days?"
"For me, like days, sure, write it down"

It is stated again and again in the bible that even the prophets are pretty fallible and can only understand what god wants in the context of their human limitations.

There are countless ancient wars for which we only have a few written accounts. We acknowledge that there will be a bias and a fallibility in the way that they are recorded, but we take them as literal truth.

[Rodibidably]

Regarding the translation of the word "yom", according to Dr. Harry Rimmer, a long-dead Moody Bible Institute apologist, in the Authorized English Version, it is translated thusly:

1181 times as "day" (this covering several meanings)
67 times as "time"
30 times as "today"
18 times as "forever"
10 times as "continually"
6 times as "age"
4 times as "life"
2 times as perpetually"

Dr. Rimmer says, "It is thus absolutely impossible to take any one meaning of the many that are permissible and say, 'Yom' must be translated thus, and this only, in every possible case."

He wrote a book in the 1930's that is occasionally reprinted by religious publishers today, Modern Science and the Genesis Record. I recommend it highly for a beautiful example of how every twist and turn in the Bible can be justified or explained by the true believer.

Rimmer feels that a 24 hour day would be the most likely, intended meaning, but he considers each of the other possibilities and is able to make them work just as well in his Christian worldview.

He is an artful writer. It appears the only argument Rimmer ever lost was with his life.
I'd be interested in Rimmer would argue that a word such as yom could change definitions withing a single passage (i.e. Genesis 1). Also, if words can change definition so easily, how is one to know which definition to give in each instance? Is there some type of "key" that says "in Genesis 1:3 yom = 8 BILLION years; in Genesis 1:7 yom = a 500 million years; oh and by the way, the actions in Genesis 1 did not actually happen in the order given". That would make the whole creation story so much easier to comprehend...

[Rodibidably]

Day-Age, Gap and especially OECers have tried to reconcille an old Universe/Earth with a literal or more literal interpretation of Genesis. Hugh Ross has one of the most intelligent... but still incorrect attempts to do so which you can read on his website. Merv artfully destroyed in an earlier post though.
But once you get into the idea of Genesis NEEDING interpretation, you get into the idea of who's interpretation, and the validity of that interpretation... Obviously this can't be agreed on by christians (old earth creationists, vs young-earthers, vs those who accept evolution, etc...), so how is somebody to know which is correct?

YECism is utterly incompatible with science as we know it.
AMEN BROTHER!!!

Some TEs and Progressive Creationists chose to believe in certain parts of Genesis being literal or "literaliesque" (such as a literal Eden for the first sentient humans capible of self-awareness and 'sin, or Adam and Eve being said first self-aware humans at some indeterminate point in the past). Others approach Genesis the way we should, say Aesop's fables or fairy tales, in that they are true with regards to the message, even if they aren't literally or factually true.
It would certainly be handy if we had some sort of "bible appendix" that explains which parts are meant to be taken as fact, and which are to be taken as a "good story". It leaves a lot of room open for "misuse" of it's text (you know, like the whole slavery thing, or inquisition)...

And this is just the pedant in me, but your thread title is incorrect. The question in not an all or nothing of interpreting "The Bible" as literal vis. an old Earth, but a literal interpretation of Genesis. There's plenty of poetry and metaphor in the Bible as well as history which warrent being viewed through a lens of interpretation, but if you're talking about Creationism, your issue is with the interpretation of Genesis.
*hangs head in shame*:(

[Rodibidably]

Except that "billion" wasn't even a word or a concept to the humans who wrote genesis down.

God could easily have said
"I made the earth in six stages"
"Like days?"
"For me, like days, sure, write it down"

It is stated again and again in the bible that even the prophets are pretty fallible and can only understand what god wants in the context of their human limitations.
If the order of those stages was constant with what we know,
And if a yom (or stage) did not consist of "So the evening and the morning were the [yom],
And if Genesis 2 did not directly conflict on the order of creation with Genesis 1,
Then PERHAPS I could buy that line of reasoning.

There are countless ancient wars for which we only have a few written accounts. We acknowledge that there will be a bias and a fallibility in the way that they are recorded, but we take them as literal truth.
One small difference. The accounts of those wars were not supposedly written by god... As an all-powerful being, it seems that god would be able to say what he means, and get the facts straight.

[Cavemonster]

One small difference. The accounts of those wars were not supposedly written by god... As an all-powerful being, it seems that god would be able to say what he means, and get the facts straight.

Nowhere in either testament does it claim that God did the actual writing. It is God's word as written down by humans as best they can. And again, the bible very often shows god's prophets communicating his message poorly. Look at Moses in the desert bringing forth water from a rock.

Since God, by a quick look around, has not given us all perfect knowledge of the universe, it seems to be part of the plan that we just get the gist and improve on that ourselves bit by bit.

[Darat]

...snip...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

...snip...

Well straight away we hit a bit of a problem since the Bible does not state that Genesis recounts events from the beginning of everything but only from a beginning of something i.e. "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth".... followed by the "...when the earth had been shapeless and formless...." so this shows that there was no "ex nihlio" creation but that the earth had existed prior to the events recounted in Genesis and God then reformed the earth.

[bokonon]

If the order of those stages was constant with what we know,
And if a yom (or stage) did not consist of "So the evening and the morning were the [yom],
And if Genesis 2 did not directly conflict on the order of creation with Genesis 1,
Then PERHAPS I could buy that line of reasoning.

I agree that the different order in which things were created suggest that neither creation story should be believed literally, but I don't have a problem with "yom" being a "stage" or a "phase" rather than a "day". "Evening and morning" would then just be a poetic way of saying "beginning and end". The "first phase" may take a lot more time than the "second phase", and phases 1-7 may all be placeholders for different periods of time.

Whether this would be a valid translation for "yom" is a question I'll leave to the linguists.

Personally, I don't see how even an old-earth creationist can view Genesis as a literal account, and I note that while Radrook apparently claims to do so, he has not mounted a defense of this viewpoint.

[Rodibidably]

Nowhere in either testament does it claim that God did the actual writing. It is God's word as written down by humans as best they can. And again, the bible very often shows god's prophets communicating his message poorly. Look at Moses in the desert bringing forth water from a rock.
From some random christian website (http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm):
2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….”
In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds the reader to “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

This was from the first hit on google when searching for "who wrote the bible".

Perhaps other interpretations of the bible (and specifically those passages) coudl lead one to say the bible was written by men along, but the typical christian belief is that the bible was written by god through men (i.e. inspired), just at muslims believe the koran was written by allah through mohammad (and thus is perfect and without error).

Since God, by a quick look around, has not given us all perfect knowledge of the universe, it seems to be part of the plan that we just get the gist and improve on that ourselves bit by bit.
Well that all depends on who you ask. Many beleivers would claim that EVERYTHING we need to ever know is written in their specific holy book.

[Rodibidably]

Well straight away we hit a bit of a problem since the Bible does not state that Genesis recounts events from the beginning of everything but only from a beginning of something i.e. "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth".... followed by the "...when the earth had been shapeless and formless...." so this shows that there was no "ex nihlio" creation but that the earth had existed prior to the events recounted in Genesis and God then reformed the earth.
You still have a SMALL issue of the heavens and earth being created before the light, which was in turn created before the sun and moon.

So according to this story, the earth was created, then light (where did this light come from, a big flashlight out in space?), and THEN the sun...
According to the best science available, a star forms BEFORE the planets around it.

If Genesis is a LITERAL account of history, then one must accept that the earth existed, and has some source of light BEFORE the sun existed...

I agree that the different order in which things were created suggest that neither creation story should be believed literally, but I don't have a problem with "yom" being a "stage" or a "phase" rather than a "day". "Evening and morning" would then just be a poetic way of saying "beginning and end". The "first phase" may take a lot more time than the "second phase", and phases 1-7 may all be placeholders for different periods of time.

Whether this would be a valid translation for "yom" is a question I'll leave to the linguists.
I'd like to hear somebody's explanation who ACTUALLY believes it's literal, and the universe is billions of years old (not thousands).
Perhaps their logical explanation will blow me out of the water and convert me on the spot. Perhaps this time sunday I'll be at my nearest church praising jebus, and singing about how I've been saved by his grace.
And perhaps I'll win the lottery this weekend without ever buying a ticket.
But I would not bet on either one happening.

Personally, I don't see how even an old-earth creationist can view Genesis as a literal account, and I note that while Radrook apparently claims to do so, he has not mounted a defense of this viewpoint.
It's a shame too, since this post was specifically so he could explain how it's possible.

[Madalch]

I'd be interested in Rimmer would argue that a word such as yom could change definitions withing a single passage (i.e. Genesis 1).

I'm sure Rimmer would argue that there is only one meaning for "yom" in that passage- it means "stage", but does not refer to a particular, set-in-stone quantity of time. But then again, he always was a smeghead.

[Rodibidably]

I'm sure Rimmer would argue that there is only one meaning for "yom" in that passage- it means "stage", but does not refer to a particular, set-in-stone quantity of time. But then again, he always was a smeghead.
Well according to:
Regarding the translation of the word "yom", according to Dr. Harry Rimmer, a long-dead Moody Bible Institute apologist, in the Authorized English Version, it is translated thusly:

1181 times as "day" (this covering several meanings)
67 times as "time"
30 times as "today"
18 times as "forever"
10 times as "continually"
6 times as "age"
4 times as "life"
2 times as perpetually"


It never means "stage", unless of course "time" = "stage" or "age" = "stage" (but as there are only 6 instances of this, and at least 7 yoms in Genesis 1, it seems less likely).
If he did the work to figure out EXACTLY how many of each meaning yom has, it seems that those specific instances should have a specific meaning, in his mind.

Let's try a small experiment, and see which meanings COULD fit...
So the evening and the morning were the first day. (typical translation, and the one young-earthers use)
So the evening and the morning were the first time. (could fit)
So the evening and the morning were the first today. (Nope)
So the evening and the morning were the first forever. (Nope)
So the evening and the morning were the first continually. (Nope)
So the evening and the morning were the first age. (Could fit, but only 6 of them, not 7)
So the evening and the morning were the first life. (Could fit, but only 6 of them, not 7)
So the evening and the morning were the first perputually. (Nope)

So we've narrowed it down to meaning at least two things in the same passage (Genesis 1) if it is "age" or "life",
Or it means "day" or "time".

So we move on to the 7th yom.
And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
And on the seventh time God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh time from all his work that he had done.

Here is where "time" does not seem to fit IMO.

So we have yom meaning "time" (or "age") for the first 6 instance, but meaning an actual 24 hour "day" for the 7th one?
For a book that is supposed to be the source of all of our understanding of god, it sure is hard to understand when words change meaning...

[Cavemonster]

Yes, it is very difficult with soft logic like that.
It is exactly what I was thinking while sitting on my soft chair illuminated by the soft light from the window.
I always speak softly to people who change the meaning of words.
They might be soft in the head.

[I Ratant]

Not really. This is God we are talking about. If God tells you to write down "13.7 billion" you write it the hell down. If you don't understand what 13.7 billion is tough crap.

In addition, it calls into question the accuracy of the entire Bible. Maybe Jesus was a literal lamb.



I thought the sun was supposedly created on the the fourth day not the second. Even if we assume you are right, it still means that all life was created in 48 hours. Either way the order is way off:

Creation in Genesis:
0)God
1)Heavens and earth.
2)Light
3)Waters
4)The heavens (again)
5)Dry land
6)Sun and moon
7)Water and air creatures
8)Land creatures
9)Man

Correct order:
1)Light and heavens (I'll assume heavens = spacetime)
2)Matter
3)Water
4)Sun
5)Earth
6)Moon
7)Water creatures
8)Land creatures
9)Air creatures
10)Man
11)God

The Bible got the timespan AND order wrong. What did it get RIGHT?
. "What did (transposed) get it RIGHT?"
.
Science. :)

[Madalch]

For a book that is supposed to be the source of all of our understanding of god, it sure is hard to understand when words change meaning...

Just be glad the Good Lord wrote the Bible in English for you to read, so you don't have to mess around with languages in which words can have more than one meaning, or meanings that don't correspond exactly to the meaning of an English word, or words that change meaning over the centuries.

Anyone who thinks the Bible is literally "literally" true (rather than just figuratively literally, you see?) is clearly illiterate, or has never heard of linguistics. And that includes people who attack the bible by pointing out "Bats aren't bugs" or "insects crawl on six legs, not four". And yes, to one significant digit, pi is three.

There are far more significant things in the bible to go after than things that can simply put down to rough translation.

[Cavemonster]

Again, what about the belief that the bible is literally true to the best of the ability of those who wrote it down, recopied it and translated it.

In exactly the same way that a newspaper article you read this morning is literally true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.

[Rodibidably]

Again, what about the belief that the bible is literally true to the best of the ability of those who wrote it down, recopied it and translated it.

In exactly the same way that a newspaper article you read this morning is literally true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.
Ok, a person takes a science class.
In this class they believe they hear the teacher say the universe is 13.7 trillion years old (instead of billion).
They go off and write a paper claiming the earth is 13.7 trillions years old.

They may MEAN for it to be a literal account of the age of the universe, but in fact it is not a LITERAL account due to that error.
If I take this as a literal fact, I am wrong.

So something can be MEANT to be taken literally, but wrong, and as such no reasonable person SHOULD take it seriouslly.

On a more realistic note.
Certain groups of people deny the holocaust happened.
If they were to write a history of the 1930's and 1940's and state that the holocaust did NOT happen, even if they HONESTLY believe this to be true, this would not be a LITERAL account of that period of time.

The best intentions of mice and men and all that you know...
Or the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Basically my point is that if you accept the age of the universe and the earth being consistent with the best available scientific knowledge today, you can not reasonably take Genesis as a LITERAL account of creation, even if that was it's intended purpose when it was written down.

[Yoink]

Again, what about the belief that the bible is literally true to the best of the ability of those who wrote it down, recopied it and translated it.

In exactly the same way that a newspaper article you read this morning is literally true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.

So, you're saying that every part of the bible is literally true unless there appears to be good evidence that it is false--in which case we amend that part to "allegory" or "metaphor" or what have you.

But doesn't that just leave us with a bible that means whatever I find it convenient for it to mean? Can you give me an example of a biblical claim that is A) literally true, B) not tautological or self-evident, and C) could not be amended in the face of strong counterevidence?

[KingMerv00]

Except that "billion" wasn't even a word or a concept to the humans who wrote genesis down.

They certainly had numbers. There would be some way of portraying it unambiguously. 1000 x 1000 x 1000 for example.

God could easily have said
"I made the earth in six stages"
"Like days?"
"For me, like days, sure, write it down"

It is stated again and again in the bible that even the prophets are pretty fallible and can only understand what god wants in the context of their human limitations.

There are countless ancient wars for which we only have a few written accounts. We acknowledge that there will be a bias and a fallibility in the way that they are recorded, but we take them as literal truth.

Then God has no foresight. He should have figured out a better way to communicate so as to avoid confusion in the future.

[Cavemonster]

A literal interpretation does not need to imply that the account is absolutely true in every detail.

The word "Literal" in this context is meant to differentiate from a purely metaphorical view of the account. Truth is a separate issue.

Again, I have a literal interpretation of the front page of the morning news. I believe it to be true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.

A christian could believe that The Bible is a non-metaphorical account of the history of the world as best the writers could put it down. As for the truth of the bible, that needs to be external to the bible anyway. I have no idea how any kind of christian proves to himself that the bible is true by any interpretation.

[Yoink]

A literal interpretation does not need to imply that the account is absolutely true in every detail.

The word "Literal" in this context is meant to differentiate from a purely metaphorical view of the account. Truth is a separate issue.

Again, I have a literal interpretation of the front page of the morning news. I believe it to be true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.

A christian could believe that The Bible is a non-metaphorical account of the history of the world as best the writers could put it down. As for the truth of the bible, that needs to be external to the bible anyway. I have no idea how any kind of christian proves to himself that the bible is true by any interpretation.


But if we take "truth" out of the equation, what reason is there not to take every single part of the bible as absolutely literal? If we don't care whether or not it is true that God created the world in six 24-hour periods, there's absolutely no impediment to understanding that to be the meaning of the "six days". I'm really not at all clear what point you're trying to make.

As for newspapers--you don't simply treat what they say as being as "close to literally true" as the writer can make it; you constantly apply a real-world probability test to everything you read in the paper and use that as a basis on which to decide whether or not what is said is "literally" true or not. Thus if you see a headline that says "Galveston swamped by tidal surge" you think "that's probably literally true." But if you see a headline that says "Obama campaign swamped by rising tide of support" you think "no, that's probably a metaphor." If "truth" is taken out of the equation, then reading the sports pages becomes an exciting account of one of history's most gruesome battles: people are forever "devouring" their opponents and desperately trying to "stanch the bleeding" while delivering the "knock out blow" etc. etc. etc. Again: the only way you have to determine which of these is literal and which is not is because you have some idea which are probably "true" and which are not (when you read that a boxer delivers a "knock out blow" it's probably literally true; when you read that the Lakers delivered a "knock out blow" to the Knicks, you can be pretty sure that you'd be reading a metaphor--unless it's a really big story on the front page).

[Cavemonster]

The question of this thread was whether a literal view of the bible can mesh with an understanding of the universe's actual age.

My model presents a "Best Account" view of the origin of the bible (the most reasonable way to view it and internally consistent with God's messengers being shown to bungle the message within the text).

Again, take a greek account of the trojan war. How do we know when those historians are using metaphor? If archeology proves the armies could not have been as large as described, we chalk that up to human embellishment.

Yes, we don't take an ancient war account as truth without outside corroboration (other accounts etc) But I can't justify the truth of the bible because it can't be done. Most of the justifications young or old earth christians use for the truth of the bible work just as well for a "Best Account"

I'm just supplying an internally consistent model in which a Christian could regard the events of the bible as literally true AND the earth is more than 6000years old. If you ask for a good reason why they would believe in that model, you've torn down all christians except those who believe that God and everything involved is simply a useful metaphor.

[Robert Oz]

A literal interpretation does not need to imply that the account is absolutely true in every detail.

(snip)

Again, I have a literal interpretation of the front page of the morning news. I believe it to be true to the best of the abilities of the reporter.

(snip)


The difference being, the front page of the morning news is not held as the inerrant word of god, whereas the bible often is.

Robert Oz.

[Robert Oz]

Except that "billion" wasn't even a word or a concept to the humans who wrote genesis down.

God could easily have said
"I made the earth in six stages"
"Like days?"
"For me, like days, sure, write it down"

It is stated again and again in the bible that even the prophets are pretty fallible and can only understand what god wants in the context of their human limitations.

There are countless ancient wars for which we only have a few written accounts. We acknowledge that there will be a bias and a fallibility in the way that they are recorded, but we take them as literal truth.


Knowing that the prophet God was communicating with wouldn't understand "billions of years" and knowing that it would cause a huge amount of confusion in generations to come who do understand "billions of years", why would God have used the word "yom" at all?

What's wrong with this:

"I created all of this and it took a really long time. I made light, then I made the waters, then I made, etc... and now I'm pooped and I need a rest."

[Yoink]

Knowing that the prophet God was communicating with wouldn't understand "billions of years" and knowing that it would cause a huge amount of confusion in generations to come who do understand "billions of years", why would God have used the word "yom" at all?

What's wrong with this:

"I created all of this and it took a really long time. I made light, then I made the waters, then I made, etc... and now I'm pooped and I need a rest."
Better question: why should an omnipotent god rely on human proxies at all? Why aren't we all born with innate knowledge of god's existence? Why this weird game of hide and seek? Why not produce a book that rewrites itself into the language of the reader every time it's opened?

Or, to quote the Baron d'Holbach: "If god has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?"

[Silentknight]

It might not look like it, but the creation account in Genesis is actually a poem. It was written with symmetric structure, where the six days were divided into days of forming and days of filling.

Days of Forming:

1) Light (v. 3)
2) Water under and above the expanse (v. 7)
3) Dry ground; Vegetation (vv. 9-11)

Days of Filling:

1) Lights (v. 14)
2) Aquatic and airborne life forms (v. 21)
3) Livestock, wild land animals, and humans; Edible plants (vv. 24-30)

Why the seven day time period then? Was it so that the Israelites could justify their beliefs by attributing human characteristics to God, such as a weekly schedule? Yes and no. Remember that much of the Pentateuch was written when the Israelites were a captive race. With no nation to call their own, and no national boundaries to preserve their sense of identity as a people, they could only turn to differentiating their customs from those of the people around them. The seventh day, the Sabbath or day of rest, was different from what other civilizations had at the time. In a way, it was sort of a protest as well. Everyone else had to work 7 days a week, but the Israelites made it where their religion gave them a divinely mandated day where they not only didn't have to work, they were also forbidden from doing so.

The order of the verses was directly related to a human perspective. The parts of creation were listed in the order that early man would observe them as he stood upon the ground and took in his environment using his five senses. For instance, the first thing you would need is light to see everything, then you would see the skies above and oceans ahead. As you shift your gaze down, you see the ground and vegetation. Once you start to observe in more detail, you see not just these vast mediums, but the things inhabiting them. This is clearly a symbolic order and a very human way of looking at things.

[Cavemonster]

Knowing that the prophet God was communicating with wouldn't understand "billions of years" and knowing that it would cause a huge amount of confusion in generations to come who do understand "billions of years", why would God have used the word "yom" at all?

What's wrong with this:

"I created all of this and it took a really long time. I made light, then I made the waters, then I made, etc... and now I'm pooped and I need a rest."

Well, the point of the model was to build one that was internally consistent at a standard of proof consistent with other christian beliefs. I think I've done that unless anyone has objections on those grounds.

Why would an omnipotent God use human proxies? Why would a god, keep threatening and smiting people for doing things that he (by definition) knew they would do when he made them? Why would God resort to the elaborate ruse of the whole jesus thing? Almost everything he does sounds ******* insane. So trusting the wisdom of the universe to a giant game of telephone is par for the course.

The dude works in mysterious ways.

[Radrook]

Don't governments keep threatening to smite people if people don't behave? It's whats called law and order. No?

BTW
The vast majority of people who call certain things ridiculous or ruses are those who don't understand what they are reading and so it comes accross as a ruse. When asked what they are talking about it usually turns out to be a twisted concoction of their own fevered imaginations. There is also the pernicious penchant to ask barrages of questions but to be unwilling to answer when asked one which baffles them.

[Rodibidably]

Radrook,

Obviously you missed this the first time (previous page).
I KNOW that you would not just ignore comments directed towards you that question some of your prior statements...

So to help you out, here it is once again:

-----

First of all, how is one to know how to take each book? Is there a glossary that I missed when I read the bible that says how each part is to be taken (literal, allegory, poetry, etc)?
If there is nothing in the book itself, then who is the authority on this subject? Different branches of christianity take each part different. For instance those christians who are Young-Earthers take Genesis to be LITERAL (i.e. over the course of 144 hours as we know of an hour today god created everything in the universe) while catholics accept the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old, and evolution as a fact, and claim that Genesis is NOT a literal account, but allegory. Who's interpriation should one accept, and how does one know they have chosen the correct one?

Also, I can't help but notice you left Genesis out of your groupings there...
I'll assume it was an honest mistake, an oversight perhaps. I mean just because the entire purpose of this thread is ABOUT Genesis, it doesn't mean that when listing various books of the bible that one would think to include Genesis. I can see how that might happen. Really, it's totally understandable... I was responding to somebody recently about the DaVinci Code, and despite rambling on for about an hour, I never once mentioned the book, although I went on forever about each of his other books. It's toally understandable that somebody might answer a question about one subject (in this case Genesis) by never mentioning the subject itself, and instead refering to other works that are not related to the topic at hand.:eye-poppi:rolleyes::confused::boggled::jaw-dropp:covereyes:faint::gasp::shocked::footinmou:yi kes:

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

As a small aside, if you agree that Genesis is NOT a literal account of the formation of the universe, could you go back to the other thread (A few questions for creationists) and answers the remaining questions? Previously you said you were not answering them because I said that old-earth creationists do not consider Genesis to be a literal account. If you now accept that Genesis is in fact not a literal account, and you consider your self an old-earth creationist, there is nothing stopping you from answering the remaining questions...

[I Ratant]

I was looking at the Book of Job last night, as explained by Asimov, and wondered why just about everyone misses this point.
Did god tell someone that story?
How would anyone learn of it, if he didn't?
If he did so, why?
It's a depiction of a sadistic monster letting an otherwise innocent man be tortured by another sadistic monster, and monster 1 brags about it!
If there's any book in the bible that is obviously fiction, this has gotta be it!

[Brian-M]

From what little I understand, Genesis 1 is supposed to be poetic, and is probably not intended to be taken literally.

Nowhere in either testament does it claim that God did the actual writing. It is God's word as written down by humans as best they can.


According to Exodus, God wrote the Tablets of Testimony (and re-wrote them after Moses broke them during the golden-calf incident, although Moses had to supply his own blank tablets for this), so all that stuff about killing people for cursing their parents and selling daughters into slavery, that's the direct word of God. (Apparently.)

[Brian-M]

[QUOTE=Yoink;4092741]Why aren't we all born with innate knowledge of god's existence?/QUOTE]

Some Christians believe we are, and can quote scripture to "prove" it. Apparently us atheists know God exists, but refuse to admit it because either we're afraid of going to hell (so we ensure we end up there by refusing to acknowledge his existence?) or we just like sinning too darn much to give it up. :rolleyes:

[Seismosaurus]

Don't governments keep threatening to smite people if people don't behave? It's whats called law and order. No?

And in civilised societies aren't those governments entitled to do that because they are empowered to do so by the people? As Monty Python put it, "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses".

Or is god the ultimate tyrant?

[I Ratant]

And in civilised societies aren't those governments entitled to do that because they are empowered to do so by the people? As Monty Python put it, "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses".

Or is god the ultimate tyrant?
.
The various self-appointed earthly representatives of god are the tyrants, as what's-his-name seems to have no presence otherwise.

[Robert Oz]

Radrook,

[snip]

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?


If you don't mind, I'd like to add one more question to this list for Radrook.

If the answer to the first question is "Yes, it's literal" and the answer to the second question is anything other than a 24 hour day, what does "the evening and the morning" mean in the same Genesis verses where we find "yom"?

[Cavemonster]

Don't governments keep threatening to smite people if people don't behave? It's whats called law and order. No?

BTW
The vast majority of people who call certain things ridiculous or ruses are those who don't understand what they are reading and so it comes accross as a ruse. When asked what they are talking about it usually turns out to be a twisted concoction of their own fevered imaginations. There is also the pernicious penchant to ask barrages of questions but to be unwilling to answer when asked one which baffles them.

My issue with all the smiting is-
If God Created Man
And God knows ALL, past present and future
Then by definition, he knew that humans would break the laws that required smiting etc. In fact, he caused this to happen exactly that way.
My reference to Jesus as a ruse was in terms of the tactic.

"I'm going to go down to earth (a part of me, that is) as a human, but they won't know it's me for the most part, and they'll learn a lesson from the whole thing."

That is a ruse. It's also a weird complicated way to do something for someone who, by definition could do anything he wants.

I'm not saying it's all impossible, just that the logic to justify such claims is beyond me.

[Silentknight]

Don't governments keep threatening to smite people if people don't behave? It's whats called law and order. No?

And in civilised societies aren't those governments entitled to do that because they are empowered to do so by the people? As Monty Python put it, "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses".

Or is god the ultimate tyrant?
Pfft, haven't you heard of the divine right of kings? Welcome to the 16th century already, and get with the program!

[Rodibidably]

Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, but I fail to see how this can be an intellectually honest position. :confused:

I'm hoping that somebody can enlighten me on this subject because I have to assume I'm missing something BIG that allows it to make sense.

[arthwollipot]

Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.Or thereabouts.

[Robert Oz]

Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, but I fail to see how this can be an intellectually honest position. :confused:

I'm hoping that somebody can enlighten me on this subject because I have to assume I'm missing something BIG that allows it to make sense.


I think the answer will be along these lines:

"I know beyond doubt that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Based on this knowledge, "yom" as used in Genesis is defined as:

"yom" = (Scientifically accepted age of the universe less Years since Jesus' birth less Years required to account for all generations back to Adam) divided by six."

:boggled:

And the evening and the morning were the first 2.28 billion years.

[Radrook]

My issue with all the smiting is-
If God Created Man
And God knows ALL, past present and future
Then by definition, he knew that humans would break the laws that required smiting etc. In fact, he caused this to happen exactly that way.
My reference to Jesus as a ruse was in terms of the tactic.

"I'm going to go down to earth (a part of me, that is) as a human, but they won't know it's me for the most part, and they'll learn a lesson from the whole thing."

That is a ruse. It's also a weird complicated way to do something for someone who, by definition could do anything he wants.

I'm not saying it's all impossible, just that the logic to justify such claims is beyond me.

He can do anything he wants as long as it is in harmony moral code as described in the Bible The moral code in turn is based on his wisdom-love-and Justice. So he isn't biblically described as being free to do anything he wants. For example he can't lie.

God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. Hebrews 6:18

[BTW: the two unchangeable things are his oath and his promise]


He can't die:
Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. (Habakkuk 1:12)


The explanation that some Christians provide for God creating Adam and Eve is that he had created them blameless and therefore there was nothing to indicate what their future actions might be. In short, the only thing that could be predicted based on their condition was righteousness. This of course seems to limit God's ability to see the future unless the is something in the present on which he can base his prediction. So those holding such a view imagine him to be far less powerful than others who say he can see everything. Or else they are giving the term omniscience a limited personal definition.

The problem is to harmonize his wisdom, justice and love with his allowance of sin. If indeed he foresaw and went ahead anyway, then there are some who find it unjust. To these it makes far more sense that he didn't know. Otherwise in there eyes his wisdom becomes suspect.

The same with Satan or Lucifer. Reasoning along the same line some say God saw no injustice in him until he displayed it inb his actions. On the other hand we are told that God reads the ruminations of the heart. So in view of this he must have detected the first inclinations toward rebellion. Of course other explanations go into why he permitted the rebellion to reach it's critical course.
The point is that once we conceive of a creator as having certain unwavering traits then all understandings of the written text about him must reflect his personality. Otherwise we create intra-biblical contradictions instead of harmony.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Rodibidably
Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.

Because the introduction to Genesis allows for it. The days commence AFTER heavens and earth are already there and anything said in relation to those day should be understood to refer to the preparation of the already created earth for plant and animal life habitation.

[Robin]

Regarding the translation of the word "yom", according to Dr. Harry Rimmer, a long-dead Moody Bible Institute apologist, in the Authorized English Version, it is translated thusly: 1181 times as "day" (this covering several meanings) 67 times as "time" 30 times as "today" 18 times as "forever" 10 times as "continually" 6 times as "age" 4 times as "life" 2 times as perpetually"Dr. Rimmer says, "It is thus absolutely impossible to take any one meaning of the many that are permissible and say, 'Yom' must be translated thus, and this only, in every possible case."

He wrote a book in the 1930's that is occasionally reprinted by religious publishers today, Modern Science and the Genesis Record. I recommend it highly for a beautiful example of how every twist and turn in the Bible can be justified or explained by the true believer.

Rimmer feels that a 24 hour day would be the most likely, intended meaning, but he considers each of the other possibilities and is able to make them work just as well in his Christian worldview.

He is an artful writer. It appears the only argument Rimmer ever lost was with his life.
However the text of Genesis explicitly states that the evening and the morning of the first day are the periods of darkness and light on Earth. So it is almost certainly intended to mean a literal 24 hour day.

[Robin]

I thought the sun was supposedly created on the the fourth day not the second.

You are right, the Sun and the Moon and the stars are created on the fourth day, after the vegetation - seed bearing plants, fruit bearing trees.

[Robin]

Because the introduction to Genesis allows for it. The days commence AFTER heavens and earth are already there and anything said in relation to those day should be understood to refer to the preparation of the already created earth for plant and animal life habitation.
Sounds like you are saying that you can read the Bible literally as long as you don't literally read it literally.

[Complexity]

People - it's a freakin' fairy tale, and not a very good one at that.

There are thousands of creation stories, none of them true.

[Robin]

People - it's a freakin' fairy tale, and not a very good one at that.

There are thousands of creation stories, none of them true.
Even the Rainbow Serpent? Tell me it isn't so.

[dafydd]

No.

[Complexity]

No.


Err... Is that 'No', you won't tell him, or are you telling him 'No'?

[dafydd]

No in reply to the OP.Nothing else to be said.

[edge]

I think in reality you will find that YECs only take the parts of ther Bible that they want to hold literally as literal, and happily claim the rest as metaphor, poetry, or whatever else fits into their world view (invoking miracles is always a good fallback position).

Any YEC who claimed that the Bible is in any way 100% literal in every situation, without falling back on supernatural events would finish up chewing on their own tail within minutes.

Unless, of course a literalist wishes to explain how 1/3rd of the stars will literally fall out of the sky and land on earth, AND LIFE WILL CONTINUE AFTERWARDS. Fact?; metaphor?; the author of Revelation eating magic mushrooms?; or science being simply wrong in claiming that the stars are really, really big, and a really, really long way away.

Norm

Stars are also the angels.

[Ladewig]

Because the introduction to Genesis allows for it. The days commence AFTER heavens and earth are already there and anything said in relation to those day should be understood to refer to the preparation of the already created earth for plant and animal life habitation.

So the dinosaur bones really are more than 65 million years old?

[Ladewig]

Stars are also the angels.

May I ask for the specific Bible citation that indicates that? Or more precisely, the exact citation that allows us to know that the stars referred to in the first part of the 12th chapter of Revelation are really angels.

[edge]

Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, but I fail to see how this can be an intellectually honest position. :confused:

I'm hoping that somebody can enlighten me on this subject because I have to assume I'm missing something BIG that allows it to make sense.

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?



It is a re-creation.
Evolution is set with Gods days, and then there is a re-creation.
That explains the two accounts.
The line of Neanderthals dies out about the time that Cro-Magnon appears.
The fossil record shows the physical similarities all the way down to Neanderthals but not in modern man.

From Homo Erectus to us there are no similarities that have the links to us but they do to Neanderthals, they look the same, they match physically by just looking at their skulls and perfectly, but not in our line.

The first light and darkness is the big bang.
The first account should read (space and matter)
The heavens and the earth, they had no other way to explain it, or possibly remember it correctly after years of oral tradition till they wrote it down.


Both need to work together, science and religion.

[Complexity]

Both need to work together, science and religion.


Religion is a lie.
Religion must die.

[sphenisc]

Still waiting on Radrook (or any "old-earther") to explain how Genesis can be taken as a LITERAL account of history when they acknowledge the age of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old.


I'm neither, but the simple answer is because Genesis doesn't specify when the universe began, ther than in relative terms, therefore there's no incompability between the two claims.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

here's what I don't get...if the creation story is true, if the OT is true, then why wasn't monothesim the first religion? Why was it preceded by animism, polytheism, henotheism? Why doesn't the first recorded concept of monotheism appear until the rule of the Pharaoh Akhenatan, the heretic king (whose religion, centered around the God Aten, died with him)?

If in the beginning, God was actually interacting with humans, smiting them, then why is there no record of monotheism in human history until well after many other spiritual belief systems had already formed? Why wasn't everyone monotheists from the start? Why would any other religious system have formed if God was there, interacting with humans right from start, kicking them out of gardens and flooding the world? Why did Judaism come later than these other religions, and why did it only occur after the natural progression of polytheists slowly placing more and more importance on one god of their pantheon above all others, until He was simply declared the one god?

Also, if the exodus/plagues happened, why weren't the Egyptians monotheists? The Egyptians were supremely superstitious people. They took almost any sign of hardship, famine, plague, etc, to be punishment from the gods, or from one god in particular. And if they thought they could figure out what god had punished them, they would immediately start trying to kiss his butt, submitting offerings, building temples, etc.

If the god of the Jews had actually rained fire and frogs and locusts and killed their first born, why on earth would the Egyptians still have remained polytheists? Obviously, the God of the Hebrews not only really exists, but is far far more powerful than their own gods. Why wouldn't they have become monotheists on the spot? (this is a separate question from why the Egyptians or any of their neighbors never thought to mention the exodus, Moses, the plagues, or the fact that they kept Jewish slaves in the vast historical and archaeological records we have from that time period).

[Radrook]

May I ask for the specific Bible citation that indicates that? Or more precisely, the exact citation that allows us to know that the stars referred to in the first part of the 12th chapter of Revelation are really angels.

He's probably basing his conclusion on the following scripture which descibes angelic reaction to God's creation of the earth.

<< Job 38:7 >>
....while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

[John Jones]

So, I'll put this a tad more directly...
Is Genesis a LITERAL account of history?
If so, how long a period of time is a "yom"?
Also, how would you explain the ORDER of creation not being consistent with what we know of the formation of the universe?
Also, how would you explain two different orders of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?



It is a re-creation.
Evolution is set with Gods days, and then there is a re-creation.
That explains the two accounts.
The line of Neanderthals dies out about the time that Cro-Magnon appears.
The fossil record shows the physical similarities all the way down to Neanderthals but not in modern man.

From Homo Erectus to us there are no similarities that have the links to us but they do to Neanderthals, they look the same, they match physically by just looking at their skulls and perfectly, but not in our line.

The first light and darkness is the big bang.
The first account should read (space and matter)
The heavens and the earth, they had no other way to explain it, or possibly remember it correctly after years of oral tradition till they wrote it down.


Both need to work together, science and religion.


What does religion have to offer science? And which religion? Any old crazy-a$$ed thing someone dreams-up?

[Radrook]

So the dinosaur bones really are more than 65 million years old?

Below is one explanation given by some Christians who as not young- earth believers:

I was referring to the moments when we are told God created heavens and earth. Those moments can be viewed as prior to the seven day periods which come later. Since these days are mentioned after the creation of heaven and earth, they can be understood as earth-environment preparatory days. For example, Genesis initially describes earth as a water-world covered in darkness. Since the heavens had already been created, then this darkness had to be caused by something obstructing light from reaching earth's surface. So when Genesis takes us to the days and tells us that sun moon stars and other heavenly bodies appear in the firmament, this is can be understood to mean that whatever was obstructing that light from an earth surface vantage point was removed. The light was allowed to penetrate our atmosphere although in an dim manner initially. The next stage caused a thinning of that atmosphere. via separation of waters above from waters below causing a canopy through which these heavenly bodies could be finally seen. In fact, the Hebrew word itself which is used to describe the process can be interpreted as "made to appear" and so allows for this interpretation.

About the dinosaurs, some have speculated that each preparatory day was seven-thousand years long. Making the six creative days 36,000 years long. That conclusion is based on the continued reference to the seventh day of rest being mention in the Greek scriptures as still being in progress during the first century bce. a little math would give us then within this framework the time that the dinosaurs appeared. Which of course contradicts the millions of years that science currently claims. In short, by adhering to this interpretation were move one disagreement and replace it with another! LOL

The important thing to keep in mind in all this is, however, is that the Genesis account allows for the billions of years science requires. So there is really no need to argue on behalf of a young universe and earth. Not also that the creation of life sequences are in harmony with current science. Sea life is mentioned before land life-for example. Also, the heavens are mentioned prior to the earth which harmonizes with the earth being only a few billion years old while the universe is far older.

[Complexity]

******* crazy.

[RoboTimbo]

The point is that once we conceive of a creator as having certain unwavering traits then all understandings of the written text about him must reflect his personality. Otherwise we create intra-biblical contradictions instead of harmony.

I'm going to agree with Radrook here. Mankind dreamed up a creator to answer those nagging questions he couldn't answer.

Each time science has progressed to enable us to answer more questions and show the naivete of the bible's human authors, the ignorati come along to reinterpret the bible to try to make it fit. So we go from a literal seven days to seven days equals billions of years.

The mental disconnect is staggering.

[dio]

Not also that the creation of life sequences are in harmony with current science. Sea life is mentioned before land life-for example. Also, the heavens are mentioned prior to the earth which harmonizes with the earth being only a few billion years old while the universe is far older.


So you only count the hits, disregard the misses, et voilà! the bible is 100% scientifically accurate. Got it.

[John Jones]

Below is one explanation given by some Christians who as not young- earth believers:

Pitiful. Just pitiful.

[Brian-M]

Below is one explanation given by some Christians who as not young- earth believers:

So, this isn't what you believe, then? (And why did you choose to revive this thread after letting it lay dormant for over a year and a half?)

For example, Genesis initially describes earth as a water-world covered in darkness. Since the heavens had already been created, then this darkness had to be caused by something obstructing light from reaching earth's surface.

So, you're taking the text and adding an extra element (an obstruction of the light) not mentioned in the text, in order to try and make it compatible with modern scientific understanding?

Not also that the creation of life sequences are in harmony with current science. Sea life is mentioned before land life-for example.

In harmony with current science?

Well, since animals either eat plants or eat animals which eat plants, even over 3000 years ago it would have been obvious that plants came before animals. As for sea life, fish are clearly closer to animals than plants, but appear to be simpler so it's no surprise that ancient people would regard sea-life as coming after plants but before animals.

It's no surprise that the ancient peoples would be able to guess the correct order of these three things, especially as there are only six possible combinations to consider, and plants-fish-animals is the obvious progression.

But what about birds? How is claiming that birds existed before land creatures "in harmony with current science"?

About the dinosaurs, some have speculated that each preparatory day was seven-thousand years long. Making the six creative days 36,000 years long.

Still nowhere long enough. We have fossils of modern humans that are 195,000 years old. (Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html))

He can do anything he wants as long as it is in harmony moral code as described in the Bible The moral code in turn is based on his wisdom-love-and Justice.

This is slightly off topic, but where in the Bible is the moral code that God must obey?

So he isn't biblically described as being free to do anything he wants. For example he can't lie.

He can't lie? Not a problem. He can deceive...

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

[Marduk]

The line of Neanderthals dies out about the time that Cro-Magnon appears.
The fossil record shows the physical similarities all the way down to Neanderthals but not in modern man.

HOW MANY TIMES
Cro Magnon was moden homo sapiens
The Cro-Magnon were the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) of the European Upper Paleolithic in Europe.

From Homo Erectus to us there are no similarities that have the links to us but they do to Neanderthals, they look the same, they match physically by just looking at their skulls and perfectly, but not in our line.

We didn't evolve from Erectus, it was extinct for more than a million years before we appeared, we evolved from Heidelbergensis, the same as Neanderthal,
Homo heidelbergensis is an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and Homo sapiens

Both need to work together, science and religion.
before you go any further perhaps you should just concentrate on the science which is woefully inadequate in all your posts
:p

[Radrook]

So, this isn't what you believe, then? (And why did you choose to revive this thread after letting it lay dormant for over a year and a half?)

Lack of a computer.



So, you're taking the text and adding an extra element (an obstruction of the light) not mentioned in the text, in order to try and make it compatible with modern scientific understanding?

I'm simply telling you what the alternate creationist explanation is.



In harmony with current science?

Well, since animals either eat plants or eat animals which eat plants, even over 3000 years ago it would have been obvious that plants came before animals. As for sea life, fish are clearly closer to animals than plants, but appear to be simpler so it's no surprise that ancient people would regard sea-life as coming after plants but before animals.

But other ancients didn't see it as obvious. Ever read the wild explanations of other creation accounts?



It's no surprise that the ancient peoples would be able to guess the correct order of these three things, especially as there are only six possible combinations to consider, and plants-fish-animals is the obvious progression.

Sure. That the heavens preceded the earth is very obvious indeed!

But what about birds? How is claiming that birds existed before land creatures "in harmony with current science"?

Never read that in Genesis.


Still nowhere long enough. We have fossils of modern humans that are 195,000 years old. (Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html))

Probably some creationists might not abide by the 7000 year per day understanding and make each day period indeterminate. As I can see by my research.



This is slightly off topic, but where in the Bible is the moral code that God must obey?

Ten commandments is a good place to start. God is described as just, loving, wise. So all his actions must be interpreted asin harmony with those qualities. His moral code is said to be found throughout the Bible.

Qualities of God
http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/bdqualitiesofgod.htm


He can't lie? Not a problem. He can deceive...

He can be perceived that way by some. Sure. He can even be perceived as an outright liar and criminal . It all depends on how we process the info.

[Brian-M]

But other ancients didn't see it as obvious. Ever read the wild explanations of other creation accounts?

Most creation myths don't mention the order in which different varieties of life came to exist, so it's hard to say for certain whether or not they say it as obvious.

Either way, deciding the order of creation of plants, fish and animals isn't that hard. There are only six possible combinations, and since animals require vegetation to survive, putting plants before animals is a no-brainer.

Sure. That the heavens preceded the earth is very obvious indeed!

Genesis doesn't claim that the heavens preceded the earth. It says "God created then heavens and the earth", not "God created heavens and then the earth". It could mean they were created at the same time.

Never read that in Genesis.

Genesis 1:21, God creates the creatures of the sea and all the birds. It's not until the next "day" in Genesis 1:24 that he creates the creatures of the land.


Ten commandments is a good place to start. God is described as just, loving, wise. So all his actions must be interpreted asin harmony with those qualities. His moral code is said to be found throughout the Bible.

So God follows the Ten Commandments? Which Ten Commandments would these be, the Ten Commandments that Christians claim to follow, or the Ten Commandments that God refers to as the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament?

His moral code is found throughout The Bible? You mean how he repeatedly commits & endorses mass murder and genocide?

He can be perceived that way by some. Sure. He can even be perceived as an outright liar and criminal . It all depends on how we process the info.

"Can be perceived"... how about we establish an objective measure immoral behavior? I'm sure your God fails to measure up to any objective measure of morality.

[dio]

But what about birds? How is claiming that birds existed before land creatures "in harmony with current science"?

Never read that in Genesis.


Well obviously you misplaced your bible, and you can't access an online one because your computer is acting up.

Here, I'll help:



20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [...]
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[dafydd]

Both need to work together, science and religion.

No,they are the very antithesis of each other.

[dafydd]

I'm simply telling you what the alternate creationist explanation is.


Which one? In the interest of balance you should mention the Kiowa ,Apache, Aztec,Cherokee,Choctaw,Creek,Digueno,Hopi,Haida,Ir oquois,Lakota,Navajo,Seminole,Tlingit,Mayan,Incan. Pirahã,Hawaiian,Māori,Tagalog,Bhuddist,Shinto,Sihk ,Sumerian,Babylonian,Zoroastrian and Norse creation myths,to name but a few.

[edge]

No,they are the very antithesis of each other.

Simply because you want it to be that way.


Originally Posted by wiki and Marduk

Homo heidelbergensis is an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and Homo sapiens


Key words above.
It maybe that they are linked to Neanderthals but without more you cannot be certain because they look nothing like us.

I see where you are right when they are compared below, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo Neandertahlensis.
I think evolution is correct except that was the end of the line.

Then something else happened and not because I want it to be, it is obvious.

[edge]

These look nothing alike and if they were we would share Genes with Neanderthals.
.
That's quit a big leap what< 500,000 years apart with no other transitions?

[dafydd]

Simply because you want it to be that way.

No,it's because that's the way it is.

[edge]

What would be the reason for evolution, this is what you need to ask?
Is there a reason?

[edge]

No,it's because that's the way it is.

Bullspit!

[dio]

What would be the reason for evolution, this is what you need to ask?
Is there a reason?

Living organisms don't like to die. (They wouldn't be around for long if they did.)

They (as populations) do their best to survive and adapt to changing environmental pressures, and therefore evolve (trough natural selection).

Here's your reason, edge: environmental changes.

They either change with the environment, or they die.

And boy was there a lot of dying. It's estimated that 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct. It's interesting to look at this number from the "perfect creator" perspective. 99% of the his perfectly created species went extinct on a planet he perfectly fine tuned for life.:confused:

[Radrook]

Most creation myths don't mention the order in which different varieties of life came to exist, so it's hard to say for certain whether or not they say it as obvious.

Either way, deciding the order of creation of plants, fish and animals isn't that hard. There are only six possible combinations, and since animals require vegetation to survive, putting plants before animals is a no-brainer.

Sure, most creation myths, which are usually polytheistic, are just nonsense and anything and everything goes.

wacky Creation Myths
http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2009/06/05/6-wacky-creation-myths-around-the-world/


Genesis doesn't claim that the heavens preceded the earth. It says "God created then heavens and the earth", not "God created heavens and then the earth". It could mean they were created at the same time.

Sure. you can look at it as mere coincidence if you want.



Genesis 1:21, God creates the creatures of the sea and all the birds. It's not until the next "day" in Genesis 1:24 that he creates the creatures of the land.

Dry land comes before the birds and sea creatures. Verse 10 cones befoe verse 20.


Genesis 1:10

God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.








So God follows the Ten Commandments? Which Ten Commandments would these be, the Ten Commandments that Christians claim to follow, or the Ten Commandments that God refers to as the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament?

Follows? Well, the Ten commandments are given to Israel to follow. It follows that the one
giving the commandments adheres to its principles. But that's where you probably disagree.




His moral code is found throughout The Bible? You mean how he repeatedly commits & endorses mass murder and genocide?

]Well, that's not technically right. Executions ordered by a court of law are never considered murder unless the victims are viewed as undeserving.



"Can be perceived"... how about we establish an objective measure immoral behavior? I'm sure your God fails to measure up to any objective measure of morality.

Another thread on this forum says that there can never be any objective moral code. Are you a participant of that discussion? I tried to get involved and was told to but out.

[RoboTimbo]

Sure, most creation myths, which are usually polytheistic, are just nonsense and anything and everything goes.

Why do you believe that other creation myths are nonsense?

[dafydd]

Bullspit!

Which creation myth should science take into account? There are a lot.

[RoboTimbo]

No it's dead serious. Stay on topic. The topic isn't me. You know?

Yes, I do know. That's why I'm concerned that you aren't addressing the question I asked.

Why do you believe that other creation myths are nonsense?

[dafydd]

Yes, I do know. That's why I'm concerned that you aren't addressing the question I asked.

Why do you believe that other creation myths are nonsense?

I would like an answer to that question too.

[Brian-M]

Sure, most creation myths, which are usually polytheistic, are just nonsense and anything and everything goes.


Yeah, really wacky creation myths like... And God said "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky".

Imagine, a creation myth so bizarre that it describes the sky as supporting a huge body of water hovering over our heads. I guess that's why the sky appears blue, because of all the water. :D


Dry land comes before the birds and sea creatures. Verse 10 cones befoe verse 20.


Genesis 1:10

God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if dry land was formed before birds, Genesis clearly describes land animals as being created the "day" after birds. This is clearly not in line with scientific understanding of birds having evolved from land creatures, so claiming the genesis story to be "in harmony" with the scientific understanding of the the emergence of life is wrong.

Well, that's not technically right. Executions ordered by a court of law are never considered murder unless the victims are viewed as undeserving.

So, which court of law decreed that all the inhabitants of the earth except Noah's immediate family deserved to be executed? Which court of law decreed that all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah should be killed? Or the people who inhabited the promised land before God gave it to his promised people should be slaughtered?

You can't argue that all these people were evil and deserved to die, especially given that there would have been many small children and babies amongst them.


Another thread on this forum says that there can never be any objective moral code. Are you a participant of that discussion? I tried to get involved and was told to but out.

I'm not a participant of that discussion, although I suppose there could be some debate about exactly what constitutes objective. I'm of the opinion that a basic moral code can be derived from predicted evolutionary behavioral instincts, with morality being defined as a mutually beneficial code of conduct for interacting with other individuals in a family or community.

For example, species with dependent young would have to possess an instinct to protect and nurture their young, so harming or neglecting your young would be immoral. (So when God commanded Abraham to kill his son Issac, he was commanding Abraham to perform an immoral act.)

Another example, humans are social animals that live in interdependent communities, and consequently must have instincts to refrain from causing unnecessary harm to other members of the community. (So when God commanded through Moses that the Levites were to "Go back and forth through the camp, from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor" he was giving an immoral command.)

I am? Go tell that to the local congregation. Haven't attended church in approx 25 years. Only preaching-if you wanna call it that, I do or have done during that time has been on the net. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can call me that if you want.

I must have you confused with someone else then. Not that it really matters what your religious denomination is, but it is natural that some of us have a mild curiosity about it. Would you care to tell us which branch of the Christian faith you associate yourself with?

BTW
I don't particularly like being publicly spoken about in the second person. I consider it rude. If indeed you wish to do that, why not do so in private messaging where I don't have to see it? Thanx!

Didn't mean to be rude, but at least it gives you a chance to correct misunderstandings.

[Marduk]

What would be the reason for evolution, this is what you need to ask?
Is there a reason?

its all about survival, when neanderthal left africa most of europe was in the grip of a severe ice age, so they were the best adapted to live in that environment, there may have been many other types of homo leaving Africa descended from Heidelbergensis but none of them could adapt and so they went extinct very quickly, when homo sapiens left Africa the environment was reasonably warm, so they had no problems surviving and indeed were better adapted to do so when compared with the cold adapted Neanderthal who rapidly went extinct for the usual reasons

now your skull comparisons are not at all valid as you have cherry picked the ones that look the least alike to support a point you have made which is not based on evidence but rather your imagination.

This shows the standard skull shape
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/skulls-1.gif
you can much more clearly see the similarities now can't you (fingers crossed you can overcome your own evidence free assumptions here :D)

This is the standard chart which shows linear evolution of hominid skulls. I'm sure you've seen it before but decided not to use it because it doesn't support your unproven hypothesis. Thats bad thinking Edge, you need to use scientifically valid material to prove something scientifically. (this also means you need to throw out Sitchin)
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/fossil-hominid-skulls-1.jpg
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Its scientifically valid, whereas your 2 skull comparison is not as it does not represent a large enough data set to draw conclusions from

use it.

Specifically your claim is that skulls I through N are not related because they look nothing alike, well that doesn't seem to be the case now does it.

You might want to closely examine the differences between J, K and L which are all Neanderthal and all slightly different. The same can also be said of the morphology of modern homo sapiens groups where skulls are described by their difference in shape inside one species, compare an east african and a european for instance and youll see marked differences, yet are from the same species.
theres a great explanatory video here
http://vimeo.com/477610
its very easily educational and would advance your understanding of skull morphology immensely and is well worth the ten minutes it would take you to watch it, it also has a few things to say about the first Americans which will probably support your stereotypical texan beliefs of the heritage of American man

:p

A study of homo evolution is incomplete without a study of the cycle of ice ages that formed the enovironment they lived in, you should be looking at global temperatures going back over the last million years to see why the homo line are different and why they evolved the way that they did
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/161/atm/id161-g-GlobalTemperatures-m.gif
yes
<<<glad to help
:D

[Complexity]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the fundie's hatred of evolutionary theory is the number of hominid species and varieties that were homos.

[drkitten]

I'm neither, but the simple answer is because Genesis doesn't specify when the universe began, ther than in relative terms, therefore there's no incompability between the two claims.

Doesn't it? Dates that are "relative to" an established absolute date is still absolute -- two days after Christmas is December 27th. The date of the creation of "the heavens and the earth" is established as five days before the creation of Adam on the sixth day. Seth's birth is established as happening 130 years after Adam's creation (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html), and so forth.

Unless you're suggesting that "the heavens and the earth" were somehow created only 6000 years ago, but that "the universe" is somehow different than "the heavens" and was created umpteen billion years ago, I think you're wrong.

[edge]

its all about survival, when neanderthal left africa most of europe was in the grip of a severe ice age, so they were the best adapted to live in that environment, there may have been many other types of homo leaving Africa descended from Heidelbergensis but none of them could adapt and so they went extinct very quickly, when homo sapiens left Africa the environment was reasonably warm, so they had no problems surviving and indeed were better adapted to do so when compared with the cold adapted Neanderthal who rapidly went extinct for the usual reasons

now your skull comparisons are not at all valid as you have cherry picked the ones that look the least alike to support a point you have made which is not based on evidence but rather your imagination.

This shows the standard skull shape
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/skulls-1.gif
you can much more clearly see the similarities now can't you (fingers crossed you can overcome your own evidence free assumptions here :D)

This is the standard chart which shows linear evolution of hominid skulls. I'm sure you've seen it before but decided not to use it because it doesn't support your unproven hypothesis. Thats bad thinking Edge, you need to use scientifically valid material to prove something scientifically. (this also means you need to throw out Sitchin)
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/fossil-hominid-skulls-1.jpg

Its scientifically valid, whereas your 2 skull comparison is not as it does not represent a large enough data set to draw conclusions from

use it.

Specifically your claim is that skulls I through N are not related because they look nothing alike, well that doesn't seem to be the case now does it.

You might want to closely examine the differences between J, K and L which are all Neanderthal and all slightly different. The same can also be said of the morphology of modern homo sapiens groups where skulls are described by their difference in shape inside one species, compare an east african and a european for instance and youll see marked differences, yet are from the same species.
theres a great explanatory video here
http://vimeo.com/477610
its very easily educational and would advance your understanding of skull morphology immensely and is well worth the ten minutes it would take you to watch it, it also has a few things to say about the first Americans which will probably support your stereotypical texan beliefs of the heritage of American man

:p

A study of homo evolution is incomplete without a study of the cycle of ice ages that formed the enovironment they lived in, you should be looking at global temperatures going back over the last million years to see why the homo line are different and why they evolved the way that they did
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/161/atm/id161-g-GlobalTemperatures-m.gif
yes
<<<glad to help
:D

I have viewed your movie from the first link and I find it very good especially the part about suppression.

How long have they been putting us through the….Indians are the first to settle the Americas?

The eye sockets were what I was looking at and the opening for the nose.
What I see even with Neanderthal’s the nose is the key.
What gets me there also is the size of it seems to me that he was more suited for the tropics like the Negro skulls show.
To let heat out quickly from the head.
But the puzzling thing is he was located in a colder climate?
I find that strange even with shorter limbs as a reason for adaptation for a colder
Climate.

It would seem to me that the Caucasian skull is more adapted toward colder climates and the Mongoloid also.


What you have proved is that there were different races within the Neanderthals line.
And yes I can see where climate would make us change.

I still stand on my position that these were two different lines that do not tie together and there would have to be something more that links us to Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” Something a little more definitive.

In order to believe the way I do about Christianity, What I have is this, we were created or re-created or tweaked or manipulated, and our line suddenly appears and is separate.

If this is the case we still have to follow evolution even though we were created/re-created.

What that link also tells me is that about 13,000 years-ago white men dies out on this side of the world where he takes the brunt of a sudden melt possibly and a major change in weather and climate brought on by what I believe is a comet impact.

The survivors on the other side of the globe record these events where it wasn’t quit as bad possibly, since they do record an event that all most kill us off over there.
From they’re the myth or legend takes on other aspects and embellishing.

This is the only time that a deluge could have possibly happened and possibly the splitting up of the continents, which would account for many things including more flooding and would account for Caucasians dying out on this side of the world…

This would make Genesis somewhat correct in a general manner.

I believe no matter what at about 50,000 years ago we became aware of God and he made himself known, possibly when our brains became what they are today and that expansion of brainpower made us an ascension being so that we could understand the God aspect.

There is an opposite of suppression.

[edge]

Revelation!

[sphenisc]

Doesn't it? Dates that are "relative to" an established absolute date is still absolute -- two days after Christmas is December 27th.

Yes, if there's a clearly established absolute date and time period between them. If there isn't a defined time gap between "the beginning" and "the first day", then that doesn't apply. We can only conclude it happened at some point before the first day.


The date of the creation of "the heavens and the earth" is established as five days before the creation of Adam on the sixth day.

Not if there's a gap between v1-2 and v3, which I think is the general, or at least common, belief of old-earthers.

[dafydd]

Yes, I do know. That's why I'm concerned that you aren't addressing the question I asked.

Why do you believe that other creation myths are nonsense?

Still waiting for an answer.

[dafydd]

Below is one explanation given by some Christians who as not young- earth believers:

I was referring to the moments when we are told God created heavens and earth. Those moments can be viewed as prior to the seven day periods which come later. Since these days are mentioned after the creation of heaven and earth, they can be understood as earth-environment preparatory days. For example, Genesis initially describes earth as a water-world covered in darkness. Since the heavens had already been created, then this darkness had to be caused by something obstructing light from reaching earth's surface. So when Genesis takes us to the days and tells us that sun moon stars and other heavenly bodies appear in the firmament, this is can be understood to mean that whatever was obstructing that light from an earth surface vantage point was removed. The light was allowed to penetrate our atmosphere although in an dim manner initially. The next stage caused a thinning of that atmosphere. via separation of waters above from waters below causing a canopy through which these heavenly bodies could be finally seen. In fact, the Hebrew word itself which is used to describe the process can be interpreted as "made to appear" and so allows for this interpretation.

About the dinosaurs, some have speculated that each preparatory day was seven-thousand years long. Making the six creative days 36,000 years long. That conclusion is based on the continued reference to the seventh day of rest being mention in the Greek scriptures as still being in progress during the first century bce. a little math would give us then within this framework the time that the dinosaurs appeared. Which of course contradicts the millions of years that science currently claims. In short, by adhering to this interpretation were move one disagreement and replace it with another! LOL

The important thing to keep in mind in all this is, however, is that the Genesis account allows for the billions of years science requires. So there is really no need to argue on behalf of a young universe and earth. Not also that the creation of life sequences are in harmony with current science. Sea life is mentioned before land life-for example. Also, the heavens are mentioned prior to the earth which harmonizes with the earth being only a few billion years old while the universe is far older.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

[six7s]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the fundie's hatred of evolutionary theory is the number of hominid species and varieties that were homos.God hates phages

[Marduk]

What that link also tells me is that about 13,000 years-ago white men dies out on this side of the world where he takes the brunt of a sudden melt possibly and a major change in weather and climate brought on by what I believe is a comet impact.

NEWSFLASH
white man didnt exist 13,000 years ago, the gene that produces white skin didn't become dominant until 12,000 years ago at the earliest, there goes your racist beliefs eh
:rolleyes:

The survivors on the other side of the globe record these events where it wasn’t quit as bad possibly, since they do record an event that all most kill us off over there.
From they’re the myth or legend takes on other aspects and embellishing.

There is no sudden die off of humanity at this time, there goes another of your assumptions



This is the only time that a deluge could have possibly happened and possibly the splitting up of the continents, which would account for many things including more flooding and would account for Caucasians dying out on this side of the world…

There were no Caucasians anywhere in the world at this time, you are equating skull shape with skin colour, tell me, where did you get your degree in medicine and anthropology to make such a nonsensical claim ?
This would make Genesis somewhat correct in a general manner.

Genesis is based on older mesopotamian texts. the Jews knew nothing until Babylon

I believe no matter what at about 50,000 years ago we became aware of God and he made himself known, possibly when our brains became what they are today and that expansion of brainpower made us an ascension being so that we could understand the God aspect.

Our brains have been what they are today for 195,000 years.
The God you are talking about doesn't exist until 2600 years ago (and then clearly he is a syncretisation of other deities) , what was he doing for the 192,400 years in between ?


There is an opposite of suppression.
or in your case assumption and invention and basic incomprehension of the facts
:p

[Brian-M]

There were no Caucasians anywhere in the world at this time, you are equating skull shape with skin colour, tell me, where did you get your degree in medicine and anthropology to make such a nonsensical claim ?

Be fair, he might be an expert in phrenology. :)

[six7s]

Sure, most creation myths, which are usually polytheistic, are just nonsense and anything and everything goes. If you are implying that the creation myth of your woo is somehow something other than mere "nonsense', please DO explain

Otherwise, please do try harder to be less vacuous and inane... you're really letting your side of the argument down

TYIA :)

[dafydd]

If you are implying that the creation myth of your woo is somehow something other than mere "nonsense', please DO explain

Otherwise, please do try harder to be less vacuous and inane... you're really letting your side of the argument down

TYIA :)

He certainly is.Radrook,I am of the opinion that all creation myths are woo,can you give me a reason why yours is not? No quotes from the bible please.

[Brian-M]

He certainly is.Radrook,I am of the opinion that all creation myths are woo,can you give me a reason why yours is not? No quotes from the bible please.

Hang on a sec, his creation myth is the very first part of the Bible. You're asking him to defend his creation myth without quoting any part his creation myth? :confused: That hardly seems fair. At least let him quote from Genesis 1 & 2.

ETA: But his defense of those quotes (and the rest of Genesis 1 & 2) has to be based on logical and/or scientific grounds.

[dafydd]

Hang on a sec, his creation myth is the very first part of the Bible. You're asking him to defend his creation myth without quoting any part his creation myth? :confused: That hardly seems fair. At least let him quote from Genesis 1 & 2.

ETA: But his defense of those quotes (and the rest of Genesis 1 & 2) has to be based on logical and/or scientific grounds.

Good point.I was hoping to avoid the bible is true because the bible is true schtick.

[Marduk]

Be fair, he might be an expert in phrenology. :)

He certainly needs his bumps felt
:D

[edge]

He certainly needs his bumps felt
:D

It was from your link, that you provided.
They looked like modern Europeans, Caucasians...
:)

[six7s]

It was from your link, that you provided.
They looked like modern Europeans, Caucasians...
:)No

Marduk was responding to your "nonsensical claim":
This is the only time that a deluge could have possibly happened and possibly the splitting up of the continents, which would account for many things including more flooding and would account for Caucasians dying out on this side of the world…There were no Caucasians anywhere in the world at this time, you are equating skull shape with skin colour, tell me, where did you get your degree in medicine and anthropology to make such a nonsensical claim ?

Anyhoo... As it's highly unlikely that you'll even try to substantiate your earlier nonsensical claim...

You're now telling us that you can tell ethnicity from photos of skulls?

Please, do explain

[Marduk]

Basically Edge, its like this, racial skull shapes were sorted out around, 30 - 40,000 years ago, skin colour lagged behind by at least 20,000 years. So theres no way you can look at a skull and determine what colour skin covered it, (unless its more than 13,000 years old in which case you can definitely say that its non white) thats completely irrelevant to racial stereotyping in the same way that skin colour is irrelevant to what colour person you get a new heart from in a transplant, claiming it is, is like saying that because you got a chinese heart that you are south east asian
;)

can you answer this question
Q. How many races of humans are there currently inhabiting this planet

[six7s]

...like saying that because you got a chinese heart that you are south east asianLikewise... getting a heart transplanted from a baboon, right?

What about getting a baboon's brain?