[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[Sparkey]

I am hoping the young earth story gets so twisted it snaps like a wire thatis all twisted up.

Would one be correct to think this is an "agenda" ? Barb, what are your thoughts about this? I'm quoting from your post that supports the article that was just debunked. Will there be some admission here? Doubtful.

I'd like to repeat what that article said as it bears repeating:

Yom in the Creation Account

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.​

• Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
• Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
• Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

The fourth [???] usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years.

Neyman argues, "To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years..." which is essentially confirming his assumption within his premise and creating a strawman argument to knock down later. Pretty sure that nobody here is going to provide any quote from any Scripture that says "millions". I wonder if the Hebrew language has a word for millions? Now, before I go too far in one direction and fail to not go too far in the other, let me say that I am not entirely convinced that the "first day" must be understood as a 24 hour period. It does not follow the pattern exactly. In the Hebrew it says something like:

• " וַיְ הִ י u·iei (becoming) | עֶרֶ ב orb (evening) | וַיְ הִ י u·iei (becoming) | בֹ קֶ ר bqr (morning) | י ם ium (day) | אֶ חָ ד achd (one)
• " and·he-is-becoming | evening | and·he-is-becoming | morning | day | one "
• evening and morning: one day.

See for yourself: Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Hebrew Text : WLC_v (v1.1): Westminster Leningrad Codex with vowels
Sublinears : WLC_t, CHES (v2.0),
Translation : Authorised Version.

It should be noted that there is a difference in word order between "Day One" (order in the Hebrew) and "One Day" (order in English). The interlinear provides a distinct Hebrew word order and does not change to our way of speaking. Similar to how we see, " in-beginning | he-created | Elohim " and need to understand that God is the creator and not the created. In the beginning, God created...

 

[stovebolts]

what if we aint literal Adam?

I mean I see what you are saying, but if I am taking the bible as metaphorical,what's the problem with meaning of a day?

like "That is one bad ride"

how would you take that literally? using the rules of grammar?

What if the Resurrection isn't literal? What if it was just metaphorical?

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

[Arch Angle]

what if we aint literal Adam?

I mean I see what you are saying, but if I am taking the bible as metaphorical,what's the problem with meaning of a day?

like "That is one bad ride"

how would you take that literally? using the rules of grammar?

Because the Hebrew style of writing found in the bible is supposed to lend to an interpretation system called "Pardes."

In it, the plain meaning is true, as well as the metaphorical meaning.

err? I don't know historical writingtypes. This is a claim that I would havelook into.

let me start with this question ... Who was the author again? of genesis? That way I can begin to check what the authormeant.

 

[Arch Angle]

What if the Resurrection isn't literal? What if it was just metaphorical?

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly

I think you would have to be the one to answer.

for me, it doesn't get more earthly than forcing christ into a book.

 

[Arch Angle]

Would one be correct to think this is an "agenda" ? Barb, what are your thoughts about this? I'm quoting from your post that supports the article that was just debunked. Will there be some admission here? Doubtful.

I'd like to repeat what that article said as it bears repeating:

no, it is not an agenda. More of a Hope I think. I guess weall have agenda's. I mean look at the video about c-14 dating. It didnt have an agenda.

My agenda is to find out the truth the best way we can I guess.

 

[Adam]

let me start with this question ... Who was the author again? of genesis? That way I can begin to check what the authormeant.

The author of Genesis? Traditionally, Moses.

Modern scholarly advancements refer to the author or authors as "J", also known as "the Yahwist."


Of course, he only way to familiarize yourself with J is to read the writings. It is circular logic to try to ascertain what J meant by knowing who J was, when you can only know him by his writing.

 

[Sparkey]

no, it is not an agenda. More of a Hope...

I am hoping the young earth story gets so twisted it snaps like a wire that is all twisted up.

Seems like a hope that has an agenda to me. Your hope is that the Young Earth story gets twisted? Can't help but wonder why, well that is, if there is no agenda other than hope for truth. Are you certain that you remain neutral to the possibility that those who are seen in opposition do not share the same hope for the truth? Personally, I don't hope for anybody to get all twisted up so that they snap like a wire. The worst (best?) that I would hope for would be that we all be seen for who we are and for what our purpose is. But that's not gonna happen. Well, maybe not universally and certainly not today. There will still be oppositions even after the destructive snapping you support, right? It's just a little over the wire, over the line(?) for me is all.

If there were no agenda, there would be no “plan or list of matters to be acted upon.” The absence of any plan or list of matters to be acted on would not prompt posters to post, would not insist on debate but would encourage more of a 'ho-hum' response, in my opinion. Are you certain that your hope for the truth doesn't include that others will see the truth as you behold it? And if so, why not? Would it be possible for me to think that there is just a random hope for snapping in you? Because I don't think that's the case, not for a minute. I think better of you than that.

 

[Arch Angle]

you make a good point.

Seems that we are pitted against one another at times. This 6 day nonsense against chemistry, physics, and biology. when in fact we are all the same.

I wish everybody finds the truth in the end.

 

[Arch Angle]

let me start with this question ... Who was the author again? of genesis? That way I can begin to check what the authormeant.

The author of Genesis? Traditionally, Moses.

Modern scholarly advancements refer to the author or authors as "J", also known as "the Yahwist."


Of course, he only way to familiarize yourself with J is to read the writings. It is circular logic to try to ascertain what J meant by knowing who J was, when you can only know him by his writing.

yeah, I looked up this parades thing.

its Jewish.

• Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning.[1]
• Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
• Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
• Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

so I can interpret it as a Jewish guy does, ornot. The most basic interpretation is that "god" followed a knowable process. That is what I see in genesis.

is that ok? or not? and why? I don't know anything abouthistorical writing.

 

[Sparkey]

you make a good point.

And that, right there, is the convinced attitude that I have about "us". It's normal to have varying opinions, who could expect otherwise. There is something good about fellowship though. Benefits such as this, not that we agree in every one of the "finer details" but that, as you say, "we are pitted against one another at times." We are all the same, in that we are all created by God. That's what I call the convincer, the big stick that can change attitudes. There's an interesting word-play on the words 'conviction" and 'convictions' but I'll leave you to that.

 

[Adam]

yeah, I looked up this parades thing.

its Jewish.

So is Genesis.

So when you asked "Who was the author again? of genesis? That way I can begin to check what the authormeant."

The answer is that he was a Jew. So to know what he meant you must begin from a Jewish perspective.

The most basic interpretation is that "god" followed a knowable process. That is what I see in genesis.

By what reason?


The way I see it, if all God's ways were knowable, they would not be called "wonders."

 

[cupid dave]

Who was the author again? of genesis? That way I can begin to check what the authormeant.

The author was god, dictating to the Jewish scribe who jotted it all down.
The use of yowm is not metaphorical, but literally refers to seven durations of time each millions if years long.

The use of "day" grammatically requires a definition that depends ONLY upon the context where it is used.

(see note under the Strong's definition for yowm)

While the readers in the past had no suspicion that seven ages of millions of years duration had ever existed, it was natural for them in tose times to understand the use of evening and morning to suggest a 24 hour duration.
That s why the churches all through the Middle Ages interpreted the story that way.

They had no other context by which to reason the meaning of yowm.

But today, recognizing that the 24 hour Earth day did not come to exist according to Genesis until the first sprouts of life appeared,, way after the tale had begun, the context becomes reasonable to see it corrspnd not with Earth days, but long gelogical durations as science defines them.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, so God spoke literally and not metaphorically to those who had no word that could express the concept of millions?

Is that what you're saying? Well, interesting then that he chose to include time clues with what he said when he spoke of the Creation Week, right?

• Light-time period is seen as 12 hours
• Same for night-time period.
• Both of those time periods, when added together could be called a "Yowm" or "Yom" too and that means two (2) twelve hour periods that are Day One. Same for 2nd Day and 3rd.

This concept of "millions" that you allege God spoke about while teaching those who had no word for such a large number culminated in all 7 days being a week. Not an era... Or a week of eras. Neither millions nor billions of anything was mentioned, nor even alluded to.

This is exactly what Moses understood, that our Week is molded after the Creation Week as seen in Genesis.
That's why the Jews of today still understand (and we do have words for "millions, billions, trillions, and even higher numbers) that a day is a day, it might mean a long period of time, as in "the days of King Hezekiah," but when used in Genesis it means what it means. Nothing more.

It's true that the Bible (in other places) can use the word to mean long periods of time. I would bring in Dan 7:9,13 God is called "the ancient of days." meaning he is beyond our measurement of time. But even as I did that, it would be remiss to not mention the very literal understanding that Moses (who spoke directly with Him) had:

Ex 20:8-10 : "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God."

Ex 20:11 : "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." Lev 25:4 is made clear by its context. Ex 20:11 calls the it 7th day just as we have 7 days in the week.

God gave Israel a specific day to remember which was the same day that he rested, showing his covenant with them. That they might have rest in him. They did not have a thousand years to rest but one day at the end of the week just as we keep our calendar today.

Ex 31:15 'Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. ... 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.'" God has told us through the commandments what occurred at Genesis. He interprets it for us so there is no mistake.

This is a reference to Gen.1:31 then God saw that everything that he made and indeed it was very good So it was evening and morning the 6th day. God gave Israel the same time period to rest as He did; a 24 hour day and night. God did not rest a thousand years. There is absolutely no evidence to have us believe that the word "day" is used differently in the book of Genesis than it is all through the rest of the Bible. Genesis is describing a normal Earth rotation that we still experience today, not a period of thousands or millions of years. The word day is determined by the context and a number is next it to clarify it.

Read more at Let Us Reason Ministries. Copied here under Fair Use, for purpose of instruction.

When the Lord wanted to communicate large numbers to Abraham, he chose the "stars of the sky" and the "sands of the sea" to do so. Interesting too that at the time that this word was heard, there were only about 4,000 stars that were visible total with the unaided eye, and the "grains of sand" were included. The Lord knows how to communicate large numbers. Here's a picture of 4,000 grains that have been counted very exactly and very precisely by scientific methods.

:shocked! Oh wait! That's a shark. It's "concept art" from Damien Hirst exhibit entitled "The Phyiscial Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living seen at the Met in NY. Now I wonder what brought me to radical concept art? Oh, yeah. "A billion years equals a day." Now I remember.

Here's the sand:

I've heard that if one were to count every grain of sand that lined each shore on the earth and total them, they would be remarkably similar to the total number of stars that are calculated in the universe. The Lord knows BIG, doesn't he?

Here's part of the message:
[video=youtube;bqavi-p78QU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqavi-p78QU[/video]

 

[Arch Angle]

yep sparrow.

I think god speaks. (peroid)

it is "you" that filters the information and comes up with thewording and or meaning. In a process similar to how you turn a flood of photons into a image.

I got this idea from the new testament to show, although basic, how it isdone.

 

[Adam]

While the readers in the past had no suspicion that seven ages of millions of years duration had ever existed, it was natural for them in tose times to understand the use of evening and morning to suggest a 24 hour duration.
That s why the churches all through the Middle Ages interpreted the story that way.

They had no other context by which to reason the meaning of yowm.

But today, recognizing that the 24 hour Earth day did not come to exist according to Genesis until the first sprouts of life appeared,, way after the tale had begun, the context becomes reasonable to see it corrspnd not with Earth days, but long gelogical durations as science defines them.

Of course, it has been shown to you that the geological durations as science defines them are enumarated at four, not seven.

And the interpretation of "day" originates with the Hebrew language itself, not 12th century Christians.

 

[cupid dave]

yep sparrow.

I think god speaks. (peroid)

it is "you" that filters the information and comes up with thewording and or meaning. In a process similar to how you turn a flood of photons into a image.

I got this idea from the new testament to show, although basic, how it isdone.

Of course we are all filtering the information we have acquired from scrioture throughthe lens of our ability to understand it.
That was my point above, which wentover the head of Sparrow, apparently.

My claim was NOT that ancient readers could not fathom the numerical value if millions,...
I said they could NEVER have associated time with geological durations, an idea not only unknown to them until recently, but an idea that would have been totally more unbelievable to them than anything they could have questioned in Genesis at that time.

Sparrow and fundamentalists ignore this OBVIOUS point, that the TRUTH, as science understands it today, would have required more faith to accept if stated as geological durations than the simplier faith demanded by Moses, to believe God was speaking in the Bible.

Gen 1:14 tells us today that the other seven "days" meant way, way long durations.
We can see this and that Genesis was dead right.

Or, as fundamentalists would have it, we can argue that Genesis is correct as they re-state it, and the Truth of Empirical Modern Science, and its Scientific Method is wrong.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes cupid, of course, it is so simple, I don't understand literalist's take.

It gets back to axiom, why we say things and hold them true I guess.
Like "the bible must be taken literaly" ... it is a look into the soul I should think.

sparrow just questions everything guy, from both sides. I don't take her as a literalist, or a fundamentalist. She is a seeker, I think anyway.

 

[Arch Angle]

While the readers in the past had no suspicion that seven ages of millions of years duration had ever existed, it was natural for them in tose times to understand the use of evening and morning to suggest a 24 hour duration.
That s why the churches all through the Middle Ages interpreted the story that way.

They had no other context by which to reason the meaning of yowm.

But today, recognizing that the 24 hour Earth day did not come to exist according to Genesis until the first sprouts of life appeared,, way after the tale had begun, the context becomes reasonable to see it corrspnd not with Earth days, but long gelogical durations as science defines them.

Of course, it has been shown to you that the geological durations as science defines them are enumarated at four, not seven.

And the interpretation of "day" originates with the Hebrew language itself, not 12th century Christians.

ADAM!!!!

not that it is a big deal ... but that is not my post you quoted.

Just avoided that dreaded illness ... quote confusion.

 

[cupid dave]

yes cupid, of course, it is so simple, I don't understand literalist's take.

It gets back to axiom, why we say things and hold them true I guess.
Like "the bible must be taken literaly" ... it is a look into the soul I should think.

sparrow just questions everything guy, from both sides. I don't take her as a literalist, or a fundamentalist. She is a seeker, I think anyway.

opppssss....
"She" is?

1) Dang.

For some reason I imagined Sparrow to be a congenial sweet guy about 60 years old who doesn't like to make waves or hear strong language and harsh controversy.
Don't tell her I said this, and I will be more respectful in the future remembering that I am not speaking with one of the guys.

Thanks.

2) Yes, seeking the Truth is EXACTLY the new covenant since Christ is the Light into the New Heaven and the New Earth which appears in our mind as we face Reality and accept the Facts-of-Life for what they are.
As one reads History, they must realize that the ancients all lived in fantasy worlds where they were oppressed by Pharaohs and kings they thought to be, and obey as, Gods who could treat men and nations as if toys passed down by their parents.
They feared electricity and never recognized the germs that killed them for what they were.

They allowed that strong but feminine Intuition to create spirits as the causes behind effects that became magicninstead of consequences to logical/mathematical insights so much more pronounced in the intellect of men, who have gradually been able to expose God's Natural Kaws as the real spirit of the Universe.

3) But you hit the proverbial nail on the head here, saying that you wonder "why we say things and then, hold them true."

This IS the most important revelation in scripture.
We discover, indeed, that our species is born monthly, because genetically we come packaged as a dozen or so slightly different kinds of thinkers.
Each of us comes with a different, but pre-set mental predisposition for relating to the Reality that confronts us right after birth.
We are the twelve fruits that gush out of the river of life that flows through the Temple of Truth, the New Jerusalem which is now establishing itself as the tool or the modern urim and thummim that describes the collective thinking we all add to.

We must now recognize this truth, and stop defending our own perceptions on everything against the other eleven points of view.
We must learn and grow in our views through the education we gain by open minded freely spoken and thoughtfully intergrated truth-seeking rather than defensively protecting our own limited strong minded and self assured point of view as if we MUST be right.



Mat 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name(Truth: [ John 14:6]), there am I, (Truth), in the midst of them.

 

[Arch Angle]

that's right cupid. Now for the next level ... the heavy.

I lay the bible in the center of a playground, sit back and watch. That is it's place. No more, no less.

It answers "whatam I".

after that we have to pick a base set of axioms that seem reasonable. We can't know it all. But I don't base the traits of god on what"I" don't know. I base the traits of god on what "I" do know.

And that's what science is. a set of eyes.

But your "eyes" don't define "you", they help you be the best "you" can be. "seeing" the bible, helps you treat your neighbor as the"YOU" they are.

I learnt that from Jesus.

A book is a book, am I to be a book? science helps me "see", It isimpossible to lock Christ in a book. Itis impossible to lock "life" itself into a book.
I learnt that from christ too.
The axiom that "the book is god", isthe apple. plain and simple