[_ Old Earth _] Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible "for Christians"

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

"Exegete the text" Barbarian

Um Bob? Inserting new words into the text is not "exegesis." It's just you adding your own ideas to scripture. It doesn't say "six actual days." You just added it to make God's Word more acceptable to you.

Meanwhile we all SEE "IN the Text" that the term for yom and the quantified form "SIX DAYS" is used with exact equality in the Exodus 20 SUMMARY of the Gen 1-2:4 "EVENT" applying the SAMe term to those at Sinai without ANY doubt as to What "SIX days" MEANS (hint: Our 7 day week).

From a creationist site:
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

So we know that argument is dead.

 

[BobRyan]

Exodus 20:8-11

Ex 20
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 not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

"Exegete the text" Barbarian --- simply "making stuff up" is not carrying your point forward at ALL.
(Though it is the usual "stories easy enough to make up" it is not exegesis.)

Meanwhile we all SEE "IN the Text" that the term for yom and the quantified form "SIX DAYS" is used with exact equality in the Exodus 20 SUMMARY of the Gen 1-2:4 "EVENT" applying the SAMe term to those at Sinai without ANY doubt as to What "SIX days" MEANS (hint: Our 7 day week).

Barbarian observes:

Um Bob? Inserting new words into the text is not "exegesis."

Um Barbarian? Exegete the text to make your case against the SIX DAY terms used IN THE TEXt.

Still waiting...

HINT: Even Orthodox Rabis WHO DO TEACH Darwinism - agree - that the SIX DAY term in exodus 20 CAN NOT be "exegeted" or "BENT" to Darwinist needs.

IF you have a way to "exegete the TEXT" such that is successfully "bent" to your Barbarian Darwinist needs -- then "do the math" -- "show your work" -- prove rather than "hopelessly assume" your argument.

So far what we have from you is textless "story telling" after textless "Story telling" effort -- and no exegesis "At all". (A telling situation for the objective unbiased reader).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

More Hints for Barbarian.

A darwinist has two choices..

Either the Bible is an unreliable conflicted untrustworthy document (As L.K has argued and as all atheists here would argue) ... And Bible believing Christians while being honest and faithful regarding what "the text SAYS" are simply wrong to trust an unreliable self-conflicted document....


OR the Bible is reliable and accurate - but the Bible believing Christians who support what it says about orgins and life -- are simply "misreading it" because Moses is the first "Darwinist".

Take your pick.

But so far you seem to be rambling...casting about you looking for a darwinist solution.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Bob accepts the atheist argument)

Either the Bible is an unreliable conflicted untrustworthy document (As L.K has argued and as all atheists here would argue) ... And Bible believing Christians while being honest and faithful regarding what "the text SAYS" are simply wrong to trust an unreliable self-conflicted document....


OR the Bible is reliable and accurate - but the Bible believing Christians who support what it says about orgins and life -- are simply "misreading it" because Moses is the first "Darwinist".

Take your pick.

There's also the Christian argument:
The Bible is about God and man, and our relationship, but is not about science, and does not contradict scientific theories like evolution.

Bob doesn't like the Christian argument, because accepting the Bible as it is, rules out "life ex nihilo."

 

[BobRyan]

Ahhh yes "The Christian Argument --

We saw that here...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p389834

And we note God's summary of it in His Law -

Ex 20
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 not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

"Exegete the text" Barbarian --- simply "making stuff up" is not carrying your point forward at ALL.
(Though it is the usual "stories easy enough to make up" it is not exegesis.)

Meanwhile we all SEE "IN the Text" that the term for yom and the quantified form "SIX DAYS" is used with exact equality in the Exodus 20 SUMMARY of the Gen 1-2:4 "EVENT" applying the SAMe term to those at Sinai without ANY doubt as to What "SIX days" MEANS (hint: Our 7 day week).

Barbarian observes:

Um Bob? Inserting new words into the text is not "exegesis."

Um Barbarian? Exegete the text to make your case against the SIX DAY terms used IN THE TEXt.

Still waiting...

HINT: Even Orthodox Rabis WHO DO TEACH Darwinism - agree - that the SIX DAY term in exodus 20 CAN NOT be "exegeted" or "BENT" to Darwinist needs.

IF you have a way to "exegete the TEXT" such that it is successfully "bent" to your Barbarian Darwinist needs -- then "do the math" -- "show your work" -- prove rather than "hopelessly assume" your argument.

So far what we have from you is textless "story telling" after textless "Story telling" effort -- and no exegesis "At all". (A telling situation for the objective unbiased reader).

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Ahhh yes "The Christian Argument --

We saw that here...

(Bob objects to the early Christians who did not accept Genesis as literal history)

It's not just the early ones, Bob. You have a lot of differences with Christians today.

(Bob argues that if an allegory is cited in scripture, that changes it to literal history)

You're going to have to explain that one, Bob.

Barbarian observes:
"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

"Exegete the text" Barbarian ---

Bob, "exegete" doesn't mean "add actual" to God's word to make it more acceptable to you." You didn't like what Genesis says, so you did a little alteration.

Simply "making stuff up" is not carrying your point forward at all.

Meanwhile we all SEE "IN the Text" that the term for yom and the quantified form "SIX DAYS" is used with exact equality in the Exodus 20 SUMMARY of the Gen 1-2:4 "EVENT" applying the SAMe term to those at Sinai without ANY doubt as to What "SIX days" MEANS (hint: Our 7 day week).

I know you want us to believe it, Bob. But when even your fellow creationsts point out that its wrong, you don't have much left to go on.ccFrom a creationist site:
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)
"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

The choice is plain; you can accept God's word in Genesis, or you can accept YE creationism. But you can't accept both.

 

[BobRyan]

I will make it easy Barbarian ---

1. Read the post
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&start=60#p390354

2. Exegete the text to show that it can be 'bent' to your usages.

Here is the text where God SUMMARIZES the Gen 1-2:4 event you so need to deny.

We saw that here...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p389834

And we note God's summary of it in His Law -

Ex 20
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 not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

Then SHOW "in the text" that you have a point..


Still waiting...

(Oh wait -- MAYBE you think that going to the Hebrew dictionary and looking up one word IS EXEGESIS!!)

Do we need to go over what Exegesis is - Barbarian?

Maybe I assumed too much in asking you to show your work here. (Hint: Every cult on the planet will try to "insert it's error" into the text by picking-and-choosing ONE of many definitions for a given word to BEND the text to their usages. The system of exegesis specifically abolishes that practice by showing that the CONTEXT IN the text as well as the meaning TO the first order primary readers -- AND the use of the same terms by the same author on the same subject must all be taken into account).

SO for example IF the Jews DID NOT come away from Sinai with a 7 day week -- but rather with a 7 billion year week ... or something like that -- you could have argued a case that direction.

As it is -- you are going to simply have to face some "inconvenient details"

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

All I can do, Bob, is urge you to accept Scripture as it is, and to stop trying to add things to it.

Let God be God. And if He didn't see fit to say that the "days" in Scripture were actual days, then don't try to add it in to correct Him.

 

[lordkalvan]

.....HINT: Even Orthodox Rabis WHO DO TEACH Darwinism - agree - that the SIX DAY term in exodus 20 CAN NOT be "exegeted" or "BENT" to Darwinist needs.....

I would like to make the point that not all those whose faith is supported by the OT necessarily agree with you, thus illustrating again the simple fact that exegesis of biblical text is not an infallible tool for deriving assumption-free meaning from the Bible.

If you are claiming that Exodus 20 is suffcient grounds for determining that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are actual, 24-hour days as we understand them currently, and that part of your support for this argument is that Orthodox Rabbis who have no difficulty in resolving an acceptance of evolutionary theory with their faith agree with this interpretation, perhaps you could provide references to these Rabbis' views?

In contrast to this claim, the Rabbinical Council of America quotes Rabbi Joseph Hertz writing in support of the view

that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

thus

"While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers."

Quotes from http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635.

Meanwhile, the Jewish Virtual Library confirms that

Prominent Orthodox rabbis who affirm that the world is older, and that life has evolved over time, include Aryeh Kaplan, Israel Lipschitz, Sholom Mordechai Schwadron (the MaHaRSHaM), Zvi Hirsch Chajes. To be sure, these rabbis do not accept the views of atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who hold that evolution has no room at all for God. Rather, each rabbi taking this position proposes their own understanding of theistic evolution, in which the world is older, and that life does evolve over time in accord with natural law, yet also holding that God has a role in this process.

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html which further quotes both Professor Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America:

The Torah's story of creation is not intended as a scientific treatise, worthy of equal time with Darwin's theory of evolution in the curriculum of our public schools. The notes it strikes in its sparse and majestic narrative offer us an orientation to the Torah's entire religious worldview and value system. Creation is taken up first not because the subject has chronological priority but rather to ground basic religious beliefs in the very nature of things. And I would argue that their power is quite independent of the scientific context in which they were first enunciated.

and Rabbi David J. Fine, spokesman for the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards:

Conservative Judaism has always been premised on the total embrace of critical inquiry and science. More than being compatible with Conservative Judaism, I would say that it is a mitzvah to learn about the world and the way it works to the best of our abilities, since that is to marvel with awe at God's handiwork. To not do so is sinful.

But here's where the real question lies. Did God create the world, or not? Is it God's handiwork? Many of the people who accept evolution, even many scientists, believe in what is called "theistic evolution," that is, that behind the billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, there is room for belief in a creator, God, who set everything into motion, and who stands outside the universe as the cause and reason for life. The difference between that and "intelligent design" is subtle yet significant. Believing scientists claim that belief in God is not incompatible with studying evolution since science looks only for the natural explanations for phenomena. The proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, deny the ability to explain life on earth through solely natural explanations. That difference, while subtle, is determinative.

and Rabbi Michael Schwab:

One of the most well known ways our tradition has been able to hold onto both the scientific theory of evolution as well as the concept of a purposeful creation was by reading the creation story in Genesis in a more allegorical sense. One famous medieval commentary proclaims that the days of creation, as outlined in the book of Bereshit, could be seen as representative of the stages of creation and not literal 24 hour periods. Thus each Biblical day could have accounted for thousands or even millions of years. In that way the progression according to both evolution and the Torah remains essentially the same: first the elements were created, then the waters, the plants, the animals, and finally us. Therefore, Genesis and Darwin can both be right in a factual analysis even while we acknowledge that our attitudes towards these shared facts are shaped much more strongly by the Torah – we agree how the process unfolded but disagree that it was random.

Plenty of grounds there for contesting your claim, I think.

 

[BobRyan]

.....HINT: Even Orthodox Rabis WHO DO TEACH Darwinism - agree - that the SIX DAY term in exodus 20 CAN NOT be "exegeted" or "BENT" to Darwinist needs.....

I would like to make the point that not all those whose faith is supported by the OT necessarily agree with you, thus illustrating again the simple fact that exegesis of biblical text is not an infallible tool for deriving assumption-free meaning from the Bible.

If you are claiming that Exodus 20 is suffcient grounds for determining that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are actual, 24-hour days as we understand them currently, and that part of your support for this argument is that Orthodox Rabbis who have no difficulty in resolving an acceptance of evolutionary theory with their faith agree with this interpretation, perhaps you could provide references to these Rabbis' views?

In contrast to this claim, the Rabbinical Council of America quotes Rabbi Joseph Hertz writing in support of the view

that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

thus
[quote:1035b]"While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers."

Quotes from http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635.

[/quote:1035b]

Maybe I was not clear enough. The points are simple.

1. ORTHODOX Jews DO accept Darwinism.
2. ORTHODOX Rabbis DO admit that the term "YOM" as used "in the text" of Exodus 20:8-11 has no textual or linguistic "excuse" for REDEFINING the term "in the text" between one occurance and the other. It is the SAME term used in the SAME context with no excuse from "the text" for bending it to the usages of darwinism.
3. There is no treatement at all "in exegesis" of Exodus 20:8-11 by either Christian or Jewish source showing that it does NOT make reference to the Gen 1-2:4 events OR that the summary it provides uses a definition for "YOM" in Exodus 20 that is NOT the real days of the week as used by Jews.

In your response you make no argument at all about that term.

In your response to appear to seek to prove the first part of my own statement -- that various groups of Jews including Conservative, Liberal (and I would also argue ORTHODOX) to promote Darwinism.

L.K
Plenty of grounds there for contesting your claim, I think.

This is the part that confuses me -- the arguments are not connecting and getting a direct "counter" and yet the claim at the end is made that the "argument was contested".

What am I missing?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the oft-repeated argument quoted below to Barbarian - I talk a lot about "Exegesis" and point to the text of Exodus 20..

For as many times as we find this kind of post on this thread -- we still have NO ATTEMPT to exegete it in favor of Darwinism. It is if the group is casting about them seeking for "another way" to solve the problem RATHER than a direct honest rendering of the text.

Why do that?

I will make it easy Barbarian ---

1. Read the post
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&start=60#p390354

2. Exegete the text to show that it can be 'bent' to your usages.

Here is the text where God SUMMARIZES the Gen 1-2:4 event you so need to deny.

We saw that here...

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p389834

And we note God's summary of it in His Law -

Ex 20
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 not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Six actual days" is, of course, your alteration of Scripture .

Then SHOW "in the text" that you have a point..


Still waiting...

(Oh wait -- MAYBE you think that going to the Hebrew dictionary and looking up one word IS EXEGESIS!!)

Do we need to go over what Exegesis is - Barbarian?

Maybe I assumed too much in asking you to show your work here. (Hint: Every cult on the planet will try to "insert it's error" into the text by picking-and-choosing ONE of many definitions for a given word to BEND the text to their usages. The system of exegesis specifically abolishes that practice by showing that the CONTEXT IN the text as well as the meaning TO the first order primary readers -- AND the use of the same terms by the same author on the same subject must all be taken into account).

SO for example IF the Jews DID NOT come away from Sinai with a 7 day week -- but rather with a 7 billion year week ... or something like that -- you could have argued a case that direction.

As it is -- you are going to simply have to face some "inconvenient details"

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

All I can do, Bob, is urge you to accept Scripture as it is, and to stop trying to add things to it.

Step 1 -- embrace the Bible honest method of exegesis.. Be willing to LOOK at the text, READ the text and then Exegete it.

Step 2 -- SHOW that exegesis will allow the text "to be bent" just as you suggest it should be in favor of the atheist doctrines of darwinism.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

...Maybe I was not clear enough. The points are simple.

1. ORTHODOX Jews DO accept Darwinism.

Do you mean that all Orthdox Jews accept evolutionary theory? Or is this point referring only to a particular group of Orthodox Jews who may accept evolutionary theory?

2. ORTHODOX Rabbis DO admit that the term "YOM" as used "in the text" of Exodus 20:8-11 has no textual or linguistic "excuse" for REDEFINING the term "in the text" between one occurance and the other. It is the SAME term used in the SAME context with no excuse from "the text" for bending it to the usages of darwinism.

Are these the same Orthodox Rabbis who accept evolutionary theory, or are they Orthodox Rabbis who do not accept evolutionary theory? Can you clarify this and provide links in support of your claim?

I thought that the references that I provided you from the RCA and the JVL were sufficient to establish the fact that both contemporary and historic Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars do not regard the term yom as susceptible of only one interpretation. If this is not the case and your claim is correct, then why do the arguments from Orthodox Rabbis that I have quoted occur in the first place? Indeed, why would the RCA bother to quote Rabbi Joseph Hertz at all:

"...The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.

From http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635

I scarcely think it plausible to claim that these scholars' understanding of biblical text is inferior to yours or to that of your so far unnamed evolutionary-theory supporting Orthodox Rabbis.

3. There is no treatement at all "in exegesis" of Exodus 20:8-11 by either Christian or Jewish source showing that it does NOT make reference to the Gen 1-2:4 events OR that the summary it provides uses a definition for "YOM" in Exodus 20 that is NOT the real days of the week as used by Jews.

And again, how do you reconcile this with the references I have provided you with to opinions of Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars that yom is susceptible of a different interpretation in Genesis from that which you believe is absolutely required by your understanding of the reference in Exodus?

In your response you make no argument at all about that term.

I agree I made no reference to the absolute linkage you believe established between Exodus and Genesis that forces but one interpretation of yom in Genesis.This is because I believed I had provided you with ample references to Orthodox Jewish biblical scholars whose understanding is, in fact, different from yours in respect of the meaning of yom in Genesis.

In your response to appear to seek to prove the first part of my own statement -- that various groups of Jews including Conservative, Liberal (and I would also argue ORTHODOX) to promote Darwinism.

You use a somewhat contentious turn of phrase to imply that any understanding that evolutionary theory and belief in God can be compatible is in some way reprehensible. I sought only to establish that many Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars had an understanding of yom in Genesis different from yours. You might also note that in some instances that understanding was developed centuries before Charles Darwin was even born and thus its proponents can have been under no compulsion to 'promote Darwinism'.

[quote:db62c]L.K
Plenty of grounds there for contesting your claim, I think.

This is the part that confuses me -- the arguments are not connecting and getting a direct "counter" and yet the claim at the end is made that the "argument was contested".

What am I missing?[/quote:db62c]
Apparently that the argument for the linkage between Genesis and Exodus when seeking a definition of yom in Genesis is not acknowledged by many Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars to be as conclusively absolute as you claim.

 

[BobRyan]

Guessing "about what their answer might be if asked the question" is not as compelling a form of debate as other more direct points would be.

One thing we do know is that Orthodox Jews are "among the religions" that regard tradition to be equal to or superior to the text of scripture. They do not regard opposition to scripture as "a problem" at all. The good news about that in this case is that they are more likely to be direct and up front about the linguistics of the problem and the fact that "yom" in Exodus 20 -- "is what it is".

IF on the other hand you are claiming that Exodus 20:8-11 is either the ideal, honest or accurate way to "summarize the Darwinist proposition" I suggest we poll some of our atheist and agnostic participants to see if that is the case.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
the arguments are not connecting and getting a direct "counter" and yet the claim at the end is made that the "argument was contested".

What am I missing?

L.K
Apparently that the argument for the linkage between Genesis and Exodus when seeking a definition of yom in Genesis is not acknowledged by many Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars to be as conclusively absolute as you claim.

Without any quote of any Hebrew language authorities "Jewish or otherwise" doing an exegetical review of "days" in Exodus -- it is pretty hard to "argue what they would have said -- had they done it". (Not that I don't have that -- I just mean that it is not present in the discussion so far)

Might be more interesting to "see the data" than to speculate as to what it would be if only we were looking.

Also - the point started very simply with the day "yom" term in Exodus. Are you not interested in looking? Certainly none of your sources mentioned it or did a review of vs 8-11 to SHOW it can be "redefined mid sentence".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
In your response to appear to seek to prove the first part of my own statement -- that various groups of Jews including Conservative, Liberal (and I would also argue ORTHODOX) to promote Darwinism.

L.K
You use a somewhat contentious turn of phrase to imply that any understanding that evolutionary theory and belief in God can be compatible is in some way reprehensible.

Then you have missed something. My point is to show that we are both agreeing that the Jews take this same approach to Darwinism. How can "agreeing" be the problem part of my post?

I am simply wondering why you are going through all the trouble to document the very point upon which we agree?

I sought only to establish that many Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars had an understanding of yom in Genesis different from yours.

"yom" in Genesis was not my question to the Rabbis.

My question put to them was "yom" in Exodus 20:8-11 and there we found "agreement" that the term can not be "redefined mid-sentence" and that it was the same 7 day week as the text identified for the weekly Jewish Sabbath.

The fact that they might find away "not to talk about Exodus 20" when they are revising Genesis 1 does not surprise me. I leave it to them to engage in such speculation as often as they wish.

I am simply trying to highlight the "Glaringly obvious" in Exodus 20 because it THEN is "instructive" to make the link to Gen 1 - after having first sovled the "basics" that BOTH sides see clearly in Exodus 20.

You might also note that in some instances that understanding was developed centuries before Charles Darwin was even born and thus its proponents can have been under no compulsion to 'promote Darwinism'.

Again - if there is an "understanding of the days in Exodus 20:8-11" different from the obvious meaning in the text -- show it.

Let the exegesis "begin".

Ex 20
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 not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
2. ORTHODOX Rabbis DO admit that the term "YOM" as used "in the text" of Exodus 20:8-11 has no textual or linguistic "excuse" for REDEFINING the term "in the text" between one occurance and the other. It is the SAME term used in the SAME context with no excuse from "the text" for bending it to the usages of darwinism.
3. There is no treatement at all "in exegesis" of Exodus 20:8-11 by either Christian or Jewish source showing that it does NOT make reference to the Gen 1-2:4 events OR that the summary it provides uses a definition for "YOM" in Exodus 20 that is NOT the real days of the week as used by Jews.

In your response you make no argument at all about that term.

I thought that the references that I provided you from the RCA and the JVL were sufficient to establish the fact that both contemporary and historic Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish scholars do not regard the term yom as susceptible of only one interpretation. If this is not the case and your claim is correct, then why do the arguments from Orthodox Rabbis that I have quoted occur in the first place? Indeed, why would the RCA bother to quote Rabbi Joseph Hertz at all:

"...The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch.

1. These are all great examples of ignoring the text of Exodus 20:8-11
2. There is no exegesis at all of Exodus 20 in that entire post.
3. The orthodox Rabbis that I contacted in Jerusalem were of the pro-Darwinist flavor and they claimed that this is the official position of the Orthodox Jews.

L.K

Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11.

Indeed it "can" -- the "question" though was not IF Isaiah 11 had that meaning - the question was whether Exodus 20:8-11 has it GIVEN that the Jews have a "seven DAY week" and not a "7 indefinite periods of time" week.

You know... the obvious point I started with -- and that we seem to be dancing around with very "other text BUT Exodus 20" being brought up in response to this "very direct point" from Exodus 20.

(Don't mean to be confusing -- I know why you may "need" to do that as your form of response. I just want to conclude the simple point from Exodus 20)

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob,

You seem to think that I do not understand your argument from Exodus to Genesis. You are wrong, I understand it fully. What I also understand is that there are many biblical scholars for whom your argument obviously does not convince. Why should I prefer the interpretation of yom in Genesis based on your logic rather than theirs?

I am also waiting for the links to Orthodox Rabbis who accept evolutionary theory and also the interpretation of yom that you do. You will forgive me if I prefer something other than your unsupported statement in this matter.

 

[BobRyan]

It is true that once we get past "step 1" we will get to the link between Exodus 20:8-11 AND the Genesis 1-2:4 event IT summarizes - but for now I was wondering if you would bring yourself to admit to the obvious in Exodus 20 or else exegete your way out of it.

You seem reluctant to "go to the text".

Since the text appears to be a problem for you -- I have asked some other Darwinists on this board if they might be able to assist.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=60#p390692

I think you will find their assistance to be "instructive"

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

It is true that once we get past "step 1" we will get to the link between Exodus 20:8-11 ... for now I was wondering if you would bring yourself to admit to the obvious in Exodus 20 or else exegete your way out of it.

You seem reluctant to "go to the text".

Since the text appears to be a problem for you -- I have asked some other Darwinists on this board if they might be able to assist.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32904&start=60#p390692

I think you will find their assistance to be "instructive"

Is this post directed at me or at someone else?

When you mention atheists and agnostics in the link which you refer to, do you mean to include those who may be Christians but who do not hold to a literal, inerrant interpretation of the OT?

Also, do you mean to include as atheists and agnostiics as well those who may not be Christians but who do have faith in an Abrahamic God?