Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution
- Thread starter rthom7
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
The line you quoted is understood by scholars as Solomon praying for wisdom.
If I want to know if I need surgery, I check with surgeons. Go figure.
Barbarian observes:
.Lots of stories there, but no checkable facts. Show us some evidence..
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html Found in the USA.....read the link....
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
“The smoking gun for Phillips is the “caret,” symbolizing a correction, a modern symbol. “I infer that the person who inscribed the words was not fluent in the language, but was working off a photograph or drawing and temporarily overlooked part of the inscription.”1 Furthermore, Phillips writes, “when you stand and look at the inscription, a glance downward will show the possible signature of the creators. There in the bedrock is inscribed ‘Eva and Hobe 3-13-30.’ There is an oral tradition at UNM that Eva and Hobe were anthropology majors who prepared the inscription as a hoax, and who were found out. They were told that if they ever did something like that again, their careers in the field would be over.”
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2013/03/los-lunas-lunacy/
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
If you find that confusing, use Darwin's term: "descent with modification."
Ge 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth swarming swarmers.
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
Nope. It merely means "change." In science, it means "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
You've been misled on that. "Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
Of course, it didn't stop unscrupulous people in our time; you still see dishonesties like this:
Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual.
In the United States, racism and creationism have often been bedfellows. But it was true in Europe. Agassiz, the last great antievolution biologist, denied that blacks had a common ancestor with other races.
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html
And well into the 1990s, YE creationist leader and director of the ICR, Henry Morris, spewed this disturbing bit of racist claptrap:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148
This is not to say that all creationists are racists. Many, perhaps most of them, are not. But it's disturbing that so many creationists leaders have eugenics followers and racists, with no apparent criticism from their followers. A scientist who publicly did that would end his career.
And in the 1930s, when creationists were actively promoting eugenics, Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett were showing that the idea was not only immoral, but scientifically indefensible. Creationists didn't listen, of course.
This is true.
There's only one. Always has been. Always will be.
He meant "descent with modification." Sometimes, as he wrote, it could result in new species (what he called races). As you see, dishonest people have, for a long time, tried to equivocate the 19th century meaning with the one we know today.
The line you quoted is understood by scholars as Solomon praying for wisdom.
If I want to know if I need surgery, I check with surgeons. Go figure.
Barbarian observes:
.Lots of stories there, but no checkable facts. Show us some evidence..
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html Found in the USA.....read the link....
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
“The smoking gun for Phillips is the “caret,” symbolizing a correction, a modern symbol. “I infer that the person who inscribed the words was not fluent in the language, but was working off a photograph or drawing and temporarily overlooked part of the inscription.”1 Furthermore, Phillips writes, “when you stand and look at the inscription, a glance downward will show the possible signature of the creators. There in the bedrock is inscribed ‘Eva and Hobe 3-13-30.’ There is an oral tradition at UNM that Eva and Hobe were anthropology majors who prepared the inscription as a hoax, and who were found out. They were told that if they ever did something like that again, their careers in the field would be over.”
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2013/03/los-lunas-lunacy/
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
If you find that confusing, use Darwin's term: "descent with modification."
Ge 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth swarming swarmers.
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
Nope. It merely means "change." In science, it means "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
You've been misled on that. "Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
Of course, it didn't stop unscrupulous people in our time; you still see dishonesties like this:
Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual.
In the United States, racism and creationism have often been bedfellows. But it was true in Europe. Agassiz, the last great antievolution biologist, denied that blacks had a common ancestor with other races.
Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html
And well into the 1990s, YE creationist leader and director of the ICR, Henry Morris, spewed this disturbing bit of racist claptrap:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148
This is not to say that all creationists are racists. Many, perhaps most of them, are not. But it's disturbing that so many creationists leaders have eugenics followers and racists, with no apparent criticism from their followers. A scientist who publicly did that would end his career.
And in the 1930s, when creationists were actively promoting eugenics, Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett were showing that the idea was not only immoral, but scientifically indefensible. Creationists didn't listen, of course.
This is true.
There's only one. Always has been. Always will be.
He meant "descent with modification." Sometimes, as he wrote, it could result in new species (what he called races). As you see, dishonest people have, for a long time, tried to equivocate the 19th century meaning with the one we know today.
turnorburn
Member
No need for the name calling Barbarian just because we take God at his word.. racists and creationists bedfellows rather cruel don't you think?
tob
tob
Barbarian
Member
I'm only citing the evidence. As I said, that isn't a blanket indictment of all creationists. I think most creationists are not eugenists or racists. But it's troubling that their leaders can be so involved in it, without anyone calling them out on it.
And God never said that blacks were genetically inferior to other races. That was Henry's own addition to the Bible.
And God never said that blacks were genetically inferior to other races. That was Henry's own addition to the Bible.
Last edited:
Barbarian
Member
I suggested earlier that if a scientist said things similar to those of creationists leaders, his career would be over. There's an example:
James Watson, who was one of the two scientists who worked out the structure of DNA:
In short, Watson said some racist things back in 2007, and the publication of those comments had an impact on his income. In what certainly has the appearance of the most passive aggressive gesture of all time, Watson is selling his award in the hopes it will bolster the income he receives from his academic appointments – and perhaps finance the purchase of some new artwork.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...buy-james-watsons-nobel-prize-because-racism/
James Watson, who was one of the two scientists who worked out the structure of DNA:
In short, Watson said some racist things back in 2007, and the publication of those comments had an impact on his income. In what certainly has the appearance of the most passive aggressive gesture of all time, Watson is selling his award in the hopes it will bolster the income he receives from his academic appointments – and perhaps finance the purchase of some new artwork.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...buy-james-watsons-nobel-prize-because-racism/
rthom7 said:
rthom7 said:
Says the pot to the kettle.rthom7 said:
We have even given you the resources to do your own studying but you still want us to spoon feed you.
I can understand why you either didn't click on the link I gave or why you haven't commented on anything found there; sometimes it's hard to admit being wrong. So here, I'll help you out, this time (all from the YLT):Free said:
Gen 24:1 And Abraham is old, he hath entered into days, and Jehovah hath blessed Abraham in all things ;
Gen 27:41 And Esau hateth Jacob, because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau saith in his heart, `The days of mourning for my father draw near, and I slay Jacob my brother.'
Psa 7:11 God is a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.
Psa 21:4 Life he hath asked from Thee, Thou hast given to him--length of days, Age-during--and for ever.
Psa 23:6 Only--goodness and kindness pursue me, All the days of my life, And my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah, For a length of days!
Isa 1:1 The Visions of Isaiah son of Amoz, that he hath seen concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
That was just a quick glance at the link I provided. It is abundantly clear that yom is often rendered 'days,' plural, which is an unspecified period of time that is longer than one day and can be many years.
rthom7
Member
Barbarian,
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html Found in the USA.....read the link....
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
You never read my link did you ? No that would not be like you, if your going to discuss people's evidence you have to read their evidence....instead you only read your own....how do you know the Professor was not biased ?
Why I read recently some professors in Israel say Kings David's palace never existed, or that Israel ever entered the promise land from Egypt. I suppose we can believe anything we want....as you do here....
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
The above inscription is very unique for several reasons. First, it is written in an ancient Hebrew script. Second it is located near the small town of Los Lunas in the State of New Mexico, USA. Third, the inscription is of the "Ten Commandments".
Is this inscription an original or a fake. If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrews, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.
The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".
When we compare the script on the Los Lunas inscription with the above inscription found in 1993 at Tell Dan in the land of Israel, we find that the scripts are almost identical. Below is a comparison of the scripts from both inscriptions.
View attachment 6205
The Tel Dan inscription was written around 1000 BCE. Since the Los Lunas inscription uses the same script, it is safe to conclude that the Los Lunas inscription was written by a Hebrew people about 3,000 years ago. Other ancient Hebrew inscriptions have been found around the country including Tenessee and the Mississippi Valley. The "Archeological Outliers Homepage" includes other ancient Hebrew artifacts found in the United States. The article "Who Really Discovered America?" also includes some very interesting information on the Los Lunas inscriptions as well as other finds and includes a possible link between the Gold of Solomon and the Gold of Brazil
So nobody could read the text until an identical text was found in Israel. So it's not a fake.
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
I did. Show that it doesn't. Why else is a verb/noun (two Hebrew words) placed side by side ?
I trust you understand what this means in Hebrew thinking?
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
So your saying Darwin thought eugenics was evil ?
"Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
I didn't know this. How noble. He must have been a Christian then perhaps ?
Of course, it didn't stop unscrupulous people in our time; you still see dishonesties like this:
OK I take your point.
I shall have to read Darwin's Origin of Species myself. Shalom
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html Found in the USA.....read the link....
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
You never read my link did you ? No that would not be like you, if your going to discuss people's evidence you have to read their evidence....instead you only read your own....how do you know the Professor was not biased ?
Why I read recently some professors in Israel say Kings David's palace never existed, or that Israel ever entered the promise land from Egypt. I suppose we can believe anything we want....as you do here....
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
The above inscription is very unique for several reasons. First, it is written in an ancient Hebrew script. Second it is located near the small town of Los Lunas in the State of New Mexico, USA. Third, the inscription is of the "Ten Commandments".
Is this inscription an original or a fake. If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrews, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.
The above inscription cannot be a fake for the following reasons. The actual time of discovery of the inscription is not known but was known by the locals as far back as the 1850's. At that time, the script of the text was unknown and therefore undecipherable. It was not until this last century that the ancient Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) script was discovered in the Near East. Once this ancient script was discovered the Los Lunas inscription could be deciphered and was found to be a copy of the "Ten Commandments".
When we compare the script on the Los Lunas inscription with the above inscription found in 1993 at Tell Dan in the land of Israel, we find that the scripts are almost identical. Below is a comparison of the scripts from both inscriptions.
View attachment 6205
The Tel Dan inscription was written around 1000 BCE. Since the Los Lunas inscription uses the same script, it is safe to conclude that the Los Lunas inscription was written by a Hebrew people about 3,000 years ago. Other ancient Hebrew inscriptions have been found around the country including Tenessee and the Mississippi Valley. The "Archeological Outliers Homepage" includes other ancient Hebrew artifacts found in the United States. The article "Who Really Discovered America?" also includes some very interesting information on the Los Lunas inscriptions as well as other finds and includes a possible link between the Gold of Solomon and the Gold of Brazil
So nobody could read the text until an identical text was found in Israel. So it's not a fake.
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
I did. Show that it doesn't. Why else is a verb/noun (two Hebrew words) placed side by side ?
I trust you understand what this means in Hebrew thinking?
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
So your saying Darwin thought eugenics was evil ?
"Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
I didn't know this. How noble. He must have been a Christian then perhaps ?
Of course, it didn't stop unscrupulous people in our time; you still see dishonesties like this:
OK I take your point.
I shall have to read Darwin's Origin of Species myself. Shalom
turnorburn
Member
When i said we i meant the Christians in this forum have you evidence of that? i grew up in a catholic atmosphere there was overwhelming evidence of prejudice against blacks in these families
tob
*edit: as well as Jews
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
Yours and others. Turns out the hoax was easy to expose. Someone carelessly included a modern element that mean it had to be written in the modern era. Since that's when it turned up, the conclusion is obvious.
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
And somehow anticipated modern Hebrew by at least a thousand years.
No, that's wrong.
The reported 1880s date of discovery is important to those who believe that the stone is pre-Columbian. However, the Paleo-Hebrew script, which is closely related to the Phoenician script, was well known by at least 1870, thus not precluding the possibility of a modern hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone
Barbarian suggests:
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
Then just show us that it means" programmed for speciation rapidily." You seem a little reluctant to do that.
Barbarian observes:
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man
Barbarian observes:
"Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
At the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was an Anglican. In The Voyage of the Beagle, in which he makes many critical statements about racial abuse, he mentions that his orthodoxy was a kind of a joke among the ship's officers.
Ah, the Los Lunas hoax.
Yours and others. Turns out the hoax was easy to expose. Someone carelessly included a modern element that mean it had to be written in the modern era. Since that's when it turned up, the conclusion is obvious.
A modern symbol in supposedly ancient text, from the 1880s. No, this one won't fly.
And somehow anticipated modern Hebrew by at least a thousand years.
No, that's wrong.
The reported 1880s date of discovery is important to those who believe that the stone is pre-Columbian. However, the Paleo-Hebrew script, which is closely related to the Phoenician script, was well known by at least 1870, thus not precluding the possibility of a modern hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone
Barbarian suggests:
Show us that it means "programmed for speciation rapidly."
Then just show us that it means" programmed for speciation rapidily." You seem a little reluctant to do that.
Barbarian observes:
Darwin was familiar with the idea, and denounced it in The Descent of Man as an "overwhelming evil."
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man
Barbarian observes:
"Races" is what scientists used to call species. Contrary to what you've been told, Darwin didn't make any claims about the evolution of humans in his book. He was considered a liberal in his time, because he asserted the equality of all men in their rights and dignity, and for his opposition to slavery.
At the time he wrote The Origin of Species, he was an Anglican. In The Voyage of the Beagle, in which he makes many critical statements about racial abuse, he mentions that his orthodoxy was a kind of a joke among the ship's officers.
rthom7
Member
Free,
I can understand why you either didn't click on the link I gave or why you haven't commented on anything found there; sometimes it's hard to admit being wrong. So here, I'll help you out, this time (all from the YLT):
Free, I would love to discuss "yom" with you.... (rather than Barbarian) at least our discussion would be objective and I am open to being persuaded by evidence, logic and discussion. If you could guarantee a line of discussions between us for as long as it takes, I would be most happy and cordial with you
Now we know Hebrew has broad meanings, but despite this like any language each word must retain a single basic meaning regardless of its context. Scholars love to make Hebrew into a multiple meaning language and so have a field day with over a dozen meanings for some words. No wonder people get confused and angry with Scripture.
Gen 24:1 And Abraham is old, he hath entered into days, and Jehovah hath blessed Abraham in all things ;
This context says Abraham is getting old and has lived many days.... an idiom for saying lots of years....
but using the term "yom" rather than "year".
Gen 27:41 And Esau hateth Jacob, because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau saith in his heart, `The days of mourning for my father draw near, and I slay Jacob my brother.'
My children has left me since our divorce so I lament all my days. What I am saying in graphic emotions is Jacob weeps for his children day after day, both day time and night time, he never stops thinking of his loss.
Psa 7:11 God is a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.
Ps 7:11 (YLT) God [is] a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.(what a strange reason to include not)
Psa 7:11 God the upright judge, foams at the mouth daily.
The context seems to suggest GOD watches over us day and night, all the time.
Psa 21:4 Life he hath asked from Thee, Thou hast given to him--length of days, Age-during--and for ever.
This is an interesting verse
He asked living of thee,
and thou it gladly,
the length of thy days
goes on and on
(and on and on) [I note "ad" is used with "owlam" to add emphasis]
The Hebrew word "owlam" does not mean forever or eternal in the sense of time going backwards and infinity going forwards. It refers to present time going on and on, and on and on. Ongoing living.
Now if you add "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + etc = "owlam" (ongoing living)
I hope that makes sense....
Notice "yom" next to "owlam" and "ad" show us here the living is daily and goes on and on and on...
Psa 23:6 Only--goodness and kindness pursue me, All the days of my life, And my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah, For a length of days!
Isa 1:1 The Visions of Isaiah son of Amoz, that he hath seen concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
That was just a quick glance at the link I provided. It is abundantly clear that yom is often rendered 'days,' plural, which is an unspecified period of time that is longer than one day and can be many years
I would agree with you that some contexts use days + days + days for some verses, how many days are implied we do not know....but the verses are not saying days = month or days = years, there are other Hebrew words for other specified period's of time
Now when GOD created all things, He uses six "yoms" to create a new period of time called a "Week"
but a "week" is only 7 days isn't it? from which Sabbath Day is counted ?
I do not see "owlam" used in Genesis account...
Hope this helps Free
Shalom
I can understand why you either didn't click on the link I gave or why you haven't commented on anything found there; sometimes it's hard to admit being wrong. So here, I'll help you out, this time (all from the YLT):
Free, I would love to discuss "yom" with you.... (rather than Barbarian) at least our discussion would be objective and I am open to being persuaded by evidence, logic and discussion. If you could guarantee a line of discussions between us for as long as it takes, I would be most happy and cordial with you
Now we know Hebrew has broad meanings, but despite this like any language each word must retain a single basic meaning regardless of its context. Scholars love to make Hebrew into a multiple meaning language and so have a field day with over a dozen meanings for some words. No wonder people get confused and angry with Scripture.
Gen 24:1 And Abraham is old, he hath entered into days, and Jehovah hath blessed Abraham in all things ;
This context says Abraham is getting old and has lived many days.... an idiom for saying lots of years....
but using the term "yom" rather than "year".
Gen 27:41 And Esau hateth Jacob, because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau saith in his heart, `The days of mourning for my father draw near, and I slay Jacob my brother.'
My children has left me since our divorce so I lament all my days. What I am saying in graphic emotions is Jacob weeps for his children day after day, both day time and night time, he never stops thinking of his loss.
Psa 7:11 God is a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.
Ps 7:11 (YLT) God [is] a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.(what a strange reason to include not)
Psa 7:11 God the upright judge, foams at the mouth daily.
The context seems to suggest GOD watches over us day and night, all the time.
Psa 21:4 Life he hath asked from Thee, Thou hast given to him--length of days, Age-during--and for ever.
This is an interesting verse
He asked living of thee,
and thou it gladly,
the length of thy days
goes on and on
(and on and on) [I note "ad" is used with "owlam" to add emphasis]
The Hebrew word "owlam" does not mean forever or eternal in the sense of time going backwards and infinity going forwards. It refers to present time going on and on, and on and on. Ongoing living.
Now if you add "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + "day" + etc = "owlam" (ongoing living)
I hope that makes sense....
Notice "yom" next to "owlam" and "ad" show us here the living is daily and goes on and on and on...
Psa 23:6 Only--goodness and kindness pursue me, All the days of my life, And my dwelling is in the house of Jehovah, For a length of days!
Isa 1:1 The Visions of Isaiah son of Amoz, that he hath seen concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
That was just a quick glance at the link I provided. It is abundantly clear that yom is often rendered 'days,' plural, which is an unspecified period of time that is longer than one day and can be many years
I would agree with you that some contexts use days + days + days for some verses, how many days are implied we do not know....but the verses are not saying days = month or days = years, there are other Hebrew words for other specified period's of time
Now when GOD created all things, He uses six "yoms" to create a new period of time called a "Week"
but a "week" is only 7 days isn't it? from which Sabbath Day is counted ?
I do not see "owlam" used in Genesis account...
Hope this helps Free
Shalom
rthom7
Member
Barbarian, I read Darwin's book and found it interesting. I agree with you He does not speak of eugenics or human evolution....However I present my findings and quote from His thoughts:-
Does the term "evolution" have religious connations? All quotes from Darwin's book, 6th edition, on Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life By Charles Darwin,
(1) Darwin's account of origin of species opposes Bible account of origin of species.
I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should
shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as
showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that
the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the
attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive
of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
Darwin writes this his theory of origin of species should not shock the religious feelings of anyone. He states that his theory is as natural as the laws of gravity.
A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually
learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to
believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development
into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
action of His laws."
Darwin writes this because His theory contrasts to Genesis, and Genesis is about God creating things before the fall with sufficient programming for change when things fell after the fall of mankind. Just because man cannot imagine how this way done, does not falsify Creationism .
Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most
eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the
mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in
a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved
that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited
quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between
species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that
species when intercrossed are invariably sterile and varieties
invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign
of creation. The belief that species were immutable productions
was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was
thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired
some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without
proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have
afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had
undergone mutation. p475
Darwin writes this to challenge Creationism account of six literal days, that kinds are immutable productions.
These words are attacking the Bible account of Creation. It does this by saying species have come from a common ancestor over long periods of time. The Bible says God created species to vary within their kinds during the days of Creation week, a short period of time. These two accounts of origins are opposite to each other already from Darwin's words.
(2) Darwin's account of evolution as a term:
It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a
marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at
first developed within the marsupial sack. p221
First use of evolution, Darwin is using a term already in existence.
At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under
some form. Mr. Mivart believes that species change through "an
internal force or tendency," about which it is not pretended that
anything is known. That species have a capacity for change will
be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need, as it seems
to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to
ordinary variability, which through the aid of selection, by man
has given rise to many well-adapted domestic races, and which,
through the aid of natural selection, would equally well give rise
by graduated steps to natural races or species. p233
Darwin says evolution is some internal force, which cuses species to change.
Everyone who believes in slow and gradual evolution, will of
course admit that specific changes may have been as abrupt and
as great as any single variation which we meet with under nature,
or even under domestication. p234
Darwin says evolution requires one to believe in it as a theory...
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
theory of evolution through natural selection. p323
But this is how all animals were created in the six days of the Creation week of God. In fact they were spoken into existence, and emerged from the dust of the ground as fast as the Creator spoke the word.
I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and
never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable
that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent
or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to
understand their meaning. Now, things are wholly changed, and
almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.
There are, however, some who still think that species have
suddenly given birth, through quite unexplained means, to new
and totally different forms. But, as I have attempted to show,
weighty evidence can be opposed to the admission of great and
abrupt modifications. Under a scientific point of view, and as
leading to further investigation, but little advantage is gained by
believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an
inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the
old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth. It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in
number and less in force. p477
Here Darwin speaks of evolution as a "great principle" where new and totally different forms come via modifications, not from the old belief of in the creation of species created from the dust of the earth (by God).
Therefore "evolution" is much more than the mere change in allele populations of the genes of an organism, it also including the modifications of one organism into another of a totally different kind.
Continued .....with part 3
Does the term "evolution" have religious connations? All quotes from Darwin's book, 6th edition, on Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life By Charles Darwin,
(1) Darwin's account of origin of species opposes Bible account of origin of species.
I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should
shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as
showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that
the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the
attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive
of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
Darwin writes this his theory of origin of species should not shock the religious feelings of anyone. He states that his theory is as natural as the laws of gravity.
A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually
learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to
believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development
into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
action of His laws."
Darwin writes this because His theory contrasts to Genesis, and Genesis is about God creating things before the fall with sufficient programming for change when things fell after the fall of mankind. Just because man cannot imagine how this way done, does not falsify Creationism .
Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most
eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the
mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in
a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved
that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited
quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between
species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that
species when intercrossed are invariably sterile and varieties
invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign
of creation. The belief that species were immutable productions
was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was
thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired
some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without
proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have
afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had
undergone mutation. p475
Darwin writes this to challenge Creationism account of six literal days, that kinds are immutable productions.
These words are attacking the Bible account of Creation. It does this by saying species have come from a common ancestor over long periods of time. The Bible says God created species to vary within their kinds during the days of Creation week, a short period of time. These two accounts of origins are opposite to each other already from Darwin's words.
(2) Darwin's account of evolution as a term:
It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a
marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at
first developed within the marsupial sack. p221
First use of evolution, Darwin is using a term already in existence.
At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under
some form. Mr. Mivart believes that species change through "an
internal force or tendency," about which it is not pretended that
anything is known. That species have a capacity for change will
be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need, as it seems
to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to
ordinary variability, which through the aid of selection, by man
has given rise to many well-adapted domestic races, and which,
through the aid of natural selection, would equally well give rise
by graduated steps to natural races or species. p233
Darwin says evolution is some internal force, which cuses species to change.
Everyone who believes in slow and gradual evolution, will of
course admit that specific changes may have been as abrupt and
as great as any single variation which we meet with under nature,
or even under domestication. p234
Darwin says evolution requires one to believe in it as a theory...
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families,
have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
theory of evolution through natural selection. p323
But this is how all animals were created in the six days of the Creation week of God. In fact they were spoken into existence, and emerged from the dust of the ground as fast as the Creator spoke the word.
I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and
never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable
that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent
or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to
understand their meaning. Now, things are wholly changed, and
almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.
There are, however, some who still think that species have
suddenly given birth, through quite unexplained means, to new
and totally different forms. But, as I have attempted to show,
weighty evidence can be opposed to the admission of great and
abrupt modifications. Under a scientific point of view, and as
leading to further investigation, but little advantage is gained by
believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an
inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the
old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth. It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in
number and less in force. p477
Here Darwin speaks of evolution as a "great principle" where new and totally different forms come via modifications, not from the old belief of in the creation of species created from the dust of the earth (by God).
Therefore "evolution" is much more than the mere change in allele populations of the genes of an organism, it also including the modifications of one organism into another of a totally different kind.
Continued .....with part 3
rthom7
Member
(3) Darwin's application of evolution as a religion:
Note by author: [A religion is defined as rules individual people live by. Some of these rules are based on evidence and some are based on faith. Observational science can test things in the present using various tools thus producing evidence. But observational science cannot test the past. Such tools of observation are based on assumptions, and thus one has to believe on the results by faith. Some call this historical science. Both sciences exist as separate streams for interpreting data. One way to test a religion is the occurrence of the term "I believe" or the use of the term "doctrine" , and both of these terms are used in Darwin's book.]
Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same great class or kingdom. I believe that animals are
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants
from an equal or lesser number. p478
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion".
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief
that all animals and plants are descended from some one
prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all
living things have much in common, in their chemical
composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and
their liability to injurious influences p478
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion".
The noble science of geology loses glory from the extreme
imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth, with its
embedded remains, must not be looked at as a well-filled
museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare
intervals. The accumulation of each great fossiliferous formation
will be recognised as having depended on an unusual occurrence
of favourable circumstances, and the blank intervals between the
successive stages as having been of vast duration. But we shall
be able to gauge with some security the duration of these
intervals by a comparison of the preceding and succeeding
organic forms. We must be cautious in attempting to correlate as
strictly contemporaneous two formations, which do not include
many identical species, by the general succession of the forms of
life. As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting
and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation;
and as the most important of all causes of organic change is one
which is almost independent of altered and perhaps suddenly
altered physical conditions, namely, the mutual relation of
organism to organism--the improvement of one organism
entailing the improvement or the extermination of others; it
follows, that the amount of organic change in the fossils of
consecutive formations probably serves as a fair measure of the
relative, though not actual lapse of time. A number of species,
however, keeping in a body might remain for a long period
unchanged, whilst within the same period, several of these
species, by migrating into new countries and coming into
competition with foreign associates, might become modified; so
that we must not overrate the accuracy of organic change as a
measure of time. p481
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion". He calls the geologic column a "noble" cause for his "religious belief" on the common origins of species, and goes against the miraculous acts of creation.
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject
excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first
published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in
his "Philosophie Zoologique", and subsequently, 1815, in the
Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres". In
these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including
man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent
service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the
organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law,
and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been
chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by
the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost
perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy
of domestic productions.
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. Thus he has inferred "religion" though the term is used by both religion and science in general. A doctrine is belief a person who strongly in his belief system.
From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr. Freke, in 1851
("Dublin Medical Press", page 322), propounded the doctrine that
all organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His
grounds of belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different
from mine; but as Dr. Freke has now (1861) published his Essay
on the "Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity", the
difficult attempt to give any idea of his views would be
superfluous on my part. p11
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement.
In December, 1859, Dr. Hooker published his "Introduction to the
Australian Flora". In the first part of this great work he admits the
truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports
this doctrine by many original observations. p13
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement.
We shall, however, be enabled to
discuss what circumstances are most favourable to variation. In
the next chapter the struggle for existence among all organic
beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the
high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is
the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and
vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species
are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is
a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any
being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself,
under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will
have a better chance of surviving, and thus be NATURALLY
SELECTED.
A person's (Malthus) strong belief.
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the
common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the
old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows,
cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and
perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its
possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies
and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case;
and if such variations should be useful to any animal under
changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection,
though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered
as subversive of the theory.
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. He is saying the Bible cannot be trusted in it's historical accounts, describing the day the sun stood still as philosophy.
The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest
lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine
that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of
its possessor. They believe that many structures have been
created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but
this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or
for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such
doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. p189
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. Did God make every organ in man for example with function in mind? Or do we left over useless organs of evolution? Darwin is mocking God's perfect creation account.
Shalom
Note by author: [A religion is defined as rules individual people live by. Some of these rules are based on evidence and some are based on faith. Observational science can test things in the present using various tools thus producing evidence. But observational science cannot test the past. Such tools of observation are based on assumptions, and thus one has to believe on the results by faith. Some call this historical science. Both sciences exist as separate streams for interpreting data. One way to test a religion is the occurrence of the term "I believe" or the use of the term "doctrine" , and both of these terms are used in Darwin's book.]
Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same great class or kingdom. I believe that animals are
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants
from an equal or lesser number. p478
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion".
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief
that all animals and plants are descended from some one
prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all
living things have much in common, in their chemical
composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and
their liability to injurious influences p478
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion".
The noble science of geology loses glory from the extreme
imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth, with its
embedded remains, must not be looked at as a well-filled
museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare
intervals. The accumulation of each great fossiliferous formation
will be recognised as having depended on an unusual occurrence
of favourable circumstances, and the blank intervals between the
successive stages as having been of vast duration. But we shall
be able to gauge with some security the duration of these
intervals by a comparison of the preceding and succeeding
organic forms. We must be cautious in attempting to correlate as
strictly contemporaneous two formations, which do not include
many identical species, by the general succession of the forms of
life. As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting
and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation;
and as the most important of all causes of organic change is one
which is almost independent of altered and perhaps suddenly
altered physical conditions, namely, the mutual relation of
organism to organism--the improvement of one organism
entailing the improvement or the extermination of others; it
follows, that the amount of organic change in the fossils of
consecutive formations probably serves as a fair measure of the
relative, though not actual lapse of time. A number of species,
however, keeping in a body might remain for a long period
unchanged, whilst within the same period, several of these
species, by migrating into new countries and coming into
competition with foreign associates, might become modified; so
that we must not overrate the accuracy of organic change as a
measure of time. p481
Darwin is making a historical science statement, and thus making a belief statement. Thus he has inferred "religion". He calls the geologic column a "noble" cause for his "religious belief" on the common origins of species, and goes against the miraculous acts of creation.
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject
excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first
published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in
his "Philosophie Zoologique", and subsequently, 1815, in the
Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres". In
these works he up holds the doctrine that all species, including
man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent
service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the
organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law,
and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been
chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by
the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost
perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy
of domestic productions.
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. Thus he has inferred "religion" though the term is used by both religion and science in general. A doctrine is belief a person who strongly in his belief system.
From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr. Freke, in 1851
("Dublin Medical Press", page 322), propounded the doctrine that
all organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His
grounds of belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different
from mine; but as Dr. Freke has now (1861) published his Essay
on the "Origin of Species by means of Organic Affinity", the
difficult attempt to give any idea of his views would be
superfluous on my part. p11
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement.
In December, 1859, Dr. Hooker published his "Introduction to the
Australian Flora". In the first part of this great work he admits the
truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports
this doctrine by many original observations. p13
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement.
We shall, however, be enabled to
discuss what circumstances are most favourable to variation. In
the next chapter the struggle for existence among all organic
beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the
high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is
the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and
vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species
are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is
a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any
being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself,
under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will
have a better chance of surviving, and thus be NATURALLY
SELECTED.
A person's (Malthus) strong belief.
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the
common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the
old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows,
cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and
perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its
possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies
and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case;
and if such variations should be useful to any animal under
changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection,
though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered
as subversive of the theory.
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. He is saying the Bible cannot be trusted in it's historical accounts, describing the day the sun stood still as philosophy.
The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest
lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine
that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of
its possessor. They believe that many structures have been
created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but
this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or
for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such
doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. p189
Darwin is making a reference to "doctrine" , and thus making a religious statement. Did God make every organ in man for example with function in mind? Or do we left over useless organs of evolution? Darwin is mocking God's perfect creation account.
Shalom
And you know better than the scholars how, exactly? There are multiple meanings per word, and the meaning in a particular instance is dependent on the context. This is indisputable. Your opinion that it is otherwise, contrary to the opinions of learned scholars, is quite concerning and really brings to an end any rational discussion.
Looking at the very first use of yom in the Bible, in Genesis 1:5, it is referring to daytime, about 12 hours, not a full day. That alone does in your argument against multiple meanings since that very verse uses yom with two different meanings intended. But we can also look at day seven, in which there is no mention of "there is an evening, and there is a morning" (YLT) as there is with the previous six days. It is best understood that this is still the seventh day, that God is still resting from creation activity. That is a very long time.
And, of course, we must not overlook Genesis 2:4, "Gen 2:4 These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;" (YLT). So here you are arguing that yom has a "single basic meaning regardless of its context," yet we can clearly see that this verse is not referring to a 24-hour period of time.
It should also be noted that it is significant that the first five days of creation are simply "day one," "day two," etc. But when we get to days six and seven, we see "the" being used--"the sixth day"; "the seventh day". This is fairly significant.
So, what we have in Genesis 1:5-2:4 alone, are four different meanings of yom, and the article appearing only before the sixth and seventh days.
This does nothing to explain away the use of yom to mean more than one day. You asked for proof and now you are dismissing it with a non-argument.
Same as above.
Same as previous. And what is very notable here is that you are now doing the very thing that you said shouldn't be done--you're using the context to come to a different meaning than what the text states.
Same as previous.
It doesn't matter what you think but what Scripture states. I have provided verses which clearly use yom to refer to periods of unspecified length, even years. Again, this was just a very small sampling of the well over 2000 times yom appears in the OT. And it is completely irrelevant that there are other Hebrew words for months or years because this is a discussion of yom and how it is used.
Not at all actually. You clearly asked:
"Show me any Bible contexts where "yom" refers to a time that is not a single day."
"So show me just one example of "yom" where a day is not intended as the meaning....make sure the Young's Literal Translation agrees with you...."
I have given you several, out of a very small sampling of verses where yom is used, that clearly show yom can refer to a very long time. But you want to simply dismiss them because they don't fit with your theology. This makes serious discussion very difficult, even impossible.
Barbarian
Member
In fact, Darwin thought, as God wrote, that living things were brought forth by the Earth.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species
True. The Bible neither denies nor endorses evolution.
A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually
learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to
believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development
into other and needful forms, as to believe that He
required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the
action of His laws."
Not at all. It conflicts with the modern reinterpretation called YE creationism. But not with Genesis.
So far, you haven't been able to show us that.
Long before Darwin, people realized that Genesis was not about six literal days. St. Augustine, revered by Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Christians alike, pointed out that forcing a literal interpretation on the days in Genesis could not be logically defended. And no Christian challenged him.
They are challenging your new doctrine of YE creationism. But that has never been the orthodox understanding.
Show us that. It's not in the KJV, Douay, NIV, etc.
Read it again. He says there is nothing but the natural tendency of organisms to vary. I highlighted it in red for you.
That's not what he says. He merely notes even those who think evolution is slow, will also admit that rapid evolution happens sometimes.
I know you want to believe that, but there is no evidence in Genesis or in nature to support your idea.
That is not in Genesis. It merely points out that the Earth brought forth living things. But it doesn't say how.
That is a very recent belief.
The old belief, among the ancient Christians was that God created the Earth and things developed from it, as Genesis says.
The Literal Meaning of Genesis which was written between 401 and 415 AD. Augustine discerns the following themes in his reading of Scripture and weaves them together into his account of creation. God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of the dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God’s creation is always subject to God’s sovereign providence...Where some might hink of the creation as God’s insertion of new kinds of plants and animals ready-made into an already existing world, Augustine rejects this as inconsistent with the overall witness of Scripture. Rather, God must be thought of as creating in that very first moment the potencies for all the kinds of living things to come later, including humanity.
http://www.faithinterface.com.au/science-christianity/st-augustine-on-creation-and-evolution
In the same sense that while gravity can be defined as the attraction matter has for other matter, it includes the motions of the planets. But the definition still holds as does the definition for evolution.
Barbarian
Member
Then you're doubly wrong. First, your definition would include military rules as religion. Second, Darwin denounced the application of evolutionary theory as a guide to behavior.
That's absolutely wrong. Forensics, for example, can show what happened in the past. Based on fossil and genetic evidence, scientists predicted that there must have been fish with legs, and dinosaurs with feathers. Later on, these predictions were verified.
You've been misled about that. Anyone who thinks about it for a moment, will realize that one can determine much about the past by examining the evidence left behind.
Equivocation of "believe" is a common creationist tactic. But there's a huge difference between "I believe in God", "scientists believe that protons counteract the strong force", and "I believe I'll have another Guinness." No one takes such arguments seriously.
If so, the United States Navy is a religion:
In the years immediately following the Washington Naval Conference of 1922, this doctrine did not exist, but the advantages of such a common doctrine were well recognized. Steps were taken throughout the interwar period to teach the Fleet to think as a single unit; to react to the changing circumstances of battle with one mind.
The importance of this doctrinal development has largely been ignored, primarily because battleships formed its centerpiece
. The destruction of the Navy’s battle line at Pearl Harbor and the ensuing dominance of the aircraft carrier in the decisive battles of the Pacific War have led investigators to focus on aircraft carriers when examining the prewar development of the Navy’s doctrine.
http://www.ijnhonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hone_doctrine-in-the-usn_-rev10-02.pdf
Do you suppose Darwin is a navy? Let's avoid equivocation in the future.
rthom7
Member
Greetings Free,
And you know better than the scholars how, exactly? There are multiple meanings per word, and the meaning in a particular instance is dependent on the context. This is indisputable. Your opinion that it is otherwise, contrary to the opinions of learned scholars, is quite concerning and really brings to an end any rational discussion.
Everybody must decide this assumption for themselves, as their own salvation depends upon it. I have my scholars who agree with me Free. I suggest reading my previous posts and listen to Professor Gerald Schroeder about Creation, and the scholarship of Jeff Benner. These two do not believe Hebrew has many multiple meanings in their word's.
Looking at the very first use of yom in the Bible, in Genesis 1:5, it is referring to daytime, about 12 hours, not a full day.
Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were day one.
It says evening an morning become day one. Sounds like a "yom" to me with "ereb" and "boqer", as we expect within a "yom" period of time. How do you read the verse so differently ?
But we can also look at day seven, in which there is no mention of "there is an evening, and there is a morning" (YLT) as there is with the previous six days. It is best understood that this is still the seventh day, that God is still resting from creation activity. That is a very long time.
Ge 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he "Shabbath" on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
The verb tense of "Shabbath" is used here rather than the noun tense. Both have similar meanings to "cease"
So why is Sabbath (verb form) used instead of the Sabbath(noun form). When Hebrew people use a verb, the action is incomplete, the noun form shows the action is complete. (Read Jeff Benner if you doubt my scholarship)
So on the beginning of the seventh day, the Ceasing begins.....And God begins to cease....How else would you summarize the end of a week of time? Except by describing the beginning of the seventh day? If you say evening and morning the seventh day, you have also established the beginning of the eight day in Hebrew counting of time.
And, of course, we must not overlook Genesis 2:4, "Gen 2:4 These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;" (YLT). So here you are arguing that yom has a "single basic meaning regardless of its context," yet we can clearly see that this verse is not referring to a 24-hour period of time.
Correct. Time is also relative according to Einstein even though a single day passes. I suggest listening to Gerald Schroeder on this one...I doubt I can explain relativity of time to you as well as Schroeder can.
It should also be noted that it is significant that the first five days of creation are simply "day one," "day two," etc. But when we get to days six and seven, we see "the" being used--"the sixth day"; "the seventh day". This is fairly significant.
A good point. Show me the definite article being used in Hebrew verses.
Gen 1:31 And GodH430 sawH7200 (H853) every thingH3605 thatH834 he had made,H6213 and, behold,H2009it was veryH3966 good.H2896 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the sixthH8345 day.H3117
And
Gen 2:2 And on the seventhH7637 dayH3117 GodH430 endedH3615 his workH4399 whichH834 he had made;H6213 and he restedH7673 on the seventhH7637 dayH3117 from allH4480 H3605 his workH4399 whichH834 he had made.H6213
No definite article is used ???? ( I am using e Sword here)
Ge 7:13 ¶ In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth,
Ge 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
Ge 21:34 And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land many days.
Ge 27:2 And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:
Ge 14:1 ¶ And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king.... 2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom,
Are you saying Free the word "yom" can mean any time I like? What does that do to reading these verses here? I just chose a few at random from Genesis.
Shalom and God bless your ministry.
And you know better than the scholars how, exactly? There are multiple meanings per word, and the meaning in a particular instance is dependent on the context. This is indisputable. Your opinion that it is otherwise, contrary to the opinions of learned scholars, is quite concerning and really brings to an end any rational discussion.
Everybody must decide this assumption for themselves, as their own salvation depends upon it. I have my scholars who agree with me Free. I suggest reading my previous posts and listen to Professor Gerald Schroeder about Creation, and the scholarship of Jeff Benner. These two do not believe Hebrew has many multiple meanings in their word's.
Looking at the very first use of yom in the Bible, in Genesis 1:5, it is referring to daytime, about 12 hours, not a full day.
Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were day one.
It says evening an morning become day one. Sounds like a "yom" to me with "ereb" and "boqer", as we expect within a "yom" period of time. How do you read the verse so differently ?
But we can also look at day seven, in which there is no mention of "there is an evening, and there is a morning" (YLT) as there is with the previous six days. It is best understood that this is still the seventh day, that God is still resting from creation activity. That is a very long time.
Ge 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he "Shabbath" on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
The verb tense of "Shabbath" is used here rather than the noun tense. Both have similar meanings to "cease"
So why is Sabbath (verb form) used instead of the Sabbath(noun form). When Hebrew people use a verb, the action is incomplete, the noun form shows the action is complete. (Read Jeff Benner if you doubt my scholarship)
So on the beginning of the seventh day, the Ceasing begins.....And God begins to cease....How else would you summarize the end of a week of time? Except by describing the beginning of the seventh day? If you say evening and morning the seventh day, you have also established the beginning of the eight day in Hebrew counting of time.
And, of course, we must not overlook Genesis 2:4, "Gen 2:4 These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;" (YLT). So here you are arguing that yom has a "single basic meaning regardless of its context," yet we can clearly see that this verse is not referring to a 24-hour period of time.
Correct. Time is also relative according to Einstein even though a single day passes. I suggest listening to Gerald Schroeder on this one...I doubt I can explain relativity of time to you as well as Schroeder can.
It should also be noted that it is significant that the first five days of creation are simply "day one," "day two," etc. But when we get to days six and seven, we see "the" being used--"the sixth day"; "the seventh day". This is fairly significant.
A good point. Show me the definite article being used in Hebrew verses.
Gen 1:31 And GodH430 sawH7200 (H853) every thingH3605 thatH834 he had made,H6213 and, behold,H2009it was veryH3966 good.H2896 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the sixthH8345 day.H3117
And
Gen 2:2 And on the seventhH7637 dayH3117 GodH430 endedH3615 his workH4399 whichH834 he had made;H6213 and he restedH7673 on the seventhH7637 dayH3117 from allH4480 H3605 his workH4399 whichH834 he had made.H6213
No definite article is used ???? ( I am using e Sword here)
Ge 7:13 ¶ In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth,
Ge 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
Ge 21:34 And Abraham sojourned in the Philistines' land many days.
Ge 27:2 And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:
Ge 14:1 ¶ And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king.... 2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom,
Are you saying Free the word "yom" can mean any time I like? What does that do to reading these verses here? I just chose a few at random from Genesis.
Shalom and God bless your ministry.
rthom7
Member
Barbarian, your logic makes sense, so how does one scientifically test words to ascertain if "religious overtones" are present in the sentences? You quote me the last sentence of Darwin saying He has respect for God....how do you know this? What test do you use for testing religion ?
Da 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Here the Bible speaks of a brand new religion, that has no pray, or deity or idols in it, a totally different religion arising from the French revolution times....which religion is this "god of forces"?
How did Darwin see his "evolution" term defined ? He meant all species came from 4 or 5 ancestors over some 10,000 generations of time? Is this more or less Darwin wrote ? And is this how God created all the species during Creation ? Please define how God did it and how Darwin saw it ?
Shalom
Da 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
Here the Bible speaks of a brand new religion, that has no pray, or deity or idols in it, a totally different religion arising from the French revolution times....which religion is this "god of forces"?
How did Darwin see his "evolution" term defined ? He meant all species came from 4 or 5 ancestors over some 10,000 generations of time? Is this more or less Darwin wrote ? And is this how God created all the species during Creation ? Please define how God did it and how Darwin saw it ?
Shalom
Jeff Benner is not a scholar. He is an engineer who is "self-taught" in Hebrew. His whole reasoning for studying ancient Hebrew and what he has supposedly discovered, is quite a circular argument. I wouldn't believe a word he said. As for Dr. Schroeder, I'm not sure how he could believe such a thing when a plain reading of Genesis 1:5 alone shows two different meanings of one word.
It seems you are reading what you want in the verse and not what it actually says. It very clearly uses yom to refer to "daylight" as well as a full day.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (ESV)
As I said, the first instance of yom refers only to the light of day, about 12 hours. It cannot be any clearer. And this is very much in line with what Jesus says in John 11:9, "Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world." (ESV)
Do you think that Jesus was wrong, or could it be that he was using a common understanding of "day" to be twelve hours?
That makes no sense and actually works against your position. Stop reading Jeff Benner. Of course God's rest begins on the seventh day, but to say that if "evening and morning, the seventh day" were used it would mean that it would refer to the beginning of the eighth day, then that throws all the other days into question. The result of which, God's resting didn't begin at the beginning of the seventh day, like you state, but rather that it begins half way through the day. And working backwards results in day one being half of day one and the beginning of day two. We lose the first half of day one.
The whole point is that day seven begins but doesn't end; it has not ended. That is one very long yom.
This has nothing to do with Einstein. A plain reading of the text, which is what we are discussing, shows that the six days of creation are clearly being referred to as "the day." This has absolutely nothing to do with the relativity of time but rather attempting to make Scripture fit one's theology rather than letting Scripture inform one's theology.
I can't help but notice that you appeal to an interlinear translation rather than using the YLT, which you were so adamant that we use. Is it because the YLT also uses the article only for days six and seven? I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway, since the article is clearly shown in both verses.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has an Index of Articles, Etc., which shows three instances of "the" appearing in Gen 1:31 and two instances in Gen 2:2. That is what we see in the English translations. You'll have to appeal to the actual Hebrew text. From the little bit I just looked up online, it seems that the definite article becomes a part of the word it is being used for, hence why there is no Strong's number appearing for it.
I am saying that yom is used with at least four different meanings, one of which is an indefinite period of time or time of unknown length. That does absolutely nothing to the reading of those verses. They support what I have said.
Barbarian
Member
That's what I did. You put out some words and said they indicated religion. So I checked and found that the didn't. "Overtones" can become a way of fooling one's self.
He merely thought that God created the first living things. I never put more than that into it.
That's what he wrote.
I don't test religion. Being a matter of personal persuasion, it's hard to say. There are some easy clues, like Intelligent Design's admission that their purpose is to put God into science. But others, like Buddhism, aren't so easy to classifiy.
That prophesy refers to the abomination of desolation when in 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes defiled the temple in Jerusalem. I highlighted in red, the things you added to God's word.
Descent with modification.
He thought one or several common ancestors. And didn't say how long.
He had no idea how God did that initial creation. He just suggested that it happened.