2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI disagree. The bible is quite clear on it. Although "day" is a translation of a word that might be vague... the author of the text removed all doubt by preceding each "day" by saying "and there was morning, and there was night." Clearly the author meant to use the term "day" and that's why it was translated as such by all the scholars.
No—the Hebrew word yom did not refer necessarily to a “day”, but to an unspecified period of time (e.g., a year, any point in time, an unspecified duration, as well as a day). The phrase v’yehei erev v’yehei boqer*, “there became evening and there became morning”, is clearly metaphorical (sun and moon were not created until the fourth “day” ) ...[text shortened]... __
* My transliteration from the Hebrew; not sure if it's standard, but ought to be close.
Originally posted by sumydidWow! So you don’t know any Hebrew, and I’m a skeptic ‘cause you didn’t like my response.
Well I find this interesting. With all the responses from the skeptics, not a one has attacked the seemingly nonsensical notion that the universe was created in 6 days. Instead, the skeptics are freely admitting that the 6 day creation story is simply metaphor.
Ok, well that's great. So I guess that leaves the believers. Have any of the believers form ...[text shortened]... ition; but *scratching head* I'm finding that I have no opposition! Didn't expect that. 🙂
Gee, the original text, in the original language doesn’t say exactly what you want it to say; Hebrew doesn’t work the way your particular English translations (and your websites) think it should. So wallow in your ignorance and call it “truth” or “faith”, and make those words mean whatever you want too. By your own admission, your question was some kind of set up—how naïve of me to think you were sincerely asking. I did not attack your beliefs—or even to presume to guess what they were. So, laugh up your sleeve at your own deceit. And, please, have the last word—you know you want to…
1 edit
I wasn't being petty, I truly didn't get it. And yes of course there is a reason to think there are folks who believe in a literal 6 Earth-day creation. A simple Google search will reveal that. It's called young Earth creationism and there are a significant number of Christians and Jews who believe it, according to Wikipedia.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdOk I'll take the last word.
Wow! So you don’t know any Hebrew, and I’m a skeptic ‘cause you didn’t like my response.
Gee, the original text, in the original language doesn’t say exactly what you want it to say; Hebrew doesn’t work the way your particular English translations (and your websites) think it should. So wallow in your ignorance and call it “truth” or “faith”, and make ...[text shortened]... laugh up your sleeve at your own deceit. And, please, have the last word—you know you want to…
Where did that ad hominem come from? Sounds like you have some pent-up aggressions. I explained my position in opposition to yours.
And I'm sorry if you took my general statement about skeptics as a lash-out at you. I didn't realize you are a bible believer. I should have thought it through a little more. My apologies.
Originally posted by sumydidI was using a figure of speech. It's not something I take seriously. That's perhaps why we misunderstand each other. I am a little bit surprised and disappointed to hear you believe the 6 day creation story is literally true. But, like I say to Dasa on occasion, I am sure you are sincere, and I respect your right to believe what you want to believe.
I wasn't being petty, I truly didn't get it. And yes of course there is a reason to think there are folks who believe in a literal 6 Earth-day creation. A simple Google search will reveal that. It's called young Earth creationism and there are a significant number of Christians and Jews who believe it, according to Wikipedia.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdIt was obviously a loaded question , hence the differing posts, sumy.
Wow! So you don’t know any Hebrew, and I’m a skeptic ‘cause you didn’t like my response.
Gee, the original text, in the original language doesn’t say exactly what you want it to say; Hebrew doesn’t work the way your particular English translations (and your websites) think it should. So wallow in your ignorance and call it “truth” or “faith”, and make ...[text shortened]... laugh up your sleeve at your own deceit. And, please, have the last word—you know you want to…
You never know, there could be truth to it, but I really dont see much significance in this line of enquiry as, even it is true, it wouldn't really mean that much in terms of trying to understand an eternal "God".
It sounds, as do other parts of the bible, as this part has been athropomorphized (ie. "He rested on the 7th day" ), hence my comment that it may have been made up. (It certainly sounds more like a mans story to me than a "gods" story)
Thing is, if "He" is eternal it wouldn't matter a lick of difference how many days he created the world in, whether the "days" are a metaphor, or not.
But perhaps you were going somewhere else with this that i have not noticed yet ...
Originally posted by sumydidAnd just as clearly, the author didn't know the earth was spherical and that day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth - or was using metaphor. He also didn't know about relativity. There is no universal clock, so it is logically impossible for the universe to have been created in exactly 6 days.
I disagree. The bible is quite clear on it. Although "day" is a translation of a word that might be vague... the author of the text removed all doubt by preceding each "day" by saying "and there was morning, and there was night." Clearly the author meant to use the term "day" and that's why it was translated as such by all the scholars.
I often hear Christians say "for God a day is a thousand years" as an explanation for a different meaning for 'day'. But if God has his own meaning for words, then surely we can interpret just about any piece of the Bible as meaning something totally different, and without an English-Godlish dictionary we are lost.
Of course vistesd points out that in the original Hebrew, the word doesn't necessarily mean 'day' anyway. But then it seems that if the text is inspired, God only wants a few people to know the truth or he would have bothered to inspire the translators a bit better.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf a "day" was a thousand years then that would mean that some parts of creation would've been "waiting" around for a thousand years for other things to be "created" so they could start interacting 😕 ?
And just as clearly, the author didn't know the earth was spherical and that day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth - or was using metaphor. He also didn't know about relativity. There is no universal clock, so it is logically impossible for the universe to have been created in exactly 6 days.
I often hear Christians say "for God a day i ...[text shortened]... le to know the truth or he would have bothered to inspire the translators a bit better.
(I thought that the universe was in perfect balance (enrgetically speaking) so if one part was missing for a thousand years then the created part could not function (?) ).
More counterintuition if you ask me.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou forgot the rest of the quote, "and a thousand years as a day".
And just as clearly, the author didn't know the earth was spherical and that day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth - or was using metaphor. He also didn't know about relativity. There is no universal clock, so it is logically impossible for the universe to have been created in exactly 6 days.
I often hear Christians say "for God a day i ...[text shortened]... le to know the truth or he would have bothered to inspire the translators a bit better.
There is a misunderstanding by some people that the sun, moon, and stars
were not created until the fourth day. But the fourth day was when God
made them visible from the earth so they could be used to tell time. The
way I understand it is that they were actually created with the heavens
and the earth in the beginning before the first day ended. It is not clear to
me that all the "days" were of equal length. However, I believe at least the
fourth day came very quickly to provide sunlight for the plants God created
on the third day. Although I can not prove it, I tend to believe the days
were 24 hour days like we know them today. God apparently does not
feel we need to know all the details of creation.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWith God, anything is possible 🙂
(I thought that the universe was in perfect balance (enrgetically speaking) so if one part was missing for a thousand years then the created part could not function (?) ).
None of the creation story makes sense if you require the universe to operate entirely according to the principles of physics even during creation. Young Earth Creationists surely must assume some violation of standard physics.
But what do you mean about the universe being in perfect balance? Where do you get that from?