Creationism vs. Evolution...Really, Really? (pt.2)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Creationism vs. Evolution.....Really? (Original Thread)Some Christians have taken a stance that Evolution is just a theory. Well, I wonder if such a theory can be supported with Scriptures. But, Genesis doesn't exactly inform us on how God created the universe and its inhabitants. When I read Genesis, I get the feeling that all things came to be as a result of Order. Can we make an argument for Evolution as being of God?
.......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004
There is a pendulum that swings from one side , called "Creationism", to the other side, called "Evolution". The pendulum may one day come to a stop on the center of its path of truth. What will the center reveal?It has been asserted that Creationsim and Evolution Theory are not adversaries at all, but are actually harmonious in the explanation of the existence we see in nature. Well, here is my next question:
What should a believer in God accept from Creationism and Evolution Theory that Science and Scriptures reveal?
...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.
Is it OK to believe in Devolution - That some things have devolved over time and some creatures exist that were not in the same form at Creation?How can one explain a spider's behavior? Did God create a spider, which survives by trapping other creatures and then feeding on their guts? The question would be, how can one believe death did not exist before ADam sinned if spiders exist? Did spiders learn how to kill? Or were they created to kill? What did whales and sharks eat before they ate other fish? Seaweed? Wouldn't the oceans fill to overflowing with sealife if all fish reproduced and never died - or were never eaten by bigger fish?
The typical belief in Creationism is difficult... that God created everything perfectly and what we see now is exactly the same creatures that existed then.
I tend to agree that it's somewhere between, but not humans from apes. maybe apes devolved from humans? ;)
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.
"Is it OK to believe in Devolution - That some things have devolved over time and some creatures exist that were not in the same form at Creation?"A: To me, the term "devolution" would mean a regression from more complex organisms to less complex forms. That is the opposite of what we know has happened, so I don't see how the term would apply.
"The question would be, how can one believe death did not exist before ADam sinned if spiders exist?"
A: We know for a fact that not only spiders, but all kinds of huge carnivores existed long before human beings did. When a Tyrannosaurus caught and ate a smaller dinosaur, it's prey was most certainly dead. Or an 80-foot shark with 5-inch teeth just like those of a modern great white. These creatures were designed by God to exist by killing other animals. A saber-toothed tiger certainly didn't eat leaves. And if it did, it would have quickly starved, as its teeth are completely unsuitable for anything but tearing flesh. And of course, the carnivores themselves eventually died. If they continued to reproduce and never died, they would soon overrun the earth. We also have the preserved remains of animals which died gory deaths in hot tar pits. Death is a normal element of biological existence, and has been since the first biological organisms were created.
Therefore, a biblical interpretation to the contrary is certainly unsupportable. If the Bible says that death entered the world through sin, then we know that statement must be true, for the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, proper interpretation of just what that truth actually means must be established in light of any incontrovertible truth that already exists. Simplistic face-value, knee-jerk interpretations made irrespective of known truth or any deeper thought are usually dead wrong.
We know that death, often violent and gory, was present in the world long before human beings existed. So then, what does the Bible mean when it says that death entered the world through sin? Since it cannot possibly refer to biological death as such, it must have one of two other meanings. Either it refers to (1) the biological death of human beings specifically; or (2) it doesn't refer to biological death at all, but only to spiritual death. Some theologians believe that human beings, if they had never sinned, would have been assumed into heaven body and soul at the end of their earthly existence, as Mary was. Others believe that biological death is innate to human nature, since a biological body is innate to human nature, and death is innate to biological existence; but that forfeiture of eternal life (spiritual death) entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. Of course, this second view is necessarily contained within the first view as well. Either view is compatible with orthodox Catholic theology.
> "The typical belief in Creationism is difficult... that God created everything perfectly and what we see now is exactly the same creatures that existed then. I tend to agree that it's somewhere between, but not humans from apes. maybe apes devolved from humans?"
A: Humans clearly did not evolve from apes. There is no fossil evidence whatsoever to even suggest such a thing. Besides, humans and apes are both still here! No evolutionary biologist has ever suggested such a riduculous idea. The notion of humans evolving from apes is a foolish ploy frequently used by so-called "creationists", preciscely to make the concept of evolution look ridiculous. But from a scientific viewpoint, it is totally absurd. Of course it didn't happen!
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2004.
"Devolution" would probably never occur. The de-evolved creature would become extinct. Nature has a way of ridding the weakest link................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.
Paul M., you are brilliant! I fear that, if we were on "Jeopardy", I would be the first to become extinct from the contest. You would be there longer than "what's-his-name" winning millions.You've taught me much, thanks!
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 13, 2004.
"A: We know for a fact that not only spiders, but all kinds of huge carnivores existed long before human beings did."Not if you believe the creation account as given in the book of Genesis...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 13, 2004.
I fully believe the Creation account given in the book of Genesis - properly interpreted. I don't believe unauthorized, untenable personal interpretations which conflict with the known truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2004.
"I fully believe the Creation account given in the book of Genesis - properly interpreted. I don't believe unauthorized, untenable personal interpretations which conflict with the known truth."If you truly believed this Paul, you would not have made the following statement that is not the truth according to God's word: "A: We know for a fact that not only spiders, but all kinds of huge carnivores existed long before human beings did."
The word of God "properly interpreted" and "known truth" as you say does not allow for "spiders" or "all kinds of huge carnivores" having "existed long before human beings did".
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 13, 2004.
> "The word of God "properly interpreted" and "known truth" as you say does not allow for "spiders" or "all kinds of huge carnivores" having "existed long before human beings did".A: Since we know for an absolute fact that such animal life did exist millions of years before humans, because we have their physical remains, accurately dated, it would therefore not be possible to interpret the Word of God accurately and arrive at an opposite conclusion. No, this doesn't mean that science has more authority than the Word of God. It means that in this case what we know from science is clearcut, while what we read in the Bible on the subject is sketchy and open to multiple interpretations. In such a case, incontrovertible knowledge we already have from other sources should guide our interpretation of questionable passages.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2004.
Paul,You said:
To me, the term "devolution" would mean a regression from more complex organisms to less complex forms. That is the opposite of what we know has happened, so I don't see how the term would apply.
We *know* no such thing unless you ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics--which shows that everything decays in time and that nothing improves or becomes more complex with time.
How--in a world that is slowly regressing, in a world where everything slowly ages and dies--can the theory of evolution possibly be true?
We know that death came upon the earth as well as all its creatures and that this curse was both physical and spiritual.
Even Paul understood as much:
Romans 8:20-22
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
God said to Adam:
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
-- (What is Creation Science@thinktank.com), November 14, 2004.
We *know* no such thing unless you ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics--which shows that everything decays in time and that nothing improves or becomes more complex with time.Im sorry, btu this si an old Creaitonist Canard. The secnd Law of Thermodynamics does NOT prevent evoution.
The second law speaks of phsyical object sbeign effecte dby Unertia and htta ordered systems revert to Chaos in a CLOSED environment. However, we are in an OPEN envirponemtn, constantly getitgn energy fromt he Sun. The sun is in a closed environen and slowly using up all its fuel, btu as logn as it brins brightly in space, we have power coming in, thus allowin for progression rather than digression.
Liekeie, by the second law of thermodynamics argumet, Computers shoid be LESS advanced now than 10 years ago. Cars shoidl bbe less advanced. every machine shodul be Instead we see progression, evolution if yo will, o macines ... formt he old M-YU that took up an enture floor and coidl only do basic calculatons, to the modern Laptop which is as thin and lgith a a ntoebook, we see advnacement, all possible becase we have new soruces of nery comign form th sun.
evolution is also not talkign abotthhe spcific decay of singular hsycial objects over time, btu genertic adaption tat takes palce.
the thermodynamic argument is FALSE!.
-- zarove (zaroff3@juno.com), November 14, 2004.
Zarove--The very essence of evolution, in fact, is random mutation, not scientific progress.
The question Zarove, is not is there still enough energy from the sun to sustain evolution?--the question is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution?
Pretending that I understand what you said, you seem to think that the Second Law doesn't apply to us because we are an open system. The most common response of the evolutionist is to deny the Second Law to such open systems as the one on earth. Buut what you are doing is confusing quantity of energy with conversion of energy.
Although it is true that the two Laws of Thermodynamics are defined in terms of isolated systems--it is also true that in the real worls there is no such thing as an isolated system!
All systems in reality are opened, and furthermore--they are all open in greater or lesser degree, directly or indirectly, to the energy from the sun.
Therefore to say that the earth's a system open to the sun's energy doesn't explain anything since the same statement is true for every other system as well.
In all systems, the Second Law describes the tendency to go from order to disorder--in most systems, time produces an actual change from order to disorder.
There do exist a few type of systems in the world where one sees an apparent increase in order, superficially offsetting the decay tendency specified by the Second Law. Examples would be the growth of a seed into a tree or a fetus into an adult--or even the growth of a brick into an entire building.
But if one examines closelyall such systems to see what enables them to temporarily sidestep the Second Law (because all organisms eventually die and all buildings eventually collapse), you will find that at least two criteria must be satisfied. There must be a program to direct the growth, and there must be a power converter to energize the growth. But what are they?
The answer is that no such code and mechanism has ever been identified. Where in all the universe does one find a plan which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? Where does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of of worms into populations of men--over vast periods of time?
The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are--to put it kindly--inadequate for such a gigantic task. Mutation is not a code, but a random phenomenom.
Until the evolutionist can do more than speculate--and in fact demonstrate that there does exist some vast program in nature that does direct the growth toward higher complexity of the marvelous organic space-time unity known as the terrestrial biosphere (not to mention that of the cosmos).., then the whole evolutionary idea is negated by the Second Law!
The Creation Scientist is warrented in concluding that the evolutionary process is completely precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 14, 2004.
Zarove-- The very essence of evolution, in fact, is random mutation, not scientific progress.{The poitn is hat progression of machiens shoudl be imposisble by this fallacious argument.}-Zarove
The question Zarove, is not is there still enough energy from the sun to sustain evolution?--the question is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution?
{If there is enough enrgy to sustain life, then their is enough energy to sustain evolution. If ther is energy enoug for animals to thriv an reproduced, then their is enough for evolution. So the shrot answer is yes, their isOtherwise we woultb be abkle to live, thrive, and reprodice. All fo these thigns we do.}-Zarove
Pretending that I understand what you said, you seem to think that the Second Law doesn't apply to us because we are an open system.
{No, I said that because we revcive enrgy fromt he sun, the second law of thermodynamics is a bad argunet for creation sicne livign hings obviously reprodice and live ... see, we recieved new energy, and thus we are not gign to sink into total entropy.}-Zarove
The most common response of the evolutionist is to deny the Second Law to such open systems as the one on earth.
{This sint a common arugent form an evolutionist, its a simpel fact of Nature. The second law doesnt relaly make evolution imposisble, because all you need for evolution to be posisble is thr aulity for the animal to grow, live, thrive, and reprodice. Thast it. If you accept that we have these abilities, then you accept we have the energy to evolve.
You dotn have to accept evolutionary theory, btu you do have to accept this simple fact.Otherwise you undermine your whole argument.}- Zarove
Buut what you are doing is confusing quantity of energy with conversion of energy.
{No, what Im doign is stating a fact. Since animals live and thrive and reprodice, we have enough enrgy to do so, and since we hve enough energy to so, if evolution is true, we are capable of evolviung because the acutal amount of enrgy needed to evolve is the same as is needed to reprodice.}-Zarove
Although it is true that the two Laws of Thermodynamics are defined in terms of isolated systems--it is also true that in the real worls there is no such thing as an isolated system!
{False, there are many closed systems...the Universe is an enclised ystem, with smaller systems within, that will eventually cool down... and stop.}-Zarove
All systems in reality are opened, and furthermore--they are all open in greater or lesser degree, directly or indirectly, to the energy from the sun.
{then you just destoryed the argument which you supported. The second law of Thermodynamics doesnt prevent evolution.}-Zarove
Therefore to say that the earth's a system open to the sun's energy doesn't explain anything since the same statement is true for every other system as well.
{I didnt say it proved anyhting, all I said was that usin the second law of thermodynamica to discrdit evolution is a bad argument.}-Zarove
In all systems, the Second Law describes the tendency to go from order to disorder--in most systems, time produces an actual change from order to disorder.
{But most systems arent living beings, capable of desision ( And mist animals are capable of desision to soem degree) and reprodiction of organic life forms. And, to make this noted, even random cnages can occure in a system sinkign into disorder, more ocmplexe doesnt mean more ordered...}-Zarove
There do exist a few type of systems in the world where one sees an apparent increase in order, superficially offsetting the decay tendency specified by the Second Law. Examples would be the growth of a seed into a tree or a fetus into an adult--or even the growth of a brick into an entire building.
{thede don violate the second law, even apparently, sicne they are conroled actions beign guicded ( which no oen on this baord yas evolution was not) and becuae a constant supply of energy coemd form the sun, as noted earlier...}-Zarove
But if one examines closelyall such systems to see what enables them to temporarily sidestep the Second Law (because all organisms eventually die and all buildings eventually collapse), you will find that at least two criteria must be satisfied. There must be a program to direct the growth, and there must be a power converter to energize the growth. But what are they?
{1: Since everyone here beleived in Hod this is a moot queasion.
2: You misrepresent the second law, tehcniclaly even in an atheistic model you can get these same disruptions sicne htey dotn violate he second law.}-Zarove
The answer is that no such code and mechanism has ever been identified.
{DNA. Its clled DNA... as for buildigns an extenral entety ( man) consturcts them...}-Zarove
Where in all the universe does one find a plan which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? Where does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of of worms into populations of men--over vast periods of time?
{Again, this is Ask Jesus, we are all Christain that rgularly participate, and we all say the same thing...God did all of this. The toruble is you seem tot hink God cant guide evolution...}-Zarove
The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are--to put it kindly--inadequate for such a gigantic task. Mutation is not a code, but a random phenomenom.
{Not nessisarily, theistic evolution sttates God controles the outcome...Why do you asusme eovlution is automatclaly antithetical to theism?}-Zarove
Until the evolutionist can do more than speculate--and in fact demonstrate that there does exist some vast program in nature that does direct the growth toward higher complexity of the marvelous organic space-time unity known as the terrestrial biosphere (not to mention that of the cosmos).., then the whole evolutionary idea is negated by the Second Law!
{How? Because you said so? Asorry, teven an ahtiestic model works within the confines of the seocnd law of you undertsnad that Biological organisms can emerge in a Univers ein decay!}-Zarove
The Creation Scientist is warrented in concluding that the evolutionary process is completely precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
{And this shows their ignorance or thir willign deception sicne the second law cannot negate eovlution sicne it doesnt relaly state that nothgin can evolve, sowiugn the midnlessness of the creaitonist who uses it!}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.
It is God who set in motion the Second Law of Themodynamics. It's called the curse--or fall of man.Why would God have to rely on evolution anyway? For one thing-- evolution is inconsistent with God's personality. The Bible tells us that God created the universe for his glory.., because of His love and desire to have a personal relationship with us. So why would an omiscience God rely on evoltion where it wasn't until the very tail- end of geolgic time that persoanalities *evolved* and He could have a relationship with us?
Why would an all powerful God have to be subject to the world through evolution--which is filled with extinctions and misfits and evidence of very poor planning?
If God's purpose was the creation and redemption of man--as theistic evolutionists presumably believe--it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point. What semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred-million year reign and eventual extinction of dinosaurs--for example?
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 14, 2004.
"If God's purpose was the creation and redemption of man--as theistic evolutionists presumably believe--it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point"A: If God's purpose was the creation and redemption of man - as Christians who happen to be biological scientists most certainly believe - and if God intended to create man ex nihilo, in the absence of any biological process - why would He waste billions of years between creating the earth and "getting to the point"?
I don't see that God's timetable regarding the creation of man is supportive of either position vs. the other. God created man when, in his infinite wisdom and will, He decided it was time to do so. That is equally true regardless of how He chose to actually bring man into existence. If you are concerned about why He waited so long, you'll just have to ask Him when you meet Him.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 14, 2004.
It is God who set in motion the Second Law of Themodynamics. It's called the curse--or fall of man.{No, its not. The laws of thermodynamics are nessesities of Physics, wihtout them outr Universe woiltn work tright. if the second law didnt exist timm the fall of Man, then how, pray tell, did hte Universe work before?
Likewise, the cure was alreayd liften, all thst remained was mans sinfulness and need for redeption, but the curse on the earth was lifted already. dnt beelive me? Turn to scirptures.Genesis 8:21 makes it clear the curse was liften. I am ruely amazed at how many Christaisn miss this and asusme we are still under this curse spken of in Genesis chapter 3 and 4.
21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.}-Zarove
Why would God have to rely on evolution anyway?
{I didnt sday he had to do anything, but onthat note, why creae spontaneously? discussign what God did do is nto the same as limitign him to this optin as a possibility.}-Zarove
For one thing-- evolution is inconsistent with God's personality.
{Not relaly, sicne he slowly developed his peopel Israel in preparation for the comming Messiah, oen can safely say hat a slow march to the goal is comletley consistant with his personality.}- Zarove
The Bible tells us that God created the universe for his glory.., because of His love and desire to have a personal relationship with us.
{Yes and no. Youw ill find verses that say all was created for his glory, but no verse that states that al the Universe was made so Hod coul ahve a relaitonship wiht humanity. That is a modern idea, not a scriptural one. Indeed, the Universe was made for God's glory, and this end alone serves it. We also serve that end, but we are not the reason everythign else was created. Nor can you say this without citing a spacific scripttue to veify this. Note: Genesis 1:26 isnt sufficient, as fgiving man dominion of a single planet is not suffucient toprove the whole Universe was made for man, nor even that the earth was made for man.It just means he is the one in charge of his world.
Also note: why coudltn creaiton be ongoing, and not static?> Woudln that be more grandeurous for an etenral God? A ever unfoldign creation?}-Zarove
So why would an omiscience God rely on evoltion where it wasn't until the very tail- end of geolgic time that persoanalities *evolved* and He could have a relationship with us?
{Maybe because no wher ein the scirotrue does God tell us he created the woel Universe for us, nor de sit say he created he whoel Universe so he coidl have a relaitonship with us!
Indeed, he said he coidl raise stones and trees to praise him, and yet you are so arrogant as to asusme all of creaiton revvles around man! Did not Job make this same error?}-Zarove
Why would an all powerful God have to be subject to the world through evolution--which is filled with extinctions and misfits and evidence of very poor planning?
{First off, this is nonsence. You asusme humanity was the plan all along, which is not nessisarily the case. Man is merly part f e paln, not the whole of the plan, nor even the poit of the plan. God is the poin, not humanity. Also, evolution diesnt make God subject to the world, it merley i a means of which he wodl choose to make an unfolding, progressive creration.}-Zarove
If God's purpose was the creation and redemption of man--as theistic evolutionists presumably believe--it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point.
{And if man was not the point of the Universe? Again, yo must prive form scrpotute this was the point to begin with, otheriwse you are makign a presumption, and an arogat oe ta palces man above he station God alotted. Man was alloted a high station by God, but od can eaily make another race fit this station, we ar ehi subjects, and God is not beholden to us to keep us the dominent speicies on thid planet, or even toperpetuate our lives.
also, why woidl god set up the redeption f man> why not just make man where he never fell? Now if he gave man the choice, then he didnt plan the redeption except as a contengency for the fall, if on the other hand he planned the reeption and designed it, this makes him responcble fr the fall in he irst place. That is a darker theological aspect, I htink. I reject the notion that God made us for redeption as well, icn it means God made us so we wodl sin and fall, an in the end makes him guilty of our sins, this I refuse most asututly.
Also note: evolution to a theistic evolutionist isnt aimless, you asusme all evolution is random, and godles, and all creationism is God-Centred, yet as most her demonstragte, theistic evlution asusmes a drected eolutionary proccess uner God's guidance and/r controle, whereas your form of creaitonism makes man the centre of the Universe.}-Zarove
What semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred- million year reign and eventual extinction of dinosaurs--for example?
{Is God's purpose only to hav a rlaitonship with us? If not, thrn their rule srves to magnify God, and so now doe sour reign, and I ee no real problem with htis.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.
Well Paul,You may believe that God used billions of years between creating the earth and creating man--but the evidence does not support old age earth.
Do you think that when God created Adam., He started with an infant? Or do you think he made Adam as a full-sized adult? What about Eve?
If he made them full-grown, how old were they? What would their age appear to be?
Are you saying that God couldn't have created everything about seven thousand years ago--even though the earth would appear older than that?
And how much older does the earth's evidence reveal it to be?
Consider population alone. Even if the population were assumed to grow so slowly that it would only reach 3.5 billion people in a million years, it is still true that at least 3000 billion people would have lived and died on the earth in the past million years. So where are their remains? Where is their cultural evidence? In reality- -their is no evidence of such population.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 14, 2004.
Ill repeat thispost as it sems missed.It is God who set in motion the Second Law of Themodynamics. It's called the curse--or fall of man. {No, its not. The laws of thermodynamics are nessesities of Physics, wihtout them outr Universe woiltn work tright. if the second law didnt exist timm the fall of Man, then how, pray tell, did hte Universe work before?
Likewise, the cure was alreayd liften, all thst remained was mans sinfulness and need for redeption, but the curse on the earth was lifted already. dnt beelive me? Turn to scirptures.Genesis 8:21 makes it clear the curse was liften. I am ruely amazed at how many Christaisn miss this and asusme we are still under this curse spken of in Genesis chapter 3 and 4.
21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.}-Zarove
Why would God have to rely on evolution anyway?
{I didnt sday he had to do anything, but onthat note, why creae spontaneously? discussign what God did do is nto the same as limitign him to this optin as a possibility.}-Zarove
For one thing-- evolution is inconsistent with God's personality.
{Not relaly, sicne he slowly developed his peopel Israel in preparation for the comming Messiah, oen can safely say hat a slow march to the goal is comletley consistant with his personality.}- Zarove
The Bible tells us that God created the universe for his glory.., because of His love and desire to have a personal relationship with us.
{Yes and no. Youw ill find verses that say all was created for his glory, but no verse that states that al the Universe was made so Hod coul ahve a relaitonship wiht humanity. That is a modern idea, not a scriptural one. Indeed, the Universe was made for God's glory, and this end alone serves it. We also serve that end, but we are not the reason everythign else was created. Nor can you say this without citing a spacific scripttue to veify this. Note: Genesis 1:26 isnt sufficient, as fgiving man dominion of a single planet is not suffucient toprove the whole Universe was made for man, nor even that the earth was made for man.It just means he is the one in charge of his world.
Also note: why coudltn creaiton be ongoing, and not static?> Woudln that be more grandeurous for an etenral God? A ever unfoldign creation?}-Zarove
So why would an omiscience God rely on evoltion where it wasn't until the very tail- end of geolgic time that persoanalities *evolved* and He could have a relationship with us?
{Maybe because no wher ein the scirotrue does God tell us he created the woel Universe for us, nor de sit say he created he whoel Universe so he coidl have a relaitonship with us!
Indeed, he said he coidl raise stones and trees to praise him, and yet you are so arrogant as to asusme all of creaiton revvles around man! Did not Job make this same error?}-Zarove
Why would an all powerful God have to be subject to the world through evolution--which is filled with extinctions and misfits and evidence of very poor planning?
{First off, this is nonsence. You asusme humanity was the plan all along, which is not nessisarily the case. Man is merly part f e paln, not the whole of the plan, nor even the poit of the plan. God is the poin, not humanity. Also, evolution diesnt make God subject to the world, it merley i a means of which he wodl choose to make an unfolding, progressive creration.}-Zarove
If God's purpose was the creation and redemption of man--as theistic evolutionists presumably believe--it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point.
{And if man was not the point of the Universe? Again, yo must prive form scrpotute this was the point to begin with, otheriwse you are makign a presumption, and an arogat oe ta palces man above he station God alotted. Man was alloted a high station by God, but od can eaily make another race fit this station, we ar ehi subjects, and God is not beholden to us to keep us the dominent speicies on thid planet, or even toperpetuate our lives.
also, why woidl god set up the redeption f man> why not just make man where he never fell? Now if he gave man the choice, then he didnt plan the redeption except as a contengency for the fall, if on the other hand he planned the reeption and designed it, this makes him responcble fr the fall in he irst place. That is a darker theological aspect, I htink. I reject the notion that God made us for redeption as well, icn it means God made us so we wodl sin and fall, an in the end makes him guilty of our sins, this I refuse most asututly.
Also note: evolution to a theistic evolutionist isnt aimless, you asusme all evolution is random, and godles, and all creationism is God-Centred, yet as most her demonstragte, theistic evlution asusmes a drected eolutionary proccess uner God's guidance and/r controle, whereas your form of creaitonism makes man the centre of the Universe.}-Zarove
What semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred- million year reign and eventual extinction of dinosaurs--for example?
{Is God's purpose only to hav a rlaitonship with us? If not, thrn their rule srves to magnify God, and so now doe sour reign, and I ee no real problem with htis.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.
Zarove,The curse of the earth through Adam was not lifted---we still experience death and we still see decay.
Genesis 8 has to do with a different judgement. God said he would never curse the earth again in a judgement like the world-wide flood. He promised never to judge us again like He did with the flood.., at least, not until the time that Christ returns.
So Zarove--you don't think that God created us for His glory--and all of creation to prove to us--who He is? This, of course, without force- -otherwise we would be mere robots.
You think he created dinosaurs to impress Himself? Do you think dinosaurs can be redeemed too? Do you think that there is a plan of salvation for monkeys?
No.
Thje Bible is clear that God created us for his glory--for intimacy and a relationship with Him, and that we are at the center of everything He created. Yes. We are His reason for everything. He loves us that much.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 14, 2004.
Zarove, The curse of the earth through Adam was not lifted---we still experience death and we still see decay.{It is NOT written that th curse was death and decay, nor is it written that Adam and eve wher eimmortal tll they ate he forbidden fruit. in fact, the reverse seems true, sicn ehtye where pushed pou ho the garden to PREVENT them form takgn of the tree of life and becomign immortal! No where oes it say Adam and eve where ever immortal, and death and decay are NOT the curse.
It was the land that was cursed, read below.
17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Though man must still labour, the earth is no more cursed for mans sake. However, it was MAN'S LABOUR IN A HARD WORLD THAT REFUSED TO GIVE FOURTH FRUIT that was ghe curce, NOT death and decay, God differed that punihsment in light of the cercumstances.
I beelive what is written, NOT what you claim is written.}-Zarove
Genesis 8 has to do with a different judgement. God said he would never curse the earth again in a judgement like the world-wide flood.
{False, soacificaly he said he woidl no more curse the land for man's sake.
Read the whoel verse.
21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
This part doesnt deal with God's promise not to flood th world again, that comes in Chapter 9!
9. And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10. And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
THIS is the covenant not to flood the world again, th ormer vers form chapter 8 is a liftign of the general curse.}-Zarove
He promised never to judge us again like He did with the flood.., at least, not until the time that Christ returns.
{No, he said never again, so in tor warped interpretaiton, Christ can never return becuase God can never judge us!
No, the verse doesnt say God will never flood the earth again, the net Chapter makes that claim, chapter 9. Chapter 8 lifts the general curse placed upon the land. None claim God will nto judge us, sicne God always judges eahc of us. he just wont curse the land any more nor will he flood it.}-Zarove
So Zarove--you don't think that God created us for His glory--
{Thats warpoign what I said. I said he created everythin for his glory, and not everythign was made for man.}-Zarove
and all of creation to prove to us--who He is?
{That is correct, creation was not spaciiclaly made to prive to US who he is. Nor was it made spacificlaly for us.}-Zarove
This, of course, without force- -otherwise we would be mere robots.
{ If we can choose then we chose tof all, and redeptionw as nto Gods plan, btu nessesitated by our choices. I woidl n need salvation if I didnt enter danger.}-Zarove
You think he created dinosaurs to impress Himself?
{He made everythign for his own ends, and his own glory, and his own purpose.}-Zarove
Do you think dinosaurs can be redeemed too?
{No, sicne htey where never lost.}-Zarove
Do you think that there is a plan of salvation for monkeys?
{ Monkeys dotn sin, nor did they rebel. If Monekys had sinned, they woidl be the oens to be redeemed. sicne they did not fall, they need no salvation, sicn ehteir soul are clean.}-Zarove
No.
{Again, huamn centredness I fear in your theology.}-Zarove
Thje Bible is clear that God created us for his glory--for intimacy and a relationship with Him, and that we are at the center of everything He created.
{Show, don tell. The Bibel said we ar einsignifigant, the Bibel said we are animals, and the Bible said we are made for God, not everythign else for us.
If you doubt me, read Psalms, proverbs, and ecclesiasties. if you want to shwo me where everyhtign is human-centred, then show me a verse,don dictate, show.
Here are a few or you.
Ecc 3:18 18. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Job openign chpter 38
Job 38
1. Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3. Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6. Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Priverbs 16:4. The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
No verse says we wher emsde to hav a relationship with God and everyhtign else for us. Nothign says we are the putpose of creaiton and all else was amde for us t have a relationship with God.
If you want ot prov eme wrogn cite scri;pttues! Ungtul then human arrogance is not accpetable doctorine.}-Zarove
Yes. We are His reason for everything.
{Which is revealed in what pasage of scripture?}-Zarove
He loves us that much.
{Before he made us we didnt exist to love. He didnt love us enoguh to create a Universe for us, he create dus in a Universe that alreayd existed to take care of one planet. he loves the bees less to you, but to me he counts every sparrow when thy fall. To you, the worm is less than man, to God, the worm and man are equel. Doeds God not love hi other creations? Or wa sman his prpose for all as you cliam? If so, show me where God daid all thigns where made for man, or else be ilent on yuor arrogance.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.
> "You may believe that God used billions of years between creating the earth and creating man--but the evidence does not support old age earth."A: Every shred of genuine evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Your interpretations of biblical texts are not evidence.
> "Do you think that when God created Adam., He started with an infant? Or do you think he made Adam as a full-sized adult? What about Eve?"
A: Undoubtedly the biological beings into which God breathed eternal life, thereby creating Adam and Eve, were adult. Otherwise they would not have been able to survive on their own. Why do you ask?
> "If he made them full-grown, how old were they? What would their age appear to be?"
A: We have no way of knowing. Obviously they were of child-bearing age. What difference does it make?
> "Are you saying that God couldn't have created everything about seven thousand years ago--even though the earth would appear older than that?"
A: I would never say that God "couldn't" do something. But we know He didn't create everything seven thousand years ago because we have fossils which we can prove to be a billion years old.
> "Consider population alone. Even if the population were assumed to grow so slowly that it would only reach 3.5 billion people in a million years, it is still true that at least 3000 billion people would have lived and died on the earth in the past million years. So where are their remains? Where is their cultural evidence? In reality- -their is no evidence of such population."
A: Humans have not existed for a million years. Nowhere near it. Our species has only been on the planet for about 30,000 years. Where are the remains of all those who have passed away? A few of them, who were buried under precise conditions of temperature, humidity and soil chemistry are preserved as fossils. The great majority have returned to the soil and been recycled, just as the Bible says. (Ecclesiastes 3:20)
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.
It's not too far-fetched to believe that some creatures have changed over time. Look at all the different breeds of dogs and how different they appear. Compare a chihuahua to a golden retriever. Both came from the same parents. Given time, it's not so hard to believe that even more significant changes can occur between cousins.I'm not claiming we originated from sludge. I'm saying, there has definitely been a change in the appearance and survival abilities of all creatures... including humans.
Nature "favors" the stronger/meaner specimen. Relative to the environment, the genes of the stronger/meaner survive and the "weaker" specimen become extinct.
This is why the command of Jesus to "turn the cheek" is hard for us to accept. It seems to violate nature.
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
Hi MaxWell, where does "Devolution" fit into what you have just said? It seems to contradict your idea of "Devolution".
....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
A: Humans have not existed for a million years. Nowhere near it. Our species has only been on the planet for about 30,000 years. Where are the remains of all those who have passed away? A few of them, who were buried under precise conditions of temperature, humidity and soil chemistry are preserved as fossils. The great majority have returned to the soil and been recycled, just as the Bible says. (Ecclesiastes 3:20)Sorry Paul, Humans , of the Genus Homo, has been around for 2 Million years, with Cro-magnion man appearign about that time. 30'000 years ago is the date for MODERN man, which is different form Cro-Magnion only in tehcnological applicaiton. They where farmers, not wanderign nomads as their ancestos where.
Have to correct Creation sicentistss errors, have to correct yourts. Its only fair.
I woudl liek to see, however, a verse rom creaitonm sicnetist saying all the Universe was made for man so we coidl see God. Any verses coming yet?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 15, 2004.
"This is why the command of Jesus to "turn the cheek" is hard for us to accept. It seems to violate nature. "--Max.You are implying that an agressive attack should be countered with an agressive attack? Haven't we evolved to the understanding that two wrongs don't make a right? Yes. The evolved creature would know not to react with more agression, but with intellectual problem solving. We are to avoid violence. The "smarter" one will know when the time is right to use agression. That's what makes him the victor. Hopefully, he may not need to use retaliation as a weapon, but only as a means of remedy. It is the evolved person who can win over his enemies through understanding, not through violence. So, who is the the victim destined for extinction? The agressor or the oppressed? I would imagine that because of the huge numbers being oppressed, it is only a matter of time before the oppressor becomes eradicated. Look at our situation in Iraqi. Them terrorists had their day. It seems that violence could not be avoided in their eradication. I wonder then, if our evolved nature has really changed that drastically. But, if we compare the two societies, I'd rather live in America. I don't have to fear being killed for human rights.
................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
"This is why the command of Jesus to "turn the cheek" is hard for us to accept. It seems to violate nature. "--Max.I would think that Jesus was teaching us not to be like nature or to be above nature in the sense of being Christ-like. That would cause our nature to evolve, yes?
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
Paul you claim:A: Every shred of genuine evidence indicates the earth is several billion years old. Your interpretations of biblical texts are not evidence.
Creation Science has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible--but with interpreting the same physical evidence left behind that you interpret. The difference is that I can use the light of God's Word to help me understand this evidence and the evolutionist does not have any such record--only his guess work.
A: Undoubtedly the biological beings into which God breathed eternal life, thereby creating Adam and Eve, were adult. Otherwise they would not have been able to survive on their own. Why do you ask?
I ask because if you were to examine him--he would likely give the appearance of being what? Twenty? And yet he would be only moments old. Why can't this be possible with respect to the universe as well?
A: We have no way of knowing. Obviously they were of child-bearing age. What difference does it make?
Again--it makes me wonder why you don't recognize that we could believe God's Word when He says He created everything in six days. Just because you think the universe looks like it had to take billions to evolve doesn't really mean anything in light of who God is.
A: I would never say that God "couldn't" do something. But we know He didn't create everything seven thousand years ago because we have fossils which we can prove to be a billion years old.
That makes no sense in light of His Word and in light of the fact that our dating methods are unreliable at best--and even if these fossils could be shown to appear that old--like with Adam, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
A: Humans have not existed for a million years. Nowhere near it. Our species has only been on the planet for about 30,000 years. Where are the remains of all those who have passed away? A few of them, who were buried under precise conditions of temperature, humidity and soil chemistry are preserved as fossils. The great majority have returned to the soil and been recycled, just as the Bible says. (Ecclesiastes 3:20)
Well I disagree and there is plenty of evidence, like the lack of fossil remains, that indicates man has only lived for about seven thousand years. Just consider recorded history. Are you going to believe that man existed for 30,000 years yet never advanced to the point of being able to keep records until the recent past?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 15, 2004.
Whoops, The above post is from thinktank. Forgot to delete Paul's name at end of his post.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 15, 2004.
Are Thinktank and Faith the same person posting?.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
Yes, Rod.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
Thanks, Elpidio.I..., but I just wanted to make sure that they were indeed the same poster. Confusion and chaos are specific things to avoid!
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 15, 2004.
Ive notied She still has not ansswered my queatsion. where in scripture has God said all Creaiton was made ofr man, to show man of God, and because he loved us and wanted a relaitonship with us.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 15, 2004.
> "Creation Science has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible--but with interpreting the same physical evidence left behind that you interpret. The difference is that I can use the light of God's Word to help me understand this evidence and the evolutionist does not have any such record--only his guess work."A: Creationism has everything to do with interpreting the Bible - not accurately, but nevertheless interpreting it. Faulty biblical interpretation is the underlying foundation of Creationism. Yes, Creationists do indeed "interpret" the same physical evidence that scientists interpret. However, scientists interpret the evidence with an open mind, in an effort to determine the objective truth, while Creationists "interpret" the evidence to their own ends, with the sole purpose of supporting their unauthorized, uneducated guesses concerning the meaning of Scripture. Of course, by "Creationists" I do not simply mean people who recognize that God is the Creator. By that definition I would be a "Creationist". What I mean by "Creationists" is exactly what I described above. Why would you think you can use God's Word to understand science? That is not the purpose of God's Word. God's Word is truth, but that doesn't mean it provides the truth about every subject on earth. Can you use God's Word to help you understand cooking? You might try, but a cookbook would be far more helpful and authoritative.
> "I ask because if you were to examine him--he would likely give the appearance of being what? Twenty? And yet he would be only moments old. Why can't this be possible with respect to the universe as well?"
A: There was a time when the universe WAS only 20 years old. However, since then it has been undergoing constant change, and leaving a constant trail of evidence of such changes. It can be determined how long such changes take to occur, and therefore how old the universe must be in order to have undergone those changes. Unless you are suggesting that God created the universe only recently, but built into it physical evidence of changes that never actually occurred? What would be the point of that?
> "Again--it makes me wonder why you don't recognize that we could believe God's Word when He says He created everything in six days. Just because you think the universe looks like it had to take billions to evolve doesn't really mean anything in light of who God is."
A: Do you know what a "day" is? Do you realize that a period of 24 hours is not a "day" anywhere in the universe except on the surface of this little rock we inhabit? A "day" is defined as the period of revolution of a planet. A "day" on Jupiter is only 9.8 earth hours in length. A "day" on Venus lasts 243 earth days. If you are not on the surface of a planet, there is no such thing as "days"! Why would the infinite and eternal God, Who exists outside of time, in creating the entire universe, be subject to a schedule that is dictated by the period of revolution of one little planet in one solar system, in one galaxy among millions, in a universe which didn't even exist yet??? Talk about being egocentric! The "days" of creation simply refer to periods of time. Very long periods of time from a human perspective, yet less than the blink of an eye to a timeless God. This is completely in keeping with the findings of science. We know from science that there were indeed definite successive periods of time during which various aspects of the universe came into being - first the stars, then planets, solar systems, then atmospheres and weather, then plant life, then animal life, and finally human life. There is never any conflict between true science and divine revelation. No genuine truth, regardless of its source, can ever be in conflict with any other genuine truth, regardless of its source.
> "That makes no sense in light of His Word and in light of the fact that our dating methods are unreliable at best--and even if these fossils could be shown to appear that old--like with Adam, it doesn't necessarily mean anything."
A: Although it is a perpetual chant of Creationists that "our dating methods are unreliable" this is anything but a "fact". Rather, it merely demonstrates the degree of scientific ignorance which characterizes these folks. Of course, many of the anti-scientific, pseudotheological works from which they draw their unfounded beliefs are older then they themselves are. You can tell that when they refer to "carbon 14", the only form of radioisotope dating they have ever heard of. Early attempts at Carbon 14 dating were in fact often inaccurate by as much as 15%. But today carbon 14 dating has been greatly improved, while other sophisticated methods employing radioisotopes like uranium 235, potassium 40, thorium 232 and rubidium 87 now allow for extremely accurate dating of mineral deposits.
> "Well I disagree and there is plenty of evidence, like the lack of fossil remains, that indicates man has only lived for about seven thousand years. Just consider recorded history. Are you going to believe that man existed for 30,000 years yet never advanced to the point of being able to keep records until the recent past?"
A: Even if there was a lack of fossil remains, a lack of something cannot be used as evidence. A witness in court can't say "I didn't see him do it, therefore he could not have done it". Evidence consists of observations, not lack of observations. In any case, the period of 30,000 years was not picked out of a hat. Such a time frame is given precisely because of the fossil remains that HAVE been found, dating back to that time period. Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. We know this by repeated and consistent carbon dating of many fossil remains from various localities. Why argue with the facts? Why are you so insistent on tearing down the demonstrable facts, just because they don't fit your personal guesses about Scripture? You are trapped in a religious tradition that is characterized by faulty scriptural interpretation, resulting in continual fragmentation into thousands of conflicting sects and denominations. What justification then could you possibly have for insisting that all facts gathered by all people in all time and places must fit your private interpretation of God's Word? In fact, scientific truth properly understood DOES mesh beautifully with God's word, properly understood. You are blind to the harmony between divine revelation and natural science because you do not properly understand either one.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 15, 2004.
Paul,You didn't answer my question.
If Adam could be created in a moment and look twenty years old--you don't think God could also have created in a moment the universe--to look older than it actually is, just like Adam?
You might ask *why* would he do that? But I ask, Why not? Why would God have to actually meander for billions of years to get to the good part? He didn't meander for twenty years waitng for Adam to grow up-- did he?
And for that matter--if you recognize that man was created spontaneously and instantly--and then he re-produced from that point on--where does evolution come into the picture? Man was always man. He was never a bacteria or fish-like thingy that slowly evolved into man--as the evolutionist would have you believe. I know you'll claim that the evolutionist does not purport to know how life originated, but in fact the insinuation is there. Short of admitting to a creator- -there is little else one can assume.
What theistic evolution does is try to harmonize God's Word with atheistic science. I suggest that compromizing God's Word to make nicey-nice with secularism--is not necessary.
By-the-way., Creation Science can be studied apart from the Bible and you need to discover just *What is Creation Science?*
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 15, 2004.
Paul, You didn't answer my question.{You didnt answer mine...}-Zarove
If Adam could be created in a moment and look twenty years old--you don't think God could also have created in a moment the universe--to look older than it actually is, just like Adam?
{God coiudl ahve doen this...liekwise we coidl all only be a day old, and God mde us think we wher eolder by implantign memories and creating outr pasts and its evidence and effects... why woidl he do thst? makign a full grown Adam makes sence sinc he woidl need ot be able to survive, makign a young Univers elook old is needless though...}-Zarove
You might ask *why* would he do that? But I ask, Why not? Why would God have to actually meander for billions of years to get to the good part?
{Why do you assme no good parts happened billions of years ago? again, this si base don yuor ASSUMPTION that all fo creaiton was made for humanity, and so God could revela himself to us, and that evdrythign was made for us and we to have a relationship wut God.
Yet you site no scriptureal support for this assertion, its all just made up fantasey it seems.
Again, I ask, wh could no good parts have happened befoe mankind was created?}-Zarove
He didn't meander for twenty years waitng for Adam to grow up-- did he?
{Again, Adam woidl have been made mature by this argument for the express putpose of beign able to survive on his own, semtign babies cant do. However, he coidl survuve in a yougunierse provided soem thigns where given to support his biology...si why make it look old when its new?}-Zarove
And for that matter--if you recognize that man was created spontaneously and instantly--and then he re-produced from that point on--where does evolution come into the picture?
{I dont think thats what Paul said, and then theirs the other theory that evolution as i is dosnt occure, rather God creates, then coems bakc and creates again in a differnt tiem period... woidl exlain pnctuated equilibrium...}=Zarove
Man was always man. He was never a bacteria or fish-like thingy that slowly evolved into man--as the evolutionist would have you believe.
{Which you can prove how?}-Zarove
I know you'll claim that the evolutionist does not purport to know how life originated, but in fact the insinuation is there. Short of admitting to a creator- -there is little else one can assume.
{Many beleive in God and evolution, therefore, they beelive od sarted the whole proccess...}-Zarove
What theistic evolution does is try to harmonize God's Word with atheistic science.
{No, what it does it try to harmonise te two things we hold as truth, eovlutionary proccess and the existance of God. I admit I have more fiaht in the existanc eof God than evolution, but the two are perfeclty compatable.}-Zarove
I suggest that compromizing God's Word to make nicey-nice with secularism--is not necessary.
{Yeah Im not rellay a secular guy.However. te eivdence compells me to at leats consier evolution.}-Zarove
By-the-way., Creation Science can be studied apart from the Bible and you need to discover just *What is Creation Science?*
{Show me any creationism that IS NOT baed on the Bible... while your at it sow me a vedrse that said evedrythign int he Universe was made so God coiudl reveal himself to man because he loved us that much, and all creaiton was so we, humanity, cil have a relationship with God...still waitign for that verse.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 15, 2004.
I will look for some Scriptural support for my contention that God's main reason is us...but i am surprised that you haven't gleaned that for yourself by now. It is a continual revelation throughout Scripture.I would also add Zarove--that evolution could be the very thing God uses to confound the so-called wise people who are actually perishing because they have not believed God. God says that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing and that he has confounded the wisdom of the wise. Evolution is a theory that comes from those who do not believe God.
You can find out just what creation Science actually is by reading the book, "What is Creation Science?" written by Morris/Parker. There is a difference between Biblical Creationism and Creation Science.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 15, 2004.
I will look for some Scriptural support for my contention that God's main reason is us...but i am surprised that you haven't gleaned that for yourself by now. It is a continual revelation throughout Scripture.{Nothign in scirotrue, and i hav rea all 66 books in the standard Bible, recveal this, only that God does love us and wants to redeem us. Not hat creation was fo man. quirt the reverse is revealed, all creaiton, even us, are for God.}-Zarove
I would also add Zarove--that evolution could be the very thing God uses to confound the so-called wise people who are actually perishing because they have not believed God. God says that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing and that he has confounded the wisdom of the wise. Evolution is a theory that comes from those who do not believe God.
{Darwin wasnt relaly an Atheist, neither are all proponants of the theiry of Evolution. I lean toward the posion of centrality and make no final judgement on the matter. However, many fine, upstandign Christaisn accept it, at elat as a theoretical modle of how God created. The Cross is not foolishness ot them, and yet they likewise accept evolution. This is not a Christyain VS the secularist topic.}- Zarove
You can find out just what creation Science actually is by reading the book, "What is Creation Science?" written by Morris/Parker. There is a difference between Biblical Creationism and Creation Science.
{I think I iwon tyat book, and i use to be intereste din cresitonism. went to ICR, AIG, and a few others ( Avoided that fraud Hovind though)
I knwo what Creaiton science is, and its still base don Biblcial undertsanding. withouthte Bible, they woidltn be creaitonists.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 15, 2004.
"What theistic evolution does is try to harmonize God's Word with atheistic science. I suggest that compromizing God's Word to make nicey-nice with secularism--is not necessary."A: There is no such thing as "atheistic acience". There is biological evolution, which is simply science, and therefore by definition neither theistic or atheistic, since God is not within the realm of valid scientific subject matter; and there is atheism, a position which can be held by a scientist or a social worker or a surgeon or a policeman, which however does not make biology or social work or surgery or police work "atheistic".
There is likewise no such thing as "theistic evolution";but there are a great many people who are devout Christians accepting the fullness of God's truth who recognize that also accepting scientific truth cannot present any conflict since truth can never conflict with truth. It's a real shame when people sincerely want to follow Christ, yet hold such bizarre interpretations of His Word that they have to fear and reject obvious evidence from other sources in order to desperately cling to their beliefs. Christ said the truth would set us free. I believe Him.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.
I woidl tend to agree Paul, however, we shall wait to see this evidence for creaitonism, minus the Bible, should it be delivered to us.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 16, 2004.
"What is Creation Science?" written by Morris/Parker--(Thinktank).That book. Will it be anything like that wall formation you linked us to?
Anybody can write a book about anything. Any group of people can rally around any given idea, opinion, or belief.
The ideal situation is to leave all biases aside while one seeks for information, evidence, and truth. Ha!
Does Evolution have the power to destroy one's theology? How can it? I doesn't seem like it can when we make efforts to find its Source. Evolution sure does look real. I've even heard rumors that new stars are born. So, things do come to be way after the beginning. This gives a whole new meaning to "In the beginning, God created...".
............ ..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 16, 2004.
Paul?Since when is the *theory* of Evolution a scientific fact? In what way is it even scientific?
And how is it more scientific that Creation Science--since they both are based in *hypothesis* followed by the study of the earth and creation around us?
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 16, 2004.
The "theory" of evolution is the common thread which provides continuity among the biological sciences, just as the atomic THEORY is the common thread which provides continuity among the chemical sciences. At least we have seen the remains of extinct species. No-one has even seen an atom! Yet in every science course, not only is the existence of these THEORETICAL particles taught as fact, but even the details of their subatomic structure! You obviously have no concept of what a scientific "theory" is. I have never met a "creationist" who did. Both evolution and atoms are technically theories, since neither one can be observed directly, yet both are supported by such overwhelming bodies of evidence that they constitute the very foundation of science, and until valid evidence is presented to suggest that either theory might be wrong, both will be presented as the best possible explanations for all of the available evidence.As I already said, "creationism" is the exact opposite of science, as it begins with an unchangeable conclusion, then desperately seek bits and pieces of information which can be twisted into statements seemingly supportive of the conclusion they are trying to legitimize, while completely ignoring all evidence that cannot be made to contribute to their cause - which is at least 95% of the available evidence.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2004.
Paul,How would anyone know if evidence contrary to the theory of evolution is out there--since no one allows the possibility to be even introduced in school?
Creation Scientists have lots of evidence contrary to the theory of evolution, but it is silenced! Why? What are the evolutionists afraid of?
Not to worry though--slowly but surely, Creation Science is making its way into the public domain and people are starting to listen. It won't be long before students will have the opportunity to decide for themselves which theory better fits the earth in which we live and the creation all around us.
Evolution has been taught almost exclusively in the public schools for decades. This has been defended by saying that evolution is science. The fact is, however, that the Creation Model fits the real facts of science at least as good as evolution, and many think-- better.
If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists maintain, then they should have nothing to fear from such a two-model approach. Creationists are perfectly willing to let the issue be decided on the basis of the scientific evidence alone--so why aren't the evolutionists?
Paul, you still haven't answered my question. If God could create Adam with an *apparent age*, then why couldn't he do this with all of His creation? What need would there be for evolution if He created everything instantaneously in the begining?
If God created Adam fully grown and then Eve., and then they reproduced--what does that do to the theory of evolution that says man evolved from a lesser form?
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 16, 2004.
Paul, How would anyone know if evidence contrary to the theory of evolution is out there--since no one allows the possibility to be even introduced in school?{tHE "EVIDENCE" FOR CREAITON HASNT BEEN SILENCED, SO MUCH AS THE EVIDENCE FOR EVLUTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THIS SINT RELAY A CONSPIRACY, RATHE, THE PEVIALIGN VEIW IS WHAT IS GEENRLALY TAUGHT. aT LEAS IN GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.}-Zarove
Creation Scientists have lots of evidence contrary to the theory of evolution, but it is silenced! Why? What are the evolutionists afraid of?
{How is it silenced? and what evidence?}-Zarove
Not to worry though--slowly but surely, Creation Science is making its way into the public domain and people are starting to listen. It won't be long before students will have the opportunity to decide for themselves which theory better fits the earth in which we live and the creation all around us.
{Thats OK, but relaly not nessisary for discussion... its jusy progogana.}-Zarove
Evolution has been taught almost exclusively in the public schools for decades. This has been defended by saying that evolution is science. The fact is, however, that the Creation Model fits the real facts of science at least as good as evolution, and many think-- better.
{This is an odd statement. I eman, if the creaiton modle fits as well, then the creaiton odel can be claimed as sicne, but his dosnt invaidate the evolutionary modle... thereofre it IS a scientific theiry, thus science...}-Zarove
If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists maintain, then they should have nothing to fear from such a two-model approach.
{Its less about fearign the teachign of creaitonism becaue it treatens evolution, and more because they veiw creaitonoism as pseudo- sicnece that shoudl nto confuse yougb minds...}-Zarove
Creationists are perfectly willing to let the issue be decided on the basis of the scientific evidence alone--so why aren't the evolutionists?
{Because the creaitonots arent, they want to fill th pages with treaosns aaisnt, and use pseydo-sicnectific approaches and take liberties with facts...}-Zarove
Paul, you still haven't answered my question. If God could create Adam with an *apparent age*, then why couldn't he do this with all of His creation?
{And again, i hav answered it, why wodi he? Adam was made an adult capable of carign for himself for the sake of survuval. The Unives eon the other hand didnt need ot zppear old to sirvive and take cae of itself, a yougn creation wodil do just fine...}-Zarove
What need would there be for evolution if He created everything instantaneously in the begining?
{None, but that is the whoel crux of the debate, not what use is it, btu if it happeend...}-Zarove
If God created Adam fully grown and then Eve., and then they reproduced--what does that do to the theory of evolution that says man evolved from a lesser form?
{Depends on what you mean by evlution and how you think the event sp;ye dout...}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 16, 2004.
"The "days" of creation simply refer to periods of time."This is not true...
If this is what the Catholic Church teaches, this is just one more of their (many) errors that cannot be found in God's word.
Have you not read in Genesis 1:5, "...So the evening and the morning were the first day."
and
Genesis 1:8, "...So the evening and the morning were the second day."
and
Genesis 1:13, "So the evening and the morning were the third day."
and
Genesis 1:19, "So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
and
Genesis 1:23, "So the evening and the morning were the fifth day."
and
Genesis 1:31, "So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
and
Genesis 2:2, "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."
Evening & Morning = 1 day = 24 hour period...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 16, 2004.
Its a poetic couplet, used in hebrew poetry...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 16, 2004.
Kevin, actually, the Catholic teaching is that God created the universe in the way He saw fit. However, the Church makes no statement as to the method in which He created it (eg. over long periods of time or in 7, 24-hour days).The Bible is not really clear on this either, because our days are measured by the earth's revolutions. However, the Earth or "dry ground" was not created until the third day. How then do we measure the first 3 days of creation? Perhaps they are not literal days.
Some hold the position that the first chapter of Genesis portrays creation in a poetic sense, and the second chapter in a more story- like sequence. This non-consecutive order must be acknowledged because when we see in chapter 2 that there is no man or shrubs, this seems to contradict chapter 1 in which God had already created plants and man.
Thus, it is in keeping with both Catholic teaching and the Bible to say that God created the universe in the way He chose, and there are certain things He had in mind. However, the time period in which it was created remains ambiguous because God has not chosen to reveal that. Personally, I do not know a lot about science and I could go either way, but I lean more toward young-earth theories.
To find out more about the Catholic beliefs, I suggest reading the CCC sections on:
The Creator
Heaven and Earth
Man
The FallGod bless,
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), November 16, 2004.
"If God created Adam fully grown and then Eve., and then they reproduced--what does that do to the theory of evolution that says man evolved from a lesser form?"A: Only an atheist would claim that "man" evolved from a lesser form. The Bible reveals that man was created when God breathed spiritual life into a biological entity He had previously formed from the dust of the earth. Evolution simply describes the process by which God may have formed that biological entity. This cannot be contrary to Scripture, since Scripture doesn't describe the way in which God brought the body of man into existence. God created Adam and Eve fully grown because the biological bodies which He had formed for them - by whatever process He chose to use - were at that time fully grown.
> "Evening & Morning = 1 day = 24 hour period"
A: Kevin, as I already pointed out, your equation holds true only on the surface of this planet, not anywhere else in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe, and most certainly not outside of the universe. "Morning" and "evening" are simply manifestations of a planet's rotation. Therefore the "days" of creation are clearly metaphorical.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.
Paul,I am sure that you recognize that what you are doing is nothing more than speculate--trying to harmonize an atheistic view of life with the Bible, right?
Since the author of the book of Genesis is describing revelation about creation to the earthbound man--from an earthbound man's perspective--there is no reason not to understand Scripture from the earthbound standpoint. The day should be understood as an earthly day. And with God--anything is possible, such as creating Adam instantaneously to appear as an adult of twenty years old. He did the same with respect to all of creation and indicates this in Genesis.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.
And just why would I as a Christian be interested in "harmonizing an atheistic view of life with the Bible"?? Indeed, how would i even be able I do so, having no personal experience of "an atheistic view of life"? I pity anyone who holds an atheistic view of life. I value truth, and atheism is the ultimate ignorance. However, trying to live one's life based on unsupported personal guesses about the meanings of scripture passages is also an ignorance-based approach to life. The only thing I am interested in harmonizing is truth from one source with truth from another. In fact, such truths are already in perfect harmony, as are all genuine truths.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.
Faith.It is obvious that you have chiseled away at a scientific process to make it fit your perception of things. Perhaps you should read more science books and then take the time to understand what you have read. Obviously, you do not have a firm grasp on reality of things involving science. Basically, the reason you don't is because you reject science. That makes you biased and unable to give good sound information. Your truth is faulty. It still looks like a chicken leg and an ocarina............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Here are two fossilized Wooly Mammoths.Oops! maybe not. They're ocarinas.
:) ............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Emily,To someone who is firmly committed to the geological agaes (and therefore to evolution), there is no alternative but to give up belief in Genesis as an actual historical record of not only creation- -but then of anything else it reveals such as the genealogy of the Messianic line down to Abraham in Gen. 11, followed logically by the first recorded events in the life of Abraham in Gen.12. These two teachings have been recognized as factual-universally. How can one trust supposed factual history in a book where the first eleven chapters have been reduced to nothing more than allegory?
This type of Biblical exegesis is out of the question for any real believer in the truth of God's Word. Theistic evolutionary thought cuts out the foundation of the entire Biblical system when it expunges Genesis 1-11.
Later writers of the Scriptures often refer time and time again to the early recorded history in Genesis, always accepting them as both factual history and authoritive doctrine.
Moses refers to the six-literal-day creation, in Exodus 31:17: It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested...,and to the division of the nations at Babel in Deuteronomy 32:8: When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples.
Joshua 24:2 accepts the account in Genesis 11 of Abraham's ancestors: Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods.
1 Chronicles 1:1-28 repeats the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10, and 11 as though it were fact. How can we question the revelation of creation and consider it just a poetic allegory, when mixed within the same Scripture is other information we accept as fact?
Liberal theologians have given up on Genesis as an actual historical record for just the things that they cannot harmonize with the man- made, atheistic concept of evolution, while at the same time-- accepting other revelation within the same verses as being factual. These people wish to retain some kind of confidence in the divine inspiration of Genesis rather than to reject it completely.Accordingly, they have decided (based on a preconceived notion about evolution) to consider the creation story as some kind of literary device rather than the actual historical account it is presented as. They view these first chapters as essentially a rhetorical framework within which is developed the spiritual themes of creation, of man's fall, and of reconciliation. These themes vary, of course, between the different particular expositors.
They ignore the fact that Jesus himself refered frequently to these early verses in Genesis in support of some of His most important teachings. His doctrine of marriage--for example, was based explicitly on a combined quotation from the first two (supposedly contradictory!) chapters of Genesis. Matthew 19:3-6: Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
I think that modern theologians who wouldeliminate the first eleven chapters of Genesis from the realm of true history--have to eliminate the entire revelation contained within them. They would, however, be guilty of eliminating the true foundation of our faith--thus leading to eventual apostacy. They virtually reduce the teachings of such men as the apostle Paul, Peter, and all biblical writers for that matter, as "naive superstition" and the teachings of Christ as being deceptive accomadationalism!
Frequent stress is placed on God as the creator of *all* things. That leaves no room for the theory of evolution as evolution is not necessary. God created everything in the begining about seven thousand years ago. He created everything with *apparent* age., and things have varied within it's own kind since then. But no evolution in the *macro* sence has ever been seen or proven. The population of man and his recorded history is in harmony with the idea that man has been around for exactly as long as God reveals.
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.
Where/Who did you get that article from?.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
It's not an article rod, and why do you need to know? So you can attack an author? I already made mention of my source. This is my paraphasing and it is mixed in with my conclusions. Can you address the topic today with any kind of theology?
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.
It's not an article rod, and why do you need to know?(It sounds like an article. It is common practice to check one's sources. That if we are to keep things kosher. You do wish to keep things honest, yes?)--rod.
So you can attack an author?
(That's not my style. That's your style.)--rod.
I already made mention of my source. This is my paraphasing and it is mixed in with my conclusions.
(Yes, let's make sure that we give credit where credit is due. That's called,"honesty".)--rod.
Can you address the topic today with any kind of theology?
(Can you address the topic today with any kind of science?)--rod.
Did you have a chance to look at the ocarina website?
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Questioning my honesty is an attack on me personally rod.I told you that I wrote that post--paraphrasing sometimes and that I used my own words and conclusions.
I also revealed already that one of my books is titlaed "What is Creation Science" by Parker and Morris., which I re-advertise everytime I sing my post! I will not keep reiterating that.
May I remind you that the theory of evolution is no more a science and every bit as much a religious philosophy as Creation is?
-- ("What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.
I question your honesty based on previous episodes, Faith. Just as you question the validity of the Catholic Church, which is an attack on those who are Catholic. So, let's not play games. You shall be judged by the way you judge others, remember?"May I remind you that the theory of evolution is no more a science and every bit as much a religious philosophy as Creation is?"-- Faith/TT.
Well, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to accept a little bit of science in your thinking, considering that we are just talking about "philosophy".
But, you can keep on reminding me all you wish. I shall continue to do likewise when the time comes. I figure that all the time you open the door I shall enter, be it cordial or rude. That's fair, yes?
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
To someone who is firmly committed to the geological agaes (and therefore to evolution), there is no alternative but to give up belief in Genesis as an actual historical record of not only creation-
{Not true. I disagree with some of what Paul M says, however, I likewise disagree with you. One can hold Genesis to be correct and still adhere to the evolutionary theiry. in fact, such was done long before christ was Born, by Jewish scholars who themselves used the raw Hebrew and estimated the eaerths age to be greater than only a few thousand years. Again, the Opening accounts of Genesis are larglry poetuc in nature and not mean tot be taken literlaly, as far as "evenign and Morning" are concerned. Indeed, in the origional Hebrew, it doesnt say " And evenign and mornign where the fiest day" it just says " evening was, then Morning". This was traditionally understood to mean " Evenign and morign where the first day" ect, but it was not nessisarily so.
One can hold to the Genesis acocunt of creation, and still maintain an evlutionary beleif, wihtoyt contradiciton if one understands the exact nature of the passage in queatsion.
I also reject emily's post on the two creaiton accounts. It is a popular thing to say, but I hold that the events of chapter 2 are nto a retellign of the creaiton account, but rather a continuaiton fo the story form chapter 1. After all, in the origional Hebrew exts, there is no divide between the chapters, those where added later to help with reference. Ther eis no indication that Capter 2 was mean tot recap creaito, intead it eems to procceed as a single natrrative, wihhte events fllowign the ones in the ormer chapter.}-Zarove
-but then of anything else it reveals such as the genealogy of the Messianic line down to Abraham in Gen. 11, followed logically by the first recorded events in the life of Abraham in Gen.12.
{And everyone else, snce it reveals the creaito of Humanity... form a creationist standpoint, it is true to say it reveals the geneology of the hwoel human race. Nogt just the messiah's...}-Zarove
These two teachings have been recognized as factual-universally.
{Only Abraham was promised that his seed woudl number as the stars, and his offspring woild be a ligh tot he world. Not Adam and eve. swhereas logiclaly Abraham, a a decendant of Adam and eve, woudl nesisarily have prodiced further decedndants of the pair, and thus Jesus woudl have deended fom them, spacificlaly the geneology of the famly of the Jews, and thus Jesus of Nazareth, begins at the story of Abraham.}-Zarove
How can one trust supposed factual history in a book where the first eleven chapters have been reduced to nothing more than allegory?
{First 11? We are only really discussing the first 3! And it hasnt all been redced t Allegory, I think you misunderstand te position we are asserting.}-Zarove
This type of Biblical exegesis is out of the question for any real believer in the truth of God's Word. Theistic evolutionary thought cuts out the foundation of the entire Biblical system when it expunges Genesis 1-11.
{1-3, not 1-11, we didnt even tlak about chapters 4-11... that said, no, it doesnt, since the basic message is the same.}-Zarove
Later writers of the Scriptures often refer time and time again to the early recorded history in Genesis, always accepting them as both factual history and authoritive doctrine.
{No, thy didnt alwats refer tothem as such. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, all accepted them in a mroe poetic sence. The Jewish Rabbi's of befoe the churhc age likewise acepted them in a poetc rather than direclty literal sence...SOME accepted them as direclty literal, OTHERS as allegory, and still OTHERS as poetic epic...there was never concensus.}-Zarove
Moses refers to the six-literal-day creation, in Exodus 31:17: It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested...,and to the division of the nations at Babel in Deuteronomy 32:8: When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples.
{Which can ALSO be interpreted figuratively since Moses is neing figurative.}-Zarove
Joshua 24:2 accepts the account in Genesis 11 of Abraham's ancestors: Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods.
{Not only did our discusion not leave the irts three chapters, as I siad befoe,but relaly, this sint even a direct reference to chapter 11 nessisarily... }-Zarove
1 Chronicles 1:1-28 repeats the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10, and 11 as though it were fact.
{wqhich matters how, sicne we didnt even remoitley cast doubt on chapters 5, not 10, not 11? Againm firts three Faith, not first 11.}- Zarove
How can we question the revelation of creation and consider it just a poetic allegory, when mixed within the same Scripture is other information we accept as fact?
{By knowing Hebrew culture and midnset. They often mixed poetry with factual iformation. They wherent modern westerners who wrtoe only in tecnically accurate terms in textbook format for their histories, they included poems, songs, allegory, and interpretation. }-Zarove
Liberal theologians have given up on Genesis as an actual historical record for just the things that they cannot harmonize with the man- made, atheistic concept of evolution, while at the same time-- accepting other revelation within the same verses as being factual.
{Evolution is not, in and of itsself, atheistic, Im no theological Liberal, and I do drop Genesis as facutal, I merley recognise it as a poetic expression of what happened, which is fiting for the creaiton acocunt...}-Zarove
These people wish to retain some kind of confidence in the divine inspiration of Genesis rather than to reject it completely.
{Or else they merley see higns differently than you do, and sincerely beleive this is correct?}-Zarove
Accordingly, they have decided (based on a preconceived notion about evolution) to consider the creation story as some kind of literary device rather than the actual historical account it is presented as.
{How do ytou explain those who also beleived it poetic centiries before Darwin was even Born? How do you explain thise who thought it poetic and not dureclty literal in ages past that even preceed Jesus of Nazarets's advent? How do you explaint he writitngs of some Chruhc Fathers who liekwise reject all that you say here now? ritten in he first three centuries? Obviosuly, their is reason to reject the interpretaiton you use aside form merley accepting " Atheistic" evlution.}-Zarove
They view these first chapters as essentially a rhetorical framework within which is developed the spiritual themes of creation, of man's fall, and of reconciliation. These themes vary, of course, between the different particular expositors.
{The themes remain constant, and, likewise, we all here said its mroe than a general theme or an allegory, all we said was hat it was presented poetuclaly, not allegoriclaly.}-Zarove
They ignore the fact that Jesus himself refered frequently to these early verses in Genesis in support of some of His most important teachings. His doctrine of marriage--for example, was based explicitly on a combined quotation from the first two (supposedly contradictory!) chapters of Genesis.
{So? As I said, I and othes here only veiw it as a poetic presentaiton fo factual events, not as mere allegory and mythology. even f we did beleive it mere allegory, Jesus could use the allegory as an illustration... }-Zarove
Matthew 19:3-6: Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
{See above... why coudln Jesus use a myth as an illustration in a teahcing? Liekwise, we ahven said it was allegorital, merley poetic...do yo understand the difference?}-Zarove
I think that modern theologians who would eliminate the first eleven chapters of Genesis from the realm of true history--have to eliminate the entire revelation contained within them.
{first three chaptes, not fost 11... and likewise, its ot remoed formt he relm of hisotry, andvn if it was, thr revelation is made the point of the allegory, an thus shoudl nto and cannot be dismissed even if the acocunt issel fisnt historical. what you are suggestign is that we shoidtn use an allegory that reveals a dicine messge form God because tis nto facutlaly based, which itsself means we woul also have to reject the parables of Jesus, since they arent real Hisotry either, and hus dismiss many of his teahcings! Really tis is bad logic...}-Zarove
They would, however, be guilty of eliminating the true foundation of our faith--thus leading to eventual apostacy.
{And how , exaclty, am I apostate? }-Zarove
They virtually reduce the teachings of such men as the apostle Paul, Peter, and all biblical writers for that matter, as "naive superstition" and the teachings of Christ as being deceptive accomadationalism!
{No, they dont... they merley say that the Creation Acocunt is presented poetclaly.}-Zarove
Frequent stress is placed on God as the creator of *all* things.
{which we also beelive... simpley beeiing in eovluionary theory doesnt eliminate God as creator.}-Zarove
That leaves no room for the theory of evolution as evolution is not necessary.
{It also leaves no room for sexual Reprodiction. I mean, God didnt make me spacifclaly out of dirt, r did he? He had to since he created all thigns, therefore i must not have parents that reprodiced sexually... if I did it destoys the fat that God is he creator of all...
Or else, God set up the proccess and guide it to my prodiction...
If he can do that, why not over a logner time do the same, wiht slight vareation over time?}-Zarove
God created everything in the begining about seven thousand years ago.
{Or so it is beleived by some, and not all, in The Faith.}-Zarove
He created everything with *apparent* age., and things have varied within it's own kind since then. But no evolution in the *macro* sence has ever been seen or proven.
{Enpgh smal change makes large change over time, trust me...Admit to small change over time and you have admited to large change over a longer span of time.}-Zarove
The population of man and his recorded history is in harmony with the idea that man has been around for exactly as long as God reveals.
{Then, why so shy withhte evidence that is not forthcoming?}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.
Hmm....."...from dust to dust..."??............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
For example Zarove,All communities, metallurgy, ceramics, construction, written language, and so on--appeared at essentially the same time, only several thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East. There is an abundance of archaeological evidence to this effect. It is annomalous that evolutionists believe man's physical body evolved more than a million years ago, and yet also believe--due to the evidence--that man began to *evolve culturally* only several thousand years ago.
Furthermore, human populations also conform to a recent origin. If the world's initial population was only one man and one woman, and the population then began to increase geometrically (which was Darwin's approach to population studies) at a rate of only 2% per year (which is the present world-wide rate), it would take about 1,100 years to attain the present world population.
If man has been on the earth a million years as evolutionists claim-- or even for only 30,000 years as Paul M. claims--then untold trillions of men and women must have lived and died on the earth. Where is the evidence of that? Where are their bones???
-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.
Where is the evidence of that? Where are their bones???--Faith.Natural evidence.
How many bones must be found in order to substantiate a claim? We have King Tut's remains, but do we have his peoples' remains, too?
Do we find scattered remains of other animilia in significant numbers? How many actual bones remain of the dinosaurs?
........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
All we really need is one human remains/bones from their earliest existence to prove how old human existence is, at the least.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
>You are implying that an agressive attack should be countered with an agressive attack?<Umm... no.
I'm saying, it's an obvious fact that in this world the more aggressive creature is more likely to go on to produce more children and is able to better protect and provide whereas the weaker creature may die out and not be able to provide and protect as well, thus the weaker genes are bred out and the stronger genes outnumber and compete amongst themselves for resources etc.
Being able to defend your family from a band of pillaging savages is one reason you're here today, because your forefathers were stronger than the enemy. It's just an ugly fact we have to accept as part of this world. It doesn't mean we have to live by that rule once we discover higher rules.
But, pretending these rules of nature don't exist doesn't really help a person at all.
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Men (most men) develop larger muscles for a reason and women (most women) have special attributes of beauty for a reason. The laws of attraction are natural and good.According to some religious viewpoints, physical beauty and strength means nothing (and is even evil) and one shouldn't base their choice of mate on such "superficial" things. Some think natural beauty and strength should be subdued. I disagree. I don't hate nature like some do.
There should be a balance between the realm of the world we live and the realm of the world above.
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Well, then, I will agree with you. I don't like having an elite group defending my family. It is frustration having to deal with keeping one's natural instincts in check while the hired police fumble around like anemic Boy Scouts being victims to monkey-business laws. Have we even evolved any?...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
Ah! the physical stuff.I think I have finally figured out why we go far-sighted in our vision. I think there are two evolutionary/natural reasons:
1. We get slower as we age; therefore, we need to see that sabre tooth cat earlier. We need that extra yardage in order to get away.
2. We get uglier as we age; therefore, in order to keep the passion in our relationships, we need not take too strong a look at our mates. Near-sighted-ness is forgivingly replaced with far-sighted- ness.
It all makes sense, then they go and invent eye-glasses.
..........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
>I don't like having an elite group defending my family.<If it takes an elite group to defend my family, I don't mind, as long as I get to have a say/vote.
>It is frustration having to deal with keeping one's natural instincts in check while the hired police fumble around like anemic Boy Scouts being victims to monkey-business laws.<
Police are just humans with a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment attached to their belts. I personally would never feel right submitting myself to being an instrument of the state - unless it's my own little island in the Pacific called Maxland where I'm the king. ;)
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.
"Kevin, as I already pointed out, your equation holds true only on the surface of this planet, not anywhere else in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe, and most certainly not outside of the universe. "Morning" and "evening" are simply manifestations of a planet's rotation. Therefore the "days" of creation are clearly metaphorical."The days of creation are "not" clearly "metaphorical" as Paul states. The focal point of creation was the planet earth and not any other planet inside or outside the solar system or even in another galaxy. Moses by inspiration wrote evening and morning and was most certainly talking about periods of time on this earth.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.
The days of creation are "not" clearly "metaphorical" as Paul states. The focal point of creation was the planet earth and not any other planet inside or outside the solar system or even in another galaxy. Moses by inspiration wrote evening and morning and was most certainly talking about periods of time on this earth.Not nessisarily...sicne it is a Hebrew text and wirtten iN hebraic tomes...its a poetic device.
Likewise, no scirpoture claism this planet as he focul poin of creation. That is speculation, NOT scripture.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.
Well of course he was. He lived here. However, do we view his writings simply as the word of Moses? Or as the Word of God? If God inspired the writing then it was God's thoughts that were recorded, not those of Moses. And as the Scriptures tell us, "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day"(2 Peter 3:8). God is not bound by time. Moses was. Moses didn't have a word to express the indefinite periods of time God was speaking about. He only had those manmade, earth-bound divisions of time he was used to - hours, days, years. So he used "day" to express this divinely revealed idea. But this was almighty God speaking, who knows no time and is not bound by time. We could deduce that God was not speaking of 24-hour "days" simply by studying the Biblical text. However, we also have the findings of science, which clearly demonstrate that many millions of years were involved in the Creation process, and which therefore further confirm the plain sense of Scripture - that "day", as it relates to the creation of the universe, is a mere figure of speech.Incidentally, the Biblical account says God rested on the seventh "day". If He only rested 24 hours, what has He been doing since? And for that matter, why would God have to "rest" at all? Do you suppose He got tired while creating the universe? Obviously it means that once God had put into place all the essential components of the physical universe, He stopped creating - permanently. Therefore the 7th "day" is still in progress, and will be until such time as God decides to start creating again (not likely). Since the 7'th "day" of creation is continuing for millions of years, there is no reason to deny that the other "days" were likewise very long periods of time, especially since all real evidence indicates that is the truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 21, 2004.
Zarove wrote, "Not nessisarily...sicne it is a Hebrew text and wirtten iN hebraic tomes...its a poetic device."Where do you get that evening and morning were the first day, evening and morning were the second day are "poetic" devices???
Have you not read Exodus 20:8-11 which states, "8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
So much for your claim that the days of creation in Genesis are "Hebrew poetry" and not literal days.
Zarove wrote, "Likewise, no scirpoture claism this planet as he focul poin of creation. That is speculation, NOT scripture."
Did God focus on any other planet besides earth during creation???
Paul wrote, "Well of course he was. He lived here. However, do we view his writings simply as the word of Moses? Or as the Word of God? If God inspired the writing then it was God's thoughts that were recorded, not those of Moses. And as the Scriptures tell us, "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day"(2 Peter 3:8)."
Moses by inspiration did not write that one day = 1,000 years now did he Paul??? Moses wrote evening and morning were the first day, evening and morning were the second day, etc...
Paul wrote, "God is not bound by time. Moses was. Moses didn't have a word to express the indefinite periods of time God was speaking about. He only had those manmade, earth-bound divisions of time he was used to - hours, days, years. So he used "day" to express this divinely revealed idea. But this was almighty God speaking, who knows no time and is not bound by time. We could deduce that God was not speaking of 24-hour "days" simply by studying the Biblical text."
Go back and re-read Exodus 20:8-11...
Paul wrote, "However, we also have the findings of science, which clearly demonstrate that many millions of years were involved in the Creation process, and which therefore further confirm the plain sense of Scripture - that "day", as it relates to the creation of the universe, is a mere figure of speech."
Science does not prove anything... much less that "many millions of years were involved in the Creation process" as you assert. The Bible means exactly what it states, the creation days were 24 hour periods. This doesn't surprise me that you don't agree with what has been revealed Paul as Catholics do not agree with many things that have been written in God's word and change it to suit their itching ears...
Paul wrote, "Incidentally, the Biblical account says God rested on the seventh "day". If He only rested 24 hours, what has He been doing since?"
Do you even "know" your Bible Paul??? It doesn't surprise me that a Catholic who "claims" that he "knows" God, does not know what GOd has been "doing" since He rested. God says in John 5:17, "But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
Paul wrote, "And for that matter, why would God have to "rest" at all? Do you suppose He got tired while creating the universe?"
God rested because He was finished with creation... No one said that God was "tired" and needed to rest...
Paul wrote, "Obviously it means that once God had put into place all the essential components of the physical universe, He stopped creating - permanently. Therefore the 7th "day" is still in progress, and will be until such time as God decides to start creating again (not likely)."
Just because God rested on the 7th day (which was a 24 hour period) it does not mean that He is still resting... Go back and re-read John 5:17.
Paul wrote, "Since the 7'th "day" of creation is continuing for millions of years, there is no reason to deny that the other "days" were likewise very long periods of time, especially since all real evidence indicates that is the truth."
Readers, you can either believe Paul who like the Catholic Church seek to discredit the Bible or cast doubt on what has been revealed or you can believe what God has plainly written that the days of creation were literal 24 hour days. The choice is yours to make... Either the words of God are true, or they are not. The only "real" evidence has already been revealed in God's word and I choose to believe God.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.
Zarove wrote, "Not nessisarily...sicne it is a Hebrew text and wirtten iN hebraic tomes...its a poetic device." Where do you get that evening and morning were the first day, evening and morning were the second day are "poetic" devices???{From standard Hebrew Poetic undertsanding. Similar devics are used throughou tthe Tanakh and also in other Hebraic Literature.}-Zarove
Have you not read Exodus 20:8-11 which states, "8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
So much for your claim that the days of creation in Genesis are "Hebrew poetry" and not literal days.
{The Poetic device is built around the Sabbath and workweek of the Jews. they merged the Creation cycles with the days of the week, and alloted man a day of rest, as God's day of rest was alloted, albeit on a larger scale. Such can be foudn in the clasiscal ( Nonmystical new age) Kabala and in other standard Hebrew reference soruces.}- Zarove
Zarove wrote, "Likewise, no scirpoture claism this planet as he focul poin of creation. That is speculation, NOT scripture."
Did God focus on any other planet besides earth during creation???
{O presume he focused on all o hem as he made them as he made them. However, unliek you, I do not pretend to present this as fact. But the fact remaisn that no scritue reveals the Eath as Gods focal point, or even principle focus, such is inteprrtation and not evident in scripture.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.
"{From standard Hebrew Poetic undertsanding. Similar devics are used throughou tthe Tanakh and also in other Hebraic Literature.}-Zarove"Ok, just because Hebrew literature shows that this is "poetic" is not proof that it is poetic in the Bible.
"{The Poetic device is built around the Sabbath and workweek of the Jews. they merged the Creation cycles with the days of the week, and alloted man a day of rest, as God's day of rest was alloted, albeit on a larger scale. Such can be foudn in the clasiscal ( Nonmystical new age) Kabala and in other standard Hebrew reference soruces.}- Zarove"
Oh please Zarove... give me a break... So they "merged the Creation cycles with the days of the week"???... There is "no" proof of this except in the minds of those who refuse to accept the creation week was six 24 hour days... We don't need something outside of God's word to interpret what was written down for us... God gave his revelation to man, and when we read we can understand it. (Ephesians 3:3-4).
"{O presume he focused on all o hem as he made them as he made them. However, unliek you, I do not pretend to present this as fact. But the fact remaisn that no scritue reveals the Eath as Gods focal point, or even principle focus, such is inteprrtation and not evident in scripture.}-Zarove"
I made a statement, "The focal point of creation was the planet earth and not any other planet inside or outside the solar system or even in another galaxy".... I didn't present it as a "fact" as you state.
Did God put more focus on creating the things on this earth or the things in heaven???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.
Zarove,What is the Hebrew word for "day"???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.
It is interesting to note that Adam was created on the sixth day and yet lived through the seventh day and on into the eighth day. If the days of creation were not literal 24 hour periods, then how old was Adam?
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2004.
The word used in the Creation acount is Yom, whihc does not mean "Day" directly btu any given, limited amunt of time needed for an alloted task.From Strongs exhaustive Concordance.
~wy Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117
day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 as a division of time 1b a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.) time, period (general) year temporal references today yesterday tomorrow KJV Word Usage and Count day 2008 time 64 chronicles 37 daily 44 ever 18 year 14 continually 10 when 10 as 10 while 8 full 8 always 4 whole 4 alway 4 miscellaneous 44
It does not always mean days. Likewise, Adam is not sid to have lived pas the 7th day in cretion omto the 8th.
As I said, its a poetic statement. 7 Cycles where used by God to create the Universe, and 7 days are offered us for our work cycles, and on the seventh he rested, liekwise, we are to rest on our seventh.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.
~wy Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow
KJV Word Usage and Count
day 2008
time 64
chronicles 37
daily 44
ever 18
year 14
continually 10
when 10
as 10
while 8
full 8 always 4
whole 4
alway 4
miscellaneous 44
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.
Zarove,Thanks for giving us the [Concordance] definition of the Hebrew word day which is "Yom."
You wrote, "It does not always mean days."
You are incorrect in saying this word does not = a 24 hour period.
There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom " means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number.
You wrote, "As I said, its a poetic statement. 7 Cycles where used by God to create the Universe, and 7 days are offered us for our work cycles, and on the seventh he rested,"
So now you are changing the word "day" to read "cycles"??? There is no mention in the Bible that God created the heavens and the earth in "cycles" as you assert above as this is nothing but pure speculation on your part. Moses through inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have used a word that would have expressed long periods of time or cycles as you assert, but purposely did not use it. Why is this the case Zarove??? You can claim all day that the days in the book of Genesis are "cycles" however you cannot prove this to be true. Try substituting your term "cycles" for the words day or days in Exodus 20:8-11, and see just how much (non)sense it makes. It is absurd to state the days of creation in the book of Genesis are merely "poetic statement(s)". You wrote, "Likewise, Adam is not sid to have lived pas the 7th day in cretion omto the 8th."
If you take the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest as written in the Bible then Adam did live past the 7th day and into the 8th day and so on. It is people who seek to change what has been written who have a hard time comprehending this concept.
What were the "evening" and "morning" of each day as presented in the book of Genesis??? Were there long periods of light and darkness during this time??? You wrote, "liekwise, we are to rest on our seventh.
Where is this written in the New Testament that we as Christians are to "rest on our seventh"???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 22, 2004.
[Correction : "Concordance"]
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 22, 2004.
Kevin, you are confused about Genesis because you take Genesis account 100% literally.Notice too Kevin that Genesis mentions God Yahweh's name. His name had not been revealed until Moses many hundreds(or thousands) of years later(Exodus 3 and 6).
This shows to you that whoever wrote Genesis, the first 10 chapters, came after Moses. There is a mention of a Sabbath. Moses was the first to be given a commandment about a Sabbath.
Also, Moses could not have written Genesis because his great grandfather Levi was accused of being a murderer by his father Jacob (Levi's father). You will not include bad stuff about ancestors in your geneology.
So Genesis ch. 1-10 comes from a later period when the sabbath and God Yahweh's name were common. This happened during king David's reign.Between Moses and David the Israelites also worshipped El, Baal, Ashtarte, ....Examples: King Saul's son's name was Ishbaal.
Even at one passage is said that a day is like 1000 years, Kevin.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 22, 2004.
Zarove, Thanks for giving us the [Concordance] definition of the Hebrew word day which is "Yom."yOUR WELCOME.}Zarove
You wrote, "It does not always mean days."
You are incorrect in saying this word does not = a 24 hour period.
{No, Im not. it is often used in hebrew to refeence logner periods, even as the concordance revealed.}-Zarove
There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom " means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number.
{Yes, there is. " days of thy life" is an xample of a psan of time, nto a day. Likewise,th word is used I beelive for Nebuchanerd madness, which is speculated to have been 7 years and not 7 days.}- Zarove
You wrote, "As I said, its a poetic statement. 7 Cycles where used by God to create the Universe, and 7 days are offered us for our work cycles, and on the seventh he rested,"
So now you are changing the word "day" to read "cycles"???
{That is oen fo the dfinitions, and once you udnerstand the Hebraic poetry and the fact that evening and morming are a lierary device, it makes snece.}-Zarove
There is no mention in the Bible that God created the heavens and the earth in "cycles" as you assert above as this is nothing but pure speculation on your part.
{Its based on my knowledg eof Hebrew poetry, th stucture of Genesis, and rasind th Mesoratic text unaided. Its not speculation. Liekwise, its an old idea, datign bak at leats 3 cenuryies before Christ.}- Zarove
Moses through inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have used a word that would have expressed long periods of time or cycles as you assert, but purposely did not use it. Why is this the case Zarove???
{Did you not look at all the definitions? Liekwise, he did, an even if he didnt, the sturcture is clealry poetic, includign he detramic efrain, wihc made it easier to memorise as wlel as to apply to other htings, mst notabley thr sabbath oreinted calender.}-Zarove
You can claim all day that the days in the book of Genesis are "cycles" however you cannot prove this to be true.
{Here is he concordance aagin, note what is in italics.
~wy Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 ( ref. not nessisarily a day as undertsood. Poetic.)
as a division of time 1b ( note: a dividion of time, not a day, as in a 24 hour period.)
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general) (Interestignly, this is what i claimed it was , and what you said had no support.)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow
KJV Word Usage and Count
day 2008
time 64
chronicles 37
daily 44
ever 18
year 14
continually 10
when 10
as 10
while 8
full 8
always 4
whole 4
alway 4
miscellaneous 44
The word clearly mis not always translated "days" int he KJV or any other Bible, and in some places doign so woidl be incredibley insane.}-Zarove
Try substituting your term "cycles" for the words day or days in Exodus 20:8-11, and see just how much (non)sense it makes.
{strangley it does make sence. they have seven cycles, six to work on and oen to rest. a day is a ype of cycle tou know...}-Zarove
It is absurd to state the days of creation in the book of Genesis are merely "poetic statement(s)".
{why? Because you said so? do you understand Hebrew poetics? shy oudl this not be a standard hebraic poetic coupling designed for easy assemilation and memorisation of the given accouint?}-Zarove
You wrote, "Likewise, Adam is not sid to have lived pas the 7th day in cretion omto the 8th."
If you take the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest as written in the Bible then Adam did live past the 7th day and into the 8th day and so on. It is people who seek to change what has been written who have a hard time comprehending this concept.
{I understand the oncpt, but no verse says " Adam lived past he 7th day", and if I am correct and not as off the trail of truth as you seem to suggest, then you woudl be the one in error for assertign hat he lived past the seventh day onto the 9th, as your interpretation is wholly dependant upon the days beign 24 hour periods.}-Zarove
What were the "evening" and "morning" of each day as presented in the book of Genesis??? Were there long periods of light and darkness during this time???
{Look up the term " Poetuc couplet". You can google it up.}-Zarove
You wrote, "liekwise, we are to rest on our seventh.
Where is this written in the New Testament that we as Christians are to "rest on our seventh"???
{I was referencign the Torah.Let us not confuse the isue with semantics shall we?}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2004.
Elpidio,You wrote, "Kevin, you are confused about Genesis because you take Genesis account 100% literally."
I am surprised that you even mention the book of Genesis Elpidio when you state that you don't even believe half of it...
We are to take everything literally unless something tells us that we should not take it in such a manner. There is nothing in the text of Genesis chapter 1 that tells us we should take the creation account as figurative days.
Elpidio wrote, "Notice too Kevin that Genesis mentions God Yahweh's name. His name had not been revealed until Moses many hundreds(or thousands) of years later(Exodus 3 and 6)."
This has nothing to do with our conversation on the days of creation.
Elpidio wrote, "This shows to you that whoever wrote Genesis, the first 10 chapters, came after Moses. There is a mention of a Sabbath. Moses was the first to be given a commandment about a Sabbath."
Moses was not there when God created the heavens and the earth however, God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit revealed to Moses what he was to write. If God would have revealed to Moses that it took ages (as Zarove alleges) to create the heavens and the earth then our Bibles would have a different Hebrew word other than the word - day.
Elpidio wrote, "Also, Moses could not have written Genesis because his great grandfather Levi was accused of being a murderer by his father Jacob (Levi's father). You will not include bad stuff about ancestors in your geneology."
Rest assured, Moses did write the book of Genesis...
Elpidio wrote, "So Genesis ch. 1-10 comes from a later period when the sabbath and God Yahweh's name were common. This happened during king David's reign.Between Moses and David the Israelites also worshipped El, Baal, Ashtarte, ....Examples: King Saul's son's name was Ishbaal."
Moses wrote the book of Genesis as revealed to him by God during the time God gave the Sabbath to the Jews.
Elpidio wrote, "Even at one passage is said that a day is like 1000 years, Kevin."
This passage is speaking of how time feels to God, not how long it took Him to create the heavens and the earth.
Zarove wrote, "{No, Im not. it is often used in hebrew to refeence logner periods, even as the concordance revealed.}-Zarove
Let's take a look at your concordance example Zarove:
day Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117 day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
It specifically states that a day as defined by the Hebrew word Yom is a 24 hour period as defined by "evening and morning".
I wrote, "There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number."
To which Zarove replied, "{Yes, there is. " days of thy life" is an xample of a psan of time, nto a day. Likewise,th word is used I beelive for Nebuchanerd madness, which is speculated to have been 7 years and not 7 days.}- Zarove"
Too bad the "days of thy life" is not modified by a number in the text. If you are going to answer my question, at least be honest when you are answering...
I wrote, "So now you are changing the word "day" to read "cycles"???"
To which Zarove replied, "{That is oen fo the dfinitions, and once you udnerstand the Hebraic poetry and the fact that evening and morming are a lierary device, it makes snece.}-Zarove"
It is unfortunate for you that Hebrew poetry does not define how we interpret the Bible. Evening and morning as defined in the book of Genesis is not merely Hebrew poetry as you allege it defines the exact period of when the heavens and the earth were created.
I wrote, "There is no mention in the Bible that God created the heavens and the earth in "cycles" as you assert above as this is nothing but pure speculation on your part."
To which Zarove replied, "{Its based on my knowledg eof Hebrew poetry, th stucture of Genesis, and rasind th Mesoratic text unaided. Its not speculation. Liekwise, its an old idea, datign bak at leats 3 cenuryies before Christ.}- Zarove"
Actually it is your speculation because if you were to read the book of Genesis without any knowledge of Hebrew poetry, any knowledge of the Masoretic text, then it is clear that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods.
I wrote, "Moses through inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have used a word that would have expressed long periods of time or cycles as you assert, but purposely did not use it. Why is this the case Zarove???"
To which Zarove replied, "Did you not look at all the definitions?"
Yes I did, and obviously you overlooked the most obvious one... You know the one that is defined by "evening and morning"...
Zarove wrote, "Liekwise, he did, an even if he didnt, the sturcture is clealry poetic, includign he detramic efrain, wihc made it easier to memorise as wlel as to apply to other htings, mst notabley thr sabbath oreinted calender.}-Zarove"
If God is "all powerful" and He is then it would not take Him (and did not take Him) "cycles" as you call it to make the heavens and the earth. Your reading of Hebrew poetry has clouded your judgment on this issue. It is not hard to read the book of Genesis and see that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods.
Zarove wrote, "The word clearly mis not always translated "days" int he KJV or any other Bible, and in some places doign so woidl be incredibley insane.}-Zarove"
Please give us a reputable translation that so translates these words to mean "cycles" Zarove... If you cannot, then it is obvious that the translators of the Bible who are infinitely more qualified in Hebrew know more than you do...
I wrote, "Try substituting your term "cycles" for the words day or days in Exodus 20:8-11, and see just how much (non)sense it makes."
I wrote, "It is absurd to state the days of creation in the book of Genesis are merely "poetic statement(s)".
To which Zarove replied, "{why? Because you said so?"
No because the only correct way to interpret the days of creation in the book of Genesis is for literal 24 hour periods. To claim that it took God "cycles" to create the heavens and the earth is absurd... Are you also going to claim that since it took God "cycles" to make the heavens and the earth that it is going to take "cycles" for them to be destroyed???
Zarove wrote, "do you understand Hebrew poetics? shy oudl this not be a standard hebraic poetic coupling designed for easy assemilation and memorisation of the given accouint?}-Zarove"
No I do not understand Hebrew poetics nor do I care to understand them since it is obvious your learning them has clouded your judgment. I wrote, "What were the "evening" and "morning" of each day as presented in the book of Genesis??? Were there long periods of light and darkness during this time???"
To which Zarove replied, "{Look up the term " Poetuc couplet". You can google it up.}-Zarove"
I didn't ask what a "Poetic couplet" was, I asked you to answer the question...
I wrote, "Where is this written in the New Testament that we as Christians are to "rest on our seventh"???"
To which Zarove replied, "{I was referencign the Torah.Let us not confuse the isue with semantics shall we?}-Zarove"
Which book, chapter and verse of the Torah were you referencing???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 24, 2004.
Rwo queatsins before we procceed Kevin.1: Do you even know what the Mesoratic text is?
2: Woudkt "evenign and Morning" be 12 hours?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.
"1: Do you even know what the Mesoratic text is?"Yes.
"2: Woudkt "evenign and Morning" be 12 hours?"
No.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 28, 2004.
The Mesoratic text is the origional, Untranslated hebrew, if yo knrew this, why do you not hold it as a final auhtority?shoudl i trust a mere tranlation over the origional?
Likewise, evenign and mornign are 12 hours, not 24.
From even to even is 24 hours.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 28, 2004.
Zarove wrote, "{No, Im not. it is often used in hebrew to refeence logner periods, even as the concordance revealed.}-ZaroveLet's take a look at your concordance example Zarove:
day Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117 day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
{This is a lie Luke. It doesnt defien it as a day ( 24 hours) as deifned by evenign and mormng, those are two seperate definitions...}- Zarove
It specifically states that a day as defined by the Hebrew word Yom is a 24 hour period as defined by "evening and morning".
{No, it didnt. Only when it crunched in the origional posting.Otherwise they are seperate definitions.}-Zarove
I wrote, "There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number."
To which Zarove replied, "{Yes, there is. " days of thy life" is an xample of a psan of time, nto a day. Likewise,th word is used I beelive for Nebuchanerd madness, which is speculated to have been 7 years and not 7 days.}- Zarove"
Too bad the "days of thy life" is not modified by a number in the text. If you are going to answer my question, at least be honest when you are answering...
{I was. Yom is used often as not spacificlay a 24 hour perood, een when it is numbered. }-Zarove
I wrote, "So now you are changing the word "day" to read "cycles"???"
To which Zarove replied, "{That is oen fo the dfinitions, and once you udnerstand the Hebraic poetry and the fact that evening and morming are a lierary device, it makes snece.}-Zarove"
It is unfortunate for you that Hebrew poetry does not define how we interpret the Bible.
{In some instances, it does. Unelss you want ot discard allpoetry in the Pslams and song of solomon...}-Zarove
Evening and morning as defined in the book of Genesis is not merely Hebrew poetry as you allege it defines the exact period of when the heavens and the earth were created.
{No, it does not nessisarily , and your misapplicaitn fo the deifnition is clear proof of youe own intellectual dishonesty since you cliamed the 2 seperate definitiosn where one.}-Zarove
I wrote, "There is no mention in the Bible that God created the heavens and the earth in "cycles" as you assert above as this is nothing but pure speculation on your part."
To which Zarove replied, "{Its based on my knowledg eof Hebrew poetry, th stucture of Genesis, and rasind th Mesoratic text unaided. Its not speculation. Liekwise, its an old idea, datign bak at leats 3 cenuryies before Christ.}- Zarove"
Actually it is your speculation because if you were to read the book of Genesis without any knowledge of Hebrew poetry, any knowledge of the Masoretic text, then it is clear that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods.
{Then why was it that Polycarp, liekwise ignorant in hebrew and not familiar withte archane patters of poetry, liekwise asserted the same? Really you presume too much. Besides, now you want me to favour a translaiton over the origional text, that i will not do.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Moses through inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have used a word that would have expressed long periods of time or cycles as you assert, but purposely did not use it. Why is this the case Zarove???"
To which Zarove replied, "Did you not look at all the definitions?"
Yes I did, and obviously you overlooked the most obvious one... You know the one that is defined by "evening and morning"...
{However, the evenign and morning is not deifned as a 24 hour period, you interpoluted that from other segments.}-Zarove
Zarove wrote, "Liekwise, he did, an even if he didnt, the sturcture is clealry poetic, includign he detramic efrain, wihc made it easier to memorise as wlel as to apply to other htings, mst notabley thr sabbath oreinted calender.}-Zarove"
If God is "all powerful" and He is then it would not take Him (and did not take Him) "cycles" as you call it to make the heavens and the earth.
{yet it took him days? why nto create all in an instant? Relay how long he did take is not limiting how long he codl have taken... unless you wan tot explain why he wasnt powerful enough to create it all in less than a fraction of a second...why he was too weak and needed 7 days...}-Zarove
Your reading of Hebrew poetry has clouded your judgment on this issue. It is not hard to read the book of Genesis and see that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods.
{12. 24 is even to even., not even to morrow... and the refrain seems a bit awkward to be taken in suhc a vein.}-Zarove
Zarove wrote, "The word clearly mis not always translated "days" int he KJV or any other Bible, and in some places doign so woidl be incredibley insane.}-Zarove"
Please give us a reputable translation that so translates these words to mean "cycles" Zarove... If you cannot, then it is obvious that the translators of the Bible who are infinitely more qualified in Hebrew know more than you do...
{Or else they are using a word that is trasitionally ascribed... I know many instances where they arent infinitley better at the Hebrew than I. And arguments form auhtority arent relaly vlaid.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Try substituting your term "cycles" for the words day or days in Exodus 20:8-11, and see just how much (non)sense it makes."
I wrote, "It is absurd to state the days of creation in the book of Genesis are merely "poetic statement(s)".
To which Zarove replied, "{why? Because you said so?"
No because the only correct way to interpret the days of creation in the book of Genesis is for literal 24 hour periods.
{At leats in your narrow veiw, an if your wrong what then? At leats i dotn presume to have all the answers.}-Zarove
To claim that it took God "cycles" to create the heavens and the earth is absurd... Are you also going to claim that since it took God "cycles" to make the heavens and the earth that it is going to take "cycles" for them to be destroyed???
{Its alreayd takign cycles, Jesus has been gone for 2000 years.}- Zarove
Zarove wrote, "do you understand Hebrew poetics? shy oudl this not be a standard hebraic poetic coupling designed for easy assemilation and memorisation of the given accouint?}-Zarove"
No I do not understand Hebrew poetics nor do I care to understand them since it is obvious your learning them has clouded your judgment.
{Hardly. It hasnt done anyhting, snc emy judgement onthis matter was alreayd "corrupted"... learnign this simpley made Genesis chapters 1 anbd 2 more clear and fit in better. }-Zarove
I wrote, "What were the "evening" and "morning" of each day as presented in the book of Genesis??? Were there long periods of light and darkness during this time???"
To which Zarove replied, "{Look up the term " Poetuc couplet". You can google it up.}-Zarove"
I didn't ask what a "Poetic couplet" was, I asked you to answer the question...
{And the answer is, its a poetic couplet.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Where is this written in the New Testament that we as Christians are to "rest on our seventh"???"
To which Zarove replied, "{I was referencign the Torah.Let us not confuse the isue with semantics shall we?}-Zarove"
Which book, chapter and verse of the Torah were you referencing???
{several times, includin hte ten commandments...}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 28, 2004.
Zarove wrote, "The Mesoratic text is the origional, Untranslated hebrew, if yo knrew this, why do you not hold it as a final auhtority?"Is there a difference between our translations of the Bible and the "Masoretic text"??? If so, what are they?
Zarove wrote, "shoudl i trust a mere tranlation over the origional?"
Please explain what is different from the original to the translation?
Zarove wrote, "Likewise, evenign and mornign are 12 hours, not 24. From even to even is 24 hours."
Sorry, evening and morning are 24 hours. God divided the day from the night and day = morning and evening = night which = a 24 hour period.
I wrote, "Let's take a look at your concordance example Zarove: day Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117 day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1"
To which Zarove replied, "{This is a lie Luke. It doesnt defien it as a day ( 24 hours) as deifned by evenign and mormng, those are two seperate definitions...}- Zarove"
This is Kevin, not Luke and it is not a lie as you state Zarove. I quoted exactly what the concordance says and it states that evening and morning are (24 hours) and that was all part of what you quoted and was not a "separate" definition as you state.
I wrote, "It specifically states that a day as defined by the Hebrew word Yom is a 24 hour period as defined by "evening and morning"."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, it didnt. Only when it crunched in the origional posting.Otherwise they are seperate definitions.}-Zarove"
Actually it did mean this very thing... Do you have a problem reading what you wrote???
I initially wrote, "There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number."
To which Zarove replied, "{Yes, there is. " days of thy life" is an xample of a psan of time, nto a day. Likewise,th word is used I beelive for Nebuchanerd madness, which is speculated to have been 7 years and not 7 days.}- Zarove"
My reply was, "Too bad the "days of thy life" is not modified by a number in the text. If you are going to answer my question, at least be honest when you are answering..."
Zarove shot back with, "{I was. Yom is used often as not spacificlay a 24 hour perood, een when it is numbered. }-Zarove"
I showed in my earlier post how Zarove was incorrect in his "days of thy life" response. I will say it again: There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number.
I wrote, "Evening and morning as defined in the book of Genesis is not merely Hebrew poetry as you allege it defines the exact period of when the heavens and the earth were created."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, it does not nessisarily , and your misapplicaitn fo the deifnition is clear proof of youe own intellectual dishonesty since you cliamed the 2 seperate definitiosn where one.}-Zarove"
That is your "assertion" Zarove that I am "misapplying" the definition of the Hebrew word "Yom" which is our word day. How was I "dishonest" in my claim of two separate definitions of this word??? I did not "misapply" the definition of this word. In fact, I cut and pasted your definition, so to claim that I am "dishonest" is not the truth.
I wrote, "Actually it is your speculation because if you were to read the book of Genesis without any knowledge of Hebrew poetry, any knowledge of the Masoretic text, then it is clear that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "{Then why was it that Polycarp, liekwise ignorant in hebrew and not familiar withte archane patters of poetry, liekwise asserted the same? Really you presume too much. Besides, now you want me to favour a translaiton over the origional text, that i will not do.}-Zarove"
I will ask you again, what has changed from the "original text" to what we now have as our translations of the Bible??? Just because someone makes an "assertion" and it agrees with your interpration, does not make it true.
I wrote, "Yes I did, and obviously you overlooked the most obvious one... You know the one that is defined by "evening and morning"..."
To which Zarove replied, "{However, the evenign and morning is not deifned as a 24 hour period, you interpoluted that from other segments.}-Zarove"
No, I didn't... I cut and pasted (without any "interpopulation") your very words that you posted and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I wrote, "If God is "all powerful" and He is then it would not take Him (and did not take Him) "cycles" as you call it to make the heavens and the earth."
To which Zarove replied, "{yet it took him days? why nto create all in an instant? Relay how long he did take is not limiting how long he codl have taken... unless you wan tot explain why he wasnt powerful enough to create it all in less than a fraction of a second...why he was too weak and needed 7 days...}-Zarove"
Who said anything about God creating everything in an "instant"??? Why would God take "cycles" to create something that actually took "days"??? How about just answering the question instead of running to the other extreme and saying "Why didn't God create everything in an instant or a fraction of a second"...
I wrote, "Your reading of Hebrew poetry has clouded your judgment on this issue. It is not hard to read the book of Genesis and see that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "12. 24 is even to even., not even to morrow... and the refrain seems a bit awkward to be taken in suhc a vein.}-Zarove"
Does the Bible say, "even to even" or "evening and morning"??? Genesis 1:5 states, "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."
Morning = Day (12 hours) and Evening = Night (12 hours). Why is this so hard for you to understand??? When does the Hebrew day begin???
I wrote, "Please give us a reputable translation that so translates these words to mean "cycles" Zarove... If you cannot, then it is obvious that the translators of the Bible who are infinitely more qualified in Hebrew know more than you do..."
To which Zarove replied, "{Or else they are using a word that is trasitionally ascribed... I know many instances where they arent infinitley better at the Hebrew than I. And arguments form auhtority arent relaly vlaid.}-Zarove"
It is obvious that Zarove does not have any reputable translation that so translates the word day to mean "cycles" as he alleges. If the translators (and there have been many) were wrong concerning this translation, you have not offered sufficient evidence to prove this word should be translated differently. So are you now going to claim that you are a "Hebrew Scholar" since you state, "I know many instances where they arent infinitley better at the Hebrew than I"???
I wrote, "No because the only correct way to interpret the days of creation in the book of Genesis is for literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "{At leats in your narrow veiw, an if your wrong what then? At leats i dotn presume to have all the answers.}-Zarove"
I never said "I have all the answers" now did I Zarove??? Please explain how my view is "narrow" when I hold to a literal definition of the word day and yet you have to "change" the definition to fit what you have learned from outside sources???
I wrote, "To claim that it took God "cycles" to create the heavens and the earth is absurd... Are you also going to claim that since it took God "cycles" to make the heavens and the earth that it is going to take "cycles" for them to be destroyed???"
To which Zarove replied, "{Its alreayd takign cycles, Jesus has been gone for 2000 years.}- Zarove"
So now a "cycle" is 2000 years???
I wrote, "No I do not understand Hebrew poetics nor do I care to understand them since it is obvious your learning them has clouded your judgment."
To which Zarove replied, "{Hardly. It hasnt done anyhting, snc emy judgement onthis matter was alreayd "corrupted"... learnign this simpley made Genesis chapters 1 anbd 2 more clear and fit in better. }-Zarove"
If this is the case, then why do you have to change the meaning of the word "day" to fit what you have learned???
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2004.
Zarove wrote, "The Mesoratic text is the origional, Untranslated hebrew, if yo knrew this, why do you not hold it as a final auhtority?" Is there a difference between our translations of the Bible and the "Masoretic text"??? If so, what are they?{gRAMMER, SYNTAX, AND RHYTHME. Likewise, soem words can have two or more meaning.}-Zarove
Zarove wrote, "shoudl i trust a mere tranlation over the origional?"
Please explain what is different from the original to the translation?
{In a nutshell, the pattern of grammer in the porigional IS poetic, and repetative, and in rhythmeic detramiter, unliek any posisble english way to proerly translate it.}-Zarove
Zarove wrote, "Likewise, evenign and mornign are 12 hours, not 24. From even to even is 24 hours."
Sorry, evening and morning are 24 hours. God divided the day from the night and day = morning and evening = night which = a 24 hour period.
{False. evening was night and mornign day. however, from night to night is 24 hours, form day to day is 24 hours, from day to night is 12.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Let's take a look at your concordance example Zarove: day Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117 day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1"
To which Zarove replied, "{This is a lie Luke. It doesnt defien it as a day ( 24 hours) as deifned by evenign and mormng, those are two seperate definitions...}- Zarove"
This is Kevin, not Luke and it is not a lie as you state Zarove.
{sorry evin,a dn yes it is a lie. I reposted the definition and broke it up intot he proper seperations. The initial post wasnt the corect way it was displayed in the concordance, with me breakign them up later for my own convenenince base don m fdivisions. Rather, when I initially posted them, they squintched togather, and I reposted with longer spaces between.
You posted three definitions togather, and claimed they where all one definition.}-Zarove
I quoted exactly what the concordance says and it states that evening and morning are (24 hours) and that was all part of what you quoted and was not a "separate" definition as you state.
{No, it didnt. You post three definitiosn at one. I bet you think when I post them as a list that thats my artificial division. However, the reality is the concordance ( reportesbelow) if read initially, and not form my initial pst, seperates the definitions.
You asusme that the definitoion was running, and that all of them are squished togather, they arent. Let me resaow tyou. Here is how it appears IN the concordance, the deifnition " A 24 hour period" is NOT part of the " As defined by evenign and morning in Genesis Chapter 1". its not part of that definitioon at all!
Note, I am not curring it up into seperate definitons, and the "24 hour period" is NOT origionally fllwoed by " As defiend by evenign and mronign in Genesis". The EXAct CONDORDANGE ENTRY IS BELOW.
Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow
KJV Word Usage and Count
day 2008
time 64
chronicles 37
daily 44
ever 18
year 14
continually 10
when 10
as 10
while 8
full 8 always 4
whole 4
alway 4
miscellaneous 44
This is what you have read.
Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117
day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 as a division of time 1b a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.) time, period (general) year temporal references today yesterday tomorrow KJV Word Usage and Count day 2008 time 64 chronicles 37 daily 44 ever 18 year 14 continually 10 when 10 as 10 while 8 full 8 always 4 whole 4 alway 4 miscellaneous 44
You asusme the later is the origional verison, and the former is me dividign it into seperate definitions,w hent he concordance makes it clear that tis a 24 hour period, as defied by evenign and mornign in genesis. This is incorrect, as that was geenrated by the text beign squished togather, and its NOT an ongping defintion.I didntseperate the evenign and mornign form the 24 hours, ti was aleaydseperated int he oncordance.}-Zarove
I wrote, "It specifically states that a day as defined by the Hebrew word Yom is a 24 hour period as defined by "evening and morning"."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, it didnt. Only when it crunched in the origional posting.Otherwise they are seperate definitions.}-Zarove"
Actually it did mean this very thing... Do you have a problem reading what you wrote???
{The real queatsion is, do you? I reposted the concordance, and the evenign and mornign definition ARE seperate definitions, only combined when Greenpsan merged the lines and didnt leave them seperate.}-Zarove
I initially wrote, "There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number."
To which Zarove replied, "{Yes, there is. " days of thy life" is an xample of a psan of time, nto a day. Likewise,th word is used I beelive for Nebuchanerd madness, which is speculated to have been 7 years and not 7 days.}- Zarove"
My reply was, "Too bad the "days of thy life" is not modified by a number in the text. If you are going to answer my question, at least be honest when you are answering..."
Zarove shot back with, "{I was. Yom is used often as not spacificlay a 24 hour perood, een when it is numbered. }-Zarove"
I showed in my earlier post how Zarove was incorrect in his "days of thy life" response.
{And you ignroed how Zarove mentioend other uases of the word Yom, do I relaly have tp look for every word usage ? even the ocncordance says its nto always transalted as a 24 horu period, knwon as a day.
day 2008
time 64 chronicles 37
daily 44
ever 18
year 14
continually 10
when 10
as 10
while 8
full 8
always 4
whole 4
alway 4
miscellaneous 44
Its not always translated "Day". }-Zarove
I will say it again: There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number.
{Thewn why is it not 100% of the itme translated as "Day, 24 hour period' on the KJV, which this COncordance uses? There are several hundred p;laces where its nto translated day,if you bother to look.}- Zarove
I wrote, "Evening and morning as defined in the book of Genesis is not merely Hebrew poetry as you allege it defines the exact period of when the heavens and the earth were created."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, it does not nessisarily , and your misapplicaitn fo the deifnition is clear proof of youe own intellectual dishonesty since you cliamed the 2 seperate definitiosn where one.}-Zarove"
That is your "assertion" Zarove that I am "misapplying" the definition of the Hebrew word "Yom" which is our word day.
{Or tme, or chiniucle, or always... as trnaslated soemtimes in the KJV... you alledge thT IT is ALWATS trnaslated as day, even when the concordance says otherwise...explain that.}-Zarove
How was I "dishonest" in my claim of two separate definitions of this word??? I did not "misapply" the definition of this word. In fact, I cut and pasted your definition, so to claim that I am "dishonest" is not the truth.
{You cut and pasted the concordance entry that suited ytour inerest,t he oen Greenspun messed up. You asume that in text form it appears as a signel, ingoiung definition, and I later cut them into list format, in reality it origionally is a list format, and the "24 hour period, as defiend by evenign and mornign in Genesis' dosnt exist int he concordance.
And you also ignored the "Other word usage and count"list. You cliams it was ALWAYS translated as day, when the concordance contradicts you.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Actually it is your speculation because if you were to read the book of Genesis without any knowledge of Hebrew poetry, any knowledge of the Masoretic text, then it is clear that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "{Then why was it that Polycarp, liekwise ignorant in hebrew and not familiar withte archane patters of poetry, liekwise asserted the same? Really you presume too much. Besides, now you want me to favour a translaiton over the origional text, that i will not do.}-Zarove"
I will ask you again, what has changed from the "original text" to what we now have as our translations of the Bible???
{ive answered, wil give detials later if reqeasted.}-Zarove
Just because someone makes an "assertion" and it agrees with your interpration, does not make it true.
{Jusg because you assert that the word Tom is always translated as day doesnt make that true either. I woiudl be careful with who I am sloppy with.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Yes I did, and obviously you overlooked the most obvious one... You know the one that is defined by "evening and morning"..."
To which Zarove replied, "{However, the evenign and morning is not deifned as a 24 hour period, you interpoluted that from other segments.}-Zarove"
No, I didn't... I cut and pasted (without any "interpopulation") your very words that you posted and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
{I did prove otherwise, You assume that the origional defnitoon was where the thing ran on like this...
day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 as a division of time 1b a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.) time, period (general) year temporal references today yesterday tomorrow And that I later changes it, carvign it into a list of different segments when it was rellay all one runnig defnition. The thing is, as I type this now it appears as a list, and wont appear as a runnign paragraph till I hit " Submit". My poetry is often doen int he same fashion, i have to be carefula nd go bakc through it and space bar every verse break, or else it will crunch togahter.
I post form the KJV which makes all the verses in line, btu if I post here, it will squinch togather unless I space bar each verse.
See below.
Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created * the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Its listed, 1: 2: and 3: should run in a line on the endge, not squinched togather...}-Zarove
I wrote, "If God is "all powerful" and He is then it would not take Him (and did not take Him) "cycles" as you call it to make the heavens and the earth."
To which Zarove replied, "{yet it took him days? why nto create all in an instant? Relay how long he did take is not limiting how long he codl have taken... unless you wan tot explain why he wasnt powerful enough to create it all in less than a fraction of a second...why he was too weak and needed 7 days...}-Zarove"
Who said anything about God creating everything in an "instant"??? Why would God take "cycles" to create something that actually took "days"???
{You mised my point. You critised me for sayign it took "cycles" and then say it nly took days. But woudln an all Powerful God be able to create everyhtign in an instant? if the lenght of time it took to create everyhting is the measur eof his pwoer, then he isnt all pwoerful sicne he didnt creare everyhtign in an instant. Its a mean of rebutting your comments.}-Zarove
How about just answering the question instead of running to the other extreme and saying "Why didn't God create everything in an instant or a fraction of a second"...
{Because I am answerign the wueation by revealign the fault toy uor logic. You asusme that if he took a logner time than a week it means he sint as poweerful. Thats rellay relaly not right.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Your reading of Hebrew poetry has clouded your judgment on this issue. It is not hard to read the book of Genesis and see that the days of creation are literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "12. 24 is even to even., not even to morrow... and the refrain seems a bit awkward to be taken in suhc a vein.}-Zarove"
Does the Bible say, "even to even" or "evening and morning"??? Genesis 1:5 states, "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."
{It foes nto say that evening to mornign are 24 hour periods, even taken literlaly. Hebrews understood the term "even to even' as a 24 hour period, as evidenced by the commandentn "From even unto even thou shalt celebrate thy sabbath". devenign to Mornign is 12 hours, since it doesnt cover all night and all day, merley form night to daybreak.}-Zarove
Morning = Day (12 hours) and Evening = Night (12 hours).
{No, mornign means daybreak. evenign means nightfall. From evenign to mronign is 12 hours, not 24, unless you want the sabbath to last 36 hours...}-Zarove
Why is this so hard for you to understand??? When does the Hebrew day begin???
{sundown, and begins sundown as well... like our midnight... thats why when you hear the term " From even unto even thou shalt celebrate thy sabbath". If evenign to Mornign was 24 horus, that woudl me n the sabbath woudl begin friday at sundown and end sunday morning, and not saterday evening.}-Zarove
I wrote, "Please give us a reputable translation that so translates these words to mean "cycles" Zarove... If you cannot, then it is obvious that the translators of the Bible who are infinitely more qualified in Hebrew know more than you do..."
To which Zarove replied, "{Or else they are using a word that is trasitionally ascribed... I know many instances where they arent infinitley better at the Hebrew than I. And arguments form auhtority arent relaly vlaid.}-Zarove"
It is obvious that Zarove does not have any reputable translation that so translates the word day to mean "cycles" as he alleges.
{Uhm, all of them at soem poitn do, icne you where wrogn whrn you claims the word tom is always tranlated as day...}-Zarove
If the translators (and there have been many) were wrong concerning this translation, you have not offered sufficient evidence to prove this word should be translated differently.
{I didnt say they where worng, I merley said there where other ways to look at it.}-Zarove
So are you now going to claim that you are a "Hebrew Scholar" since you state, "I know many instances where they arent infinitley better at the Hebrew than I"???
{As a matter of fact it is the Biblical langage I studies...}-Zarove
I wrote, "No because the only correct way to interpret the days of creation in the book of Genesis is for literal 24 hour periods."
To which Zarove replied, "{At leats in your narrow veiw, an if your wrong what then? At leats i dotn presume to have all the answers.}- Zarove"
I never said "I have all the answers" now did I Zarove???
{In this isnatnce yes, and are demonstratabley wrogn sicne you alledge that from evenign to mronign means all day and all night, not form day until mornign, as it has always been understood...}-Zarove
Please explain how my view is "narrow" when I hold to a literal definition of the word day and yet you have to "change" the definition to fit what you have learned from outside sources???
{Its Yom, not Day,a nd even you arent beign literal sicne you asser that its a 24 rater than a 12 hour period by tryign topretend evenign and mornign means all d and all night, a 24 hour period, instead of evening to evenign beign 24 hotus and evenign tomornign beign half that.}-Zarove
I wrote, "To claim that it took God "cycles" to create the heavens and the earth is absurd... Are you also going to claim that since it took God "cycles" to make the heavens and the earth that it is going to take "cycles" for them to be destroyed???"
To which Zarove replied, "{Its alreayd takign cycles, Jesus has been gone for 2000 years.}- Zarove"
So now a "cycle" is 2000 years???
{A cycle is any lenght of time in a regular interval.}-Zarove
I wrote, "No I do not understand Hebrew poetics nor do I care to understand them since it is obvious your learning them has clouded your judgment."
To which Zarove replied, "{Hardly. It hasnt done anyhting, snc emy judgement onthis matter was alreayd "corrupted"... learnign this simpley made Genesis chapters 1 anbd 2 more clear and fit in better. }-Zarove"
If this is the case, then why do you have to change the meaning of the word "day" to fit what you have learned???
{I do not, and its Yom, not day...Yom isnt always tranlated as day you know... see beow...
KJV Word Usage and Count
day 2008
time 64
chronicles 37
daily 44
ever 18
year 14
continually 10
when 10
as 10
while 8
full 8
always 4
whole 4
alway 4
miscellaneous 44
Note al theoens under "Day".}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 30, 2004.
I wrote, "Is there a difference between our translations of the Bible and the "Masoretic text"??? If so, what are they?"To which Zarove replied, "{gRAMMER, SYNTAX, AND RHYTHME. Likewise, soem words can have two or more meaning.}-Zarove"
The KJV Bible is based on the Masoretic text. Are you going to assert that this version is not translated correctly based on what you stated above??? You are not a Hebrew Scholar and these men are the ones who translated the Bible. Were the translators of the KJV incorrect in their translation Zarove???
I wrote, "Please explain what is different from the original to the translation?"
To which Zarove replied, "{In a nutshell, the pattern of grammer in the porigional IS poetic, and repetative, and in rhythmeic detramiter, unliek any posisble english way to proerly translate it.}-Zarove"
Yet the translators of the KJV were able to accomplish something that you claim is "not" possible to properly translate???
I wrote, "Sorry, evening and morning are 24 hours. God divided the day from the night and day = morning and evening = night which = a 24 hour period."
To which Zarove replied, "{False. evening was night and mornign day. however, from night to night is 24 hours, form day to day is 24 hours, from day to night is 12.}-Zarove"
Actually, what I wrote is True, not False as you allege. The Hebrews measured their time from evening to morning... so from one evening to the next and I quote from Genesis 1:5, "So the evening and the morning were the first day." then from Genesis 1:8, "So the evening and the morning were the second day." From day 1 evening to day 2 evening is a 24 hour period so what you said above is not true...
I wrote, "This is Kevin, not Luke and it is not a lie as you state Zarove."
To which Zarove replied, "{sorry evin,a dn yes it is a lie. I reposted the definition and broke it up intot he proper seperations. The initial post wasnt the corect way it was displayed in the concordance, with me breakign them up later for my own convenenince base don m fdivisions. Rather, when I initially posted them, they squintched togather, and I reposted with longer spaces between. You posted three definitions togather, and claimed they where all one definition.}-Zarove"
I copied and pasted what you quoted... If what I copied was not correct, that is your fault, not mine...
Let's take a look at another Concordance definition of this word (from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.):
OT:3117 yowm -- day, time, year a) a day (as opposed to night) b) a day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Gen 1 2) as a division of time; a working day, a day's journey c) days, lifetime (plural) d) time, period (general) e) year f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow
If you look at b 1), this most certainly says that a days is a 24 hour period as defined by evening and morning...
I wrote, "I quoted exactly what the concordance says and it states that evening and morning are (24 hours) and that was all part of what you quoted and was not a "separate" definition as you state."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, it didnt. You post three definitiosn at one. I bet you think when I post them as a list that thats my artificial division. However, the reality is the concordance ( reportesbelow) if read initially, and not form my initial pst, seperates the definitions."
Read the definition in the concordance above... This agrees with what I have been saying all along... a day in Genesis 1 is a 24 hour period as defined by evening and morning...
Zarove wrote, "You asusme that the definitoion was running, and that all of them are squished togather, they arent. Let me resaow tyou. Here is how it appears IN the concordance, the deifnition " A 24 hour period" is NOT part of the " As defined by evenign and morning in Genesis Chapter 1". its not part of that definitioon at all!"
Again, look at the Concordance I quoted above...
Zarove wrote, "Note, I am not curring it up into seperate definitons, and the "24 hour period" is NOT origionally fllwoed by " As defiend by evenign and mronign in Genesis". The EXAct CONDORDANGE ENTRY IS BELOW. Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117 day, time, year day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 as a division of time 1b a working day, a day's journey days, lifetime (pl.) time, period (general) year temporal references today yesterday tomorrow KJV Word Usage and Count day 2008 time 64 chronicles 37 daily 44 ever 18 year 14 continually 10 when 10 as 10 while 8 full 8 always 4 whole 4 alway 4 miscellaneous 44 This is what you have read."
If you will notice what is quoted in the Strong's concordance the you cited above, in the first definition under what I gather is 1 a. as there is 1 b. and so forth. If you would merely look under the first definition of this word, everything before 1 b. it states: "day, time, year (this is the 1st line) day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period) (this is the 2nd line) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 (this is the 3rd line)"
If you will notice the second line which states day (24 hour period) and then the next line states "as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1"... No other definition makes this statement concerning the first chapter of Genesis in what you quoted... Hence the definition of day in Genesis 1 = a 24 hour period and not a long period or "cycle" as you assert.
I wrote, "I showed in my earlier post how Zarove was incorrect in his "days of thy life" response."
To which Zarove replied, "{And you ignroed how Zarove mentioend other uases of the word Yom, do I relaly have tp look for every word usage ? even the ocncordance says its nto always transalted as a 24 horu period, knwon as a day."
No, I didn't ignore them, they just do not fit the definition of the word in this passage... I asked you to answer a question, and you threw out an answer that was not correct. Instead of saying you made a mistake, you go off and state that I was the one who ignored your definition of the word...
Zarove wrote, "Its not always translated "Day". }-Zarove"
The truth of the matter is when it is modified by a number, it is "always" translated "Day" whether you choose to believe it or not.
I wrote, "I will say it again: There is not a single example in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Yom" means anything other than a period of 24 hours when modified by a number."
To which Zarove replied, "{Thewn why is it not 100% of the itme translated as "Day, 24 hour period' on the KJV, which this COncordance uses? There are several hundred p;laces where its nto translated day,if you bother to look.}- Zarove"
I will ask you again Zarove where is it so translated when modified by a number??? I showed you how you were incorrect in your last attempt... Would you like to try again???
I wrote, "That is your "assertion" Zarove that I am "misapplying" the definition of the Hebrew word "Yom" which is our word day."
To which Zarove replied, "{Or tme, or chiniucle, or always... as trnaslated soemtimes in the KJV... you alledge thT IT is ALWATS trnaslated as day, even when the concordance says otherwise...explain that.}-Zarove"
I didn't say the word Yom was "always" translated as the word "day" and if I did, please cut and paste my words where I am guilty of what you allege??? If I am guilty as you allege, I will be quick to apologize, and if you cannot do this, then you are not speaking the truth...
I wrote, "How was I "dishonest" in my claim of two separate definitions of this word??? I did not "misapply" the definition of this word. In fact, I cut and pasted your definition, so to claim that I am "dishonest" is not the truth."
To which Zarove replied, "{You cut and pasted the concordance entry that suited ytour inerest,t he oen Greenspun messed up."
How can you "assume" that this "suited my interest"??? Are you able to read minds Zarove??? I cut and pasted what you wrote... To claim that I am dishonest in cutting and pasting what you wrote is nothing but pure sophistry on your part...
Zarove wrote, "You asume that in text form it appears as a signel, ingoiung definition, and I later cut them into list format, in reality it origionally is a list format, and the "24 hour period, as defiend by evenign and mornign in Genesis' dosnt exist int he concordance."
It does in what you again posted... and it specifically states and I quote (remember these are your words - let me break them up for you with a semicolon): "Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117; day, time, year; day (as opposed to night) day (24 hour period); as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1; as a division of time"
It states day; as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1...
Zarove wrote, "And you also ignored the "Other word usage and count"list. You cliams it was ALWAYS translated as day, when the concordance contradicts you.}-Zarove"
No it does not... Go back and re-read the other Concordance that I quoted above...
I wrote, "I will ask you again, what has changed from the "original text" to what we now have as our translations of the Bible???"
To which Zarove replied, "{ive answered, wil give detials later if reqeasted.}-Zarove"
If you are not a Hebrew Scholar... and you have already stated you are not... then the information you provide cannot contradict what has already been translated... Unless of course you are smarter than the scholars...
I wrote, "Just because someone makes an "assertion" and it agrees with your interpration, does not make it true."
To which Zarove replied, "{Jusg because you assert that the word Tom is always translated as day doesnt make that true either. I woiudl be careful with who I am sloppy with.}-Zarove"
Again, I did not state nor did I assert the word "yom" is always translated as a "day" or 24 hour period throughout the entire Bible...
I wrote, "No, I didn't... I cut and pasted (without any "interpopulation") your very words that you posted and I challenge you to prove otherwise."
To which Zarove replied, "{I did prove otherwise, You assume that the origional defnitoon was where the thing ran on like this..."
I pasted what you wrote... the original definition of the word in Genesis chapter 1 means a literal 24 hour period and not "cycles" as you assert.
I wrote, "Who said anything about God creating everything in an "instant"??? Why would God take "cycles" to create something that actually took "days"???"
To which Zarove replied, "{You mised my point. You critised me for sayign it took "cycles" and then say it nly took days. But woudln an all Powerful God be able to create everyhtign in an instant? if the lenght of time it took to create everyhting is the measur eof his pwoer, then he isnt all pwoerful sicne he didnt creare everyhtign in an instant. Its a mean of rebutting your comments.}-Zarove"
No, I didn't miss your point... The fact of the matter is God did not create the heavens and the earth in an instant and even if He could, we do not know this and to state other than what has been revealed is nothing but pure speculation on your part... Let's just stick to what has been revealed and not speculation...
I wrote, "How about just answering the question instead of running to the other extreme and saying "Why didn't God create everything in an instant or a fraction of a second"..."
To which Zarove replied, "{Because I am answerign the wueation by revealign the fault toy uor logic. You asusme that if he took a logner time than a week it means he sint as poweerful. Thats rellay relaly not right.}-Zarove"
No, I didn't assume anything Zarove... I never stated that if it took God "cycles" to create the heavens and the earth that He wasn't as "powerful" as you state, again that is nothing but pure speculation on your part... The power of God is not we are discussing...
I wrote, "Does the Bible say, "even to even" or "evening and morning"??? Genesis 1:5 states, "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."
To which Zarove replied, "{It foes nto say that evening to mornign are 24 hour periods, even taken literlaly. Hebrews understood the term "even to even' as a 24 hour period, as evidenced by the commandentn "From even unto even thou shalt celebrate thy sabbath". devenign to Mornign is 12 hours, since it doesnt cover all night and all day, merley form night to daybreak.}-Zarove"
From day 1 evening in Genesis 1:5 to day 2 evening in Genesis 1:8 is a 24 hour period...
I wrote, "Morning = Day (12 hours) and Evening = Night (12 hours)."
To which Zarove replied, "{No, mornign means daybreak. evenign means nightfall. From evenign to mronign is 12 hours, not 24, unless you want the sabbath to last 36 hours...}-Zarove"
From nightfall (evening) to nightfall (evening) is a 24 hour period...
I wrote, "Why is this so hard for you to understand??? When does the Hebrew day begin???"
To which Zarove replied, "{sundown, and begins sundown as well... like our midnight... thats why when you hear the term " From even unto even thou shalt celebrate thy sabbath". If evenign to Mornign was 24 horus, that woudl me n the sabbath woudl begin friday at sundown and end sunday morning, and not saterday evening.}-Zarove"
Yes, it begins in the evening (which is sundown) hence that is why it states in the book of Genesis the evening and the morning were the first day and so on... I never said evening to morning = 24 hours... Evening to Evening = 24 hours... Morning + Evening = 24 hours...
I wrote, "It is obvious that Zarove does not have any reputable translation that so translates the word day to mean "cycles" as he alleges."
To which Zarove replied, "{Uhm, all of them at soem poitn do, icne you where wrogn whrn you claims the word tom is always tranlated as day...}-Zarove"
Again, I never stated the word "day" is always translated as a literal "day"...
I wrote, "I never said "I have all the answers" now did I Zarove???"
To which Zarove replied, "{In this isnatnce yes, and are demonstratabley wrogn sicne you alledge that from evenign to mronign means all day and all night, not form day until mornign, as it has always been understood...}-Zarove"
Again, Evening + Morning = 24 hours... Evening = a 12 hour period and Morning = a 12 hour period... Your contention that I am "demonstrably wrong" is false...
I wrote, "Please explain how my view is "narrow" when I hold to a literal definition of the word day and yet you have to "change" the definition to fit what you have learned from outside sources???"
To which Zarove replied, "{Its Yom, not Day,a nd even you arent beign literal sicne you asser that its a 24 rater than a 12 hour period by tryign topretend evenign and mornign means all d and all night, a 24 hour period, instead of evening to evenign beign 24 hotus and evenign tomornign beign half that.}-Zarove"
Actually it is translated "day"... and I am being "literal" despite your contention to the contrary... If you start with evening and end with morning, where do you end up in a literal 24 hour period??? You end up right where you started with evening again and this is how it is presented in the book of Genesis...
I wrote, "If this is the case, then why do you have to change the meaning of the word "day" to fit what you have learned???"
To which Zarove replied, "{I do not, and its Yom, not day...Yom isnt always tranlated as day you know... see beow..."
I have not translated this word (Yom) in any other instances except where it means a literal 24 hour period or "day" despite your false assertion otherwise.
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.
Zarove,If you Really, Really want to continue... Our posts will do nothing but get longer and longer... I will leave it up to you...
-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.
Translators are shaped by the religious belifs of their churches, Kevin.I will post False translations soon.
And Zarove is right, 1/3 of the Bible is poetry. You cannot fully 100% translate poetry as prose without losing some meaning.
A good example of Bebrew parallelism:
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Lines in Black go together, that is, the dogs will trample them under their feet, not the swine.[The dogs being the gentiles. An allusion to Paul's message to the Gentiles(some homosexuals )which scandalized James and other disciples of Jesus].
The Christian Yahwist
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.
Tisk, tisk Elpidio.I think you just need a good course in English? Punctuation?
Matt 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they (the dogs or pigs) may trample them (sacred things;pearls) under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
This has nothing to do with Gentiles. This has to do with believers verses pagans/unbelievers.
Pigs or swine were unclean animals according to God's law (Deuteronomy 14:8). Anyone who touched an unclean animal became ceremonially unclean. Today, we are washed clean by the blood of Jesus. But back then, anyone unclean could not enter the temple to worship until the uncleaness was removed.
Jesus says that we should not entrust holy teachings to unholy or unclean people. It is futile to try and teach holy concepts to people who don't want to listen and who don't believe. These people will only tear apart what true believers say.
This does not mean that we shouldn't share the gospel message with unbelievers. But until they receive Christ--they are incapable of understanding biblical revelation anyway.
This should really speak to your heart Elpidio--since you reject Jesus.
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.
"This has nothing to do with Gentiles. This has to do with believers verses pagans/unbelievers. "--Faith.I think that had much to do with the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not the Chosen People. It wasn't until later that the Gentiles were brought into the teachings.
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.
The message Jesus was giving had to do with *unbelievers.* Yes--in those days, Gentiles were considered unbelievers until God offered His Son to all. But that is secondary. The message pertains to us today as well and is about believers not wasting too much time trying to teach deep biblical concepts to unbelievers.
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.
That was Paul's contetion, faith, that Gentiles also were chosen by God Yahweh.The belief of Peter, James, and other Jews was that Yahweh sent Jesus to the Jews only. )(see Acts). It wasn't until Peter had the revelation about unclean foods and Paul's mission to the gentiles that their minds were changed a little.
That is why there is a Gospel of Matthew.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.
Elpidio.,I don't know what you are going on about.
I was just showing you the meanining of the verse you offered in Matthew.
You said this with regard to Matt 7:6:
Lines in Black go together, that is, the dogs will trample them under their feet, not the swine.[The dogs being the gentiles. An allusion to Paul's message to the Gentiles(some homosexuals )which scandalized James and other disciples of Jesus].
I was just trying to clear up your confusion, as clearly the dogs and pigs are each equally representitive of unbelievers....
-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.