6 day creation story, ancient Egyptian mythology:

Originally posted by RJHinds
It can be translated either way, but it depends on the context and how it sounds as to which should be used. For example,

The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the [b]first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

(Genesis 8:5 NASB)

Compare the interlinear

http://biblehub.com/interlinea ...[text shortened]... e first day of the month[/b] sounds better than the one day of the month in that context.[/b]

I'll look at any comments you link to at my leisure. I may not review it immediately.

So we get into trading commentaries.

'The word "day," therefore, has several distinct meanings in the short text of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 alone. Each of these meanings is familiar from ordinary usage. They are all natural, primary, "literal" meanings, each referring to something real and prefectly comprehensible.
A further grammatical point should be made. In many English versions of the Bible the days of Genesis are rendered as " the first day, the second day," and so on, each having the definite article. However, even though the Hebrew language does have a definite article (ha), it is not used in the original to qualify days one to five. Basil, a fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, thought this significant: "If the beginning of time is called 'one day' rather than 'the first day,' it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call 'one' the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others." What is very striking is the additional fact pointed out to me by Old Testament scholar David Gooding: although the Hebrew definite article is not used with the first five days, it is used for days six and seven. A better translation, therefore, would be "day one, day two, ..., day five, the sixth day, the seventh day"; or, "a first day, a second day, ... the sixth day, the seventh day."
These then are the facts. The next question is, how should we interpret them?'

[ Seven Days That Divide the World, The Beginnings According to GENESIS and SCIENCE, John C. Lennox, Zondervan, pg. 51,52, my emphasis ]

Originally posted by sonship
I'll look at any comments you link to at my leisure. I may not review it immediately.

So we get into trading commentaries.

'The word "day," therefore, has several distinct meanings in the short text of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 alone. Each of these meanings is familiar from ordinary usage. They are all natural, primary, "literal" meanings, each refe ...[text shortened]... ording to GENESIS and SCIENCE, John C. Lennox, Zondervan, pg. 51,52, my emphasis ]

[/b]

It appears to me that this commentator is saying that a translator may use ONE instead of FIRST to emphasize that there was only ONE day in creation history at that time.

I don't think this is getting us anywhere for neither one of us know Hebrew, and we are not professors of English either.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The truly amazing part is people still believing all that utter crap as if it had been a real event. Billions of people totally and completely duped by fairy tales.

Why don't you keep your ignorant face out of the Spirituality Forum and go back the the Science Forum where some people think you know something.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears to me that this commentator is saying that a translator may use [b]ONE instead of FIRST to emphasize that there was only ONE day in creation history at that time.

I don't think this is getting us anywhere for neither one of us know Hebrew, and we are not professors of English either.[/b]

It may not a be an entirely conclusive point. But it is significant that Basil noticed this matter of verse 5 in the fourth century AD . We could hardly be suspicious that accommodating to Darwinism or Geology was his motivation.

"If the beginning of time is called 'one day' rather than 'the first day,' it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call 'one' the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."

Originally posted by FMF

Well I do not self-identify as an atheist.

So you are not an atheist ? That would be the simple way to say it.

The difficulty I have with the stuff you profess here is that I just don't see any convincing evidence that God has revealed Himself to you.

I don't see any convincing evidence that God has not revealed Himself to you in some degree. I see you have some vague, general unhappiness about your past religious experiences. I see that you wear this like a badge over here in Spirituality.

Sometimes it seems that you want Christians like me to lay down and die because you had some bad religious experiences in your past. Your sour memories don't make me think my faith is a fantasy.

Nothing you say and nothing about your demeanour makes me think that He has. So, rather than attempting to dissect me and my supposed atheism in search of whatever motivations you might think I have to "grasp" at things, you should recognize ~ when you're typing stuff out addressed to me ~ that the problem I have with your beliefs is... your beliefs.

There is something about what you say and about your demeanor which encourages me that I am probably on the right track.

To the point about Egyptian mythology or other mythologies, the unity of the whole Bible as a entire revelation impresses me. Some God mythers mythers might have a point to me, if the whole Bible just consisted of the first two or three chapters of Genesis.

The flow of history from Genesis through the other four books of Moses, let alone the histories of the prophets to follow, impress me with their unifying theme.

So even if someone points out some similarities of other ancient writings in a fragmentary way, my reaction would be like "One down, five hundred to go" to establish a extensive discrediting of the whole Bible.

Originally posted by sonship
It may not a be an entirely conclusive point. But it is significant that Basil noticed this matter of verse 5 in the [b] fourth century AD . We could hardly be suspicious that accommodating to Darwinism or Geology was his motivation.

"If the beginning of time is called 'one day' rather than 'the first day,' it is because Scripture wishes ...[text shortened]... ay whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."

[/b]

I don't see that he was trying to turn that day into a long period of time or suggesting a gap in time by using ONE instead of FIRST. But I believe for the English language translation "FIRST" makes more sense and it goes better with the "SECOND" day, etc.

It seems to me that if there was such a gap then that would be the best place to fill in that gap by explaining what happened in the gap right then and there.

Originally posted by RJHinds

I don't see that he was trying to turn that day into a long period of time or suggesting a gap in time by using ONE instead of FIRST. But I believe for the English language translation "FIRST" makes more sense and it goes better with the "SECOND" day, etc.

Well, some translators do have a saying "Every translation is an interpretation." First day makes "more sense" to you because you don't want to believe there could be a world of any kind before the six days.

I have no problem believing that " the earth was without form and void " because in previous time God judged a former system.

It seems to me that if there was such a gap then that would be the best place to fill in that gap by explaining what happened in the gap right then and there.[/b]

No, not necessarily at all. We may think that the best place for the vision of Revelation 12:9 would be in Genesis chapters 1 through 3 somewhere.

"And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him." (Rev. 12:9)

Now we may think a lot of problems could have been avoided if that passage was set in Genesis. It is not there. It comes latter.

In like manner, I do not agree that an important fact of what occurred to make the earth tohu va-bohu should have HAD to be in Genesis. The information could be related elsewhere when God deemed it right to reveal it.

It is practically impossible to systematize the divine revelation 100%.

There was evening and morning ... and GOODNIGHT brother.

I appreciate that at least you are not referring this time to so much science talk but rather the Bible primarily.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]I don't see that he was trying to turn that day into a long period of time or suggesting a gap in time by using ONE instead of FIRST. But I believe for the English language translation "FIRST" makes more sense and it goes better with the "SECOND" day, etc.

Well, some translators do have a saying "Every translation is an interpre ...[text shortened]... ight to reveal it.

It is practically impossible to systematize the divine revelation 100%.[/b]

I see no reason to think that what is referrred to in Revelation 12:9 happened somewhere in chapters 1 through 3. So I would not expect it to be explained there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I see no reason to think that what is referrred to in Revelation 12:9 happened somewhere in chapters 1 through 3. So I would not expect it to be explained there.

It is probably the clearest verse telling us that Satan and the Devil was "the ancient serpent" .

We are told nothing in Genesis about the serpent except that he was more subtle than any other beast of the field.

Originally posted by sonship
It is probably the clearest verse telling us that Satan and the Devil was [b]"the ancient serpent" .

We are told nothing in Genesis about the serpent except that he was more subtle than any other beast of the field.[/b]

Yes, I agree, but there is no need to know more at that point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I agree, but there is no need to know more at that point.

One tiny detail you need to know: Genesis 6 day creation tale is stale. Ancient Egyptian mythology thousands of years older than Judaism, where they cherry picked the ancient version and redid it as their own.

It is really a sad commentary on the intelligence of the human race that this absurd tale can hold sway over billions of people for thousands of years.

That is sad.

Just like the REALLY stupid Noah/Ark fairy tale.

So some bad people were about ATT. God goes, I am going to kill every bloody land animal on Earth just to get at those miscreants.

SURE, that's how a GOD would go about it. Ignoring the fact that an omniscient being could just wave its hypothetical arms and those few thousand would be toast, literally, end of problem.

But NO, this really assinine god thinks in order to clear the air, ALL the land animals have to go.

That of course would include all the OTHER nice people on Earth who were not involved in the felonies of whoever your so-called god had a hardon against.

So this god kills every human on Earth BESIDES the bad guys. Why, that makes TOTAL sense, especially if you are a skitzoid god.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One tiny detail you need to know: Genesis 6 day creation tale is stale. Ancient Egyptian mythology thousands of years older than Judaism, where they cherry picked the ancient version and redid it as their own.

It is really a sad commentary on the intelligence of the human race that this absurd tale can hold sway over billions of people for thousands of ...[text shortened]... n Earth BESIDES the bad guys. Why, that makes TOTAL sense, especially if you are a skitzoid god.

Maybe not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe not.

Wow, what a snappy comeback. Totally destroyed my arguments in two words.

NOT.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, what a snappy comeback. Totally destroyed my arguments in two words.

NOT.

Learn your lesson.