[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[zeke]

Given that Genesis doesn't say "whole world", and that the words you want to make "whole world" have numerous possible definitions, and given that the evidence does not support a world-wide flood, isn't it time for you to just accept that God did it the way He did?

Are you dogmatically saying the word cannot mean "world...the earth"? Doesn't God indicate it was a world-wide flood? You haven't proven otherwise - have you?

 

[Barbarian]

Are you dogmatically saying the word cannot mean "world...the earth"?

I'm saying the word used in Genesis was "erets." Which means "land." It meant the land of Israel, for example, or a portion of the nation.

Doesn't God indicate it was a world-wide flood?

No, He doesn't. Common misconception. The word Peter uses in 2 Peter is "κόσμος" which can mean "order", "humankind", "civilized world", "humans", etc.

You haven't proven otherwise - have you?

Don't have to. If you have a favorite meaning, it's up to you to provide evidence that it means what you want it to mean.

 

[zeke]

I'm saying the word used in Genesis was "erets." Which means "land." It meant the land of Israel, for example, or a portion of the nation.

So your biblical gully-washer only affected the land of Israel. Question for you - if the flood was simply a local gully-washer in the "land of Israel" only and it rained forty days and forty nights what kept the wicked who were not on the Ark from getting out their umbrellas and crossing oven into Lebanon?

If you have a favorite meaning, it's up to you to provide evidence that it means what you want it to mean.

I take the Genesis account for what it has always been - historical narrative.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I'm saying the word used in Genesis was "erets." Which means "land." It meant the land of Israel, for example, or a portion of the nation.

So your biblical gully-washer only affected the land of Israel.

We don't know that. We don't know for sure if it was an allegory or an actual flood. But there was one in the Middle East about the right time, with the Black Sea flooding.

Question for you - if the flood was simply a local gully-washer in the "land of Israel" only and it rained forty days and forty nights what kept the wicked who were not on the Ark from getting out their umbrellas and crossing oven into Lebanon?

Pretty much what stops all people killed in floods. Think about it.

Barbarian suggests:
If you have a favorite meaning, it's up to you to provide evidence that it means what you want it to mean.

I take the Genesis account for what it has always been - historical narrative.

Classic circular reasoning. You've assumed what you propose to prove.

 

[zeke]

We don't know that. We don't know for sure if it was an allegory or an actual flood. But there was one in the Middle East about the right time, with the Black Sea flooding.

But we do know - Genesis is historical narrative.

Pretty much what stops all people killed in floods. Think about it.

I have thought about your local flooding that took place over the course of 40 days. Local folks who see the waters rising over that period of time go on vacation to the next county. Easy concept.

Classic circular reasoning.

How is historical narrative circular, exactly? You do know what historical narrative means - right? You may be confused again.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We don't know that. We don't know for sure if it was an allegory or an actual flood. But there was one in the Middle East about the right time, with the Black Sea flooding.

But we do know - Genesis is historical narrative.

I know you want us to believe it, but you need to give us a better reason than you believe it is.

Question for you - if the flood was simply a local gully-washer in the "land of Israel" only and it rained forty days and forty nights what kept the wicked who were not on the Ark from getting out their umbrellas and crossing oven into Lebanon?

Pretty much what stops all people killed in floods. Think about it.

I have thought about your local flooding that took place over the course of 40 days.

Local folks who see the waters rising over that period of time go on vacation to the next county. Easy concept.

Odd then, that many thousands of people have lost their lives in floods. C'mon. You know better than that.

Barbarian asks why zeke has re-interpreted Genesis to be a historical narrative:

Zeke replies:

take the Genesis account for what it has always been - historical narrative.

Barbarian chuckles:
Classic circular reasoning.

How is historical narrative circular, exactly?

Because you assumed what you proposed to prove.

You do know what historical narrative means - right?

Yep. You assumed it, in your attempt to prove it. Circular reasoning.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian asks why zeke has re-interpreted Genesis to be a historical narrative:

And zeke answers - Genesis has always been historical fact presented in a historical narrative by men inspired by the Spirit of God...

From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and appearance of sane and sober history. There is not the slightest intimation that these Scriptures contain myth. The historical and literal nature of the Record is easily determined in contrast to the parables, allegories, and symbolisms which are usually defined within the context. We know, for an illustration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at the beginning. We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for the same reason. Where the Bible teaches by allegory or parable or symbolism it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise easily understood in the context. To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it is—historical fact ~ , Edward C. Wharton Genesis: Historical or Mythological?​

 

[Barbarian]

And zeke answers - Genesis has always been historical fact presented in a historical narrative by men inspired by the Spirit of God...

Wrong again, Zeke. St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of creation could not be literal days, because it was absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

The idea of Genesis as an entirely historical narrative is a very modern revision to Christianity.

 

[zeke]

Wrong again, Zeke. St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of creation could not be literal days, because it was absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

And we should care about Augustine's bent towards Manichaeism - why?

The idea of Genesis as an entirely historical narrative is a very modern revision to Christianity.

Proof please or are you simply pontificating again?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian obsrves:
Wrong again, Zeke. St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of creation could not be literal days, because it was absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

And we should care about Augustine's bent towards Manichaeism

We should only note that Augustine rejected pagan beliefs and became a Christian long before he became a theologian and wrote De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. He went on to become the most influential Christian theologian for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant denominations alike.

why?

You'd have to read his works to understand. He had a gift for making theology practical and understandable.

Barbarian observes:
The idea of Genesis as an entirely historical narrative is a very modern revision to Christianity.

Proof please or are you simply pontificating again?

Sure. Young Earth Creationism as you're expounding it is no older than the last century. It was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists, based on the visions of a "prophetess."

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation...For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

 

[zeke]

We should only note that Augustine rejected pagan beliefs and became a Christian long before he became a theologian and wrote De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. He went on to become the most influential Christian theologian for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant denominations alike.

Were his writings God-breathed and did he really give up his bent towards Manichaeism? I will go with God's word - you can have Augustine's tainted word.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness​

 

[zeke]

Sure. Young Earth Creationism as you're expounding it is no older than the last century. It was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists, based on the visions of a "prophetess."

LOL - do you just make this stuff up as you go or has your Magisterium misled you once again?

Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been . . . . And when they are asked, how, . . . they reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and . . . thus there was at intervals a new beginning made. . . . But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed. ~ Augustine, The City of God​

 

[Barbarian]

Zeke expresses his misconception about Christian theology:

Genesis has always been historical fact presented in a historical narrative by men inspired by the Spirit of God...

(Barbarian shows that Zeke is entirely wrong in that assertion; the most prominent of the early Christian theologians showed why it could not be a literal history.)

I will go with God's word

All your problems center around your unwillingness to accept His word. As you see, you have confused your modern revision of Christian belief with that of historical Christianity. You don't even know the roots of the revisionist version you follow. It's basically the doctrine of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

 

[zeke]

You don't even know the roots of the revisionist version you follow. It's basically the doctrine of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Is that nonsense what your Magisterium tells you to say or is it original with you? The truth is the SDA and the RCC have been at each others throats for decades and both organizations teach much error.

Who was Augustine referring to in The City of God as those who "are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed"? Did he really think that only 6000 years had past since God created "in the beginning" and his own day? Do you agree with him? Be careful how you answer.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian shows that YE creationism is the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists)

Is that nonsense what your Magisterium tells you to say or is it original with you?

Scholarly research by a former Seventh-Day Adventist. And he's right. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example, was Old Earth. There weren't many YE creationists around back then.

The truth is the SDA and the RCC have been at each others throats for decades

We don't agree on a lot of things, but I have a high regard for many Adventists, who clearly try to live the way they believe God wants them to.

You've accepted one of their errors.

Who was Augustine referring to in The City of God as those who "are deceived . . . by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed"? Did he really think that only 6000 years had past since God created "in the beginning" and his own day?

He didn't realize how old the Earth is. This is why the Church has never made that an article of faith; God never said how old it is.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian shows that YE creationism is the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists)
Scholarly research by a former Seventh-Day Adventist. And he's right. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example, was Old Earth. There weren't many YE creationists around back then.

Lol - anyone who tries to connect the belief in a 'young earth' exclusively to the SDA sect is far from 'scholarly' my friend. Is that what you are doing? Do you believe everything former SDA members publish? Augustine believed in a young earth was he influenced by SDA doctrine? Are you a historian?

We don't agree on a lot of things, but I have a high regard for many Adventists, who clearly try to live the way they believe God wants them to.

No argument there but that hardly supports your notion - right?

He didn't realize how old the Earth is. This is why the Church has never made that an article of faith; God never said how old it is.

Are you trying to say he didn't realize the earth was 4 bn years old because he used the Bible as a reference? I thought Augustine was on your side - are you confused?

 

[Barbarian]

Lol - anyone who tries to connect the belief in a 'young earth' exclusively to the SDA sect is far from 'scholarly' my friend.

As you see, that's not what he found. He found that YE creationism was invented by SDA people. Now, it's the official doctrine of Rev. Moon's "Unification Church."

Is that what you are doing?

Nope. You're just trying to quote-mine the Barbarian this time. Didn't work any better than your other attempts.

Do you believe everything former SDA members publish?

Wasn't hard to check his facts. He had it right.

Augustine believed in a young earth was he influenced by SDA doctrine?

You're a bit confused. Augustine didn't accept YE creationism. As you learned, he demonstrated that Genesis could not be a literal history.

Are you a historian?

I do have about 24 hours of history (I was stationed in a very boring place, where the recreation was pretty much "go drinking" or "take courses on base." The latter appealed to me more than the former.

Barbarian observes:
He didn't realize how old the Earth is. This is why the Church has never made that an article of faith; God never said how old it is.

Are you trying to say he didn't realize the earth was 4 bn years old because he used the Bible as a reference?

No. As you know, the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is.

I thought Augustine was on your side

No one said so. I'm just pointing out that he showed that Genesis could not be a literal history.

You're confused again. But since you decided not to leave us, how about answering the question you keep dodging? Why are so many predicted transitionals found, but never a transitional where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any? You ready to face that one?

 

[zeke]

As you see, that's not what he found. He found that YE creationism was invented by SDA people.

Again, anyone who tries to connect the belief in a 'young earth' exclusively to the SDA sect is far from 'scholarly' my friend. That be you. What did Augustine mean when he said "though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" since creation? Was Augustine a Moonie?

 

[zeke]

You're confused again. But since you decided not to leave us, how about answering the question you keep dodging? Why are so many predicted transitionals found, but never a transitional where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any? You ready to face that one?

Wrong thread---and off topic. Do you ever get anything right? What does the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" mean to you?

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. ~ Stephen Gould​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you see, that's not what he found. He found that YE creationism was invented by SDA people.

Again, anyone who tries to connect the belief in a 'young earth' exclusively to the SDA sect is far from 'scholarly' my friend.

Rather, young Earth creationism is the invention of SDA. Some Christians, particularly before we learned how old the Earth is, thought it would be thousands of years old. But that was never a Christian idea.

What did Augustine mean when he said "though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" since creation? Was Augustine a Moonie?

He was an orthodox Christian. He rejected the idea of Genesis as a literal history, claiming that the "days" of creation could not be periods of time.

Would you like to see that, again?