1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead1st law of thermodynamics -no energy is lost or created, it merely changes form,right?
With God, anything is possible 🙂
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?
I'm not sure it's in perfect balance but it just seems that you would need more than was created on the first day for the universe to function at all.
edit: I guess the plasma state near the start of the big bang was the first act of creation🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat doesn't apply to creation.
1st law of thermodynamics -no energy is lost or created, it merely changes form,right?
I'm not sure it's in perfect balance but it just seems that you would need more than was created on the first day for the universe to function at all.
Why would that be?
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydid
As we know. The bible says God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Can anyone here confidently define the unit of time the bible calls a "day?" If so, please elaborate.
As we know. The bible says God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Can anyone here confidently define the unit of time the bible calls a "day?" If so, please elaborate.
You mean God "made" the earth in six days according to Exodus 20:11?
Do you believe that there should be regarded any distinction between the two words in Genesis rendered alternatly "made" and "created" ?
I think there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the same in meaning.
Originally posted by sumydid"The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.
As we know. The bible says God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Can anyone here confidently define the unit of time the bible calls a "day?" If so, please elaborate.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself." Bible Index.
So we do not know how long each creative day was. But we know that we are still in the 7th day or God's Rest Day.
The Bible also does not clearly specify what the next "Day" will hold for us.
Originally posted by galveston75However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued.
"The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which ...[text shortened]... s Rest Day.
The Bible also does not clearly specify what the next "Day" will hold for us.
Now that is interesting, Gal. Thank you.
[I am a nondualist, as you might recall (since you’ve been around here for some time, and we’ve had exchanges before), who often finds agreeable aesthetic and symbolic expression of that within a certain stream of Judaism—and I take most of it as symbol; metaphor; myth and story, in the sense that myth and story are particular aesthetics ways to try to express the truth, not simply fantasy-for-entertainment. I presented a lot of that on here some years back, and opened it up for standard debate on here; but I’m not now. Jewish exegesis, in general, affirms multivariate reading of every text. I know that you and would disagree over most of that stuff, but that does not mean that I don’t appreciate that kind of insight—even if you would not sanction how I might use it: in this case, perhaps to weave a little midrash. Thanks again for that gem.]
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidOkay, man. I lost my cool, and apologize for the venom. I responded to that “general statement” before I even saw your response directly to me. Disagreement is fine (in fact, in the context of a Jewish paradigm, is affirmed; see my comments below).
Ok I'll take the last word.
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.
As for my being a “bible believer”, probably not in the way that you mean it. See my post to Galveston. I’ve been around here a long time, and I should realize that people who are not familiar with what I’ve written and argued (from different perspectives) in the past might have a reasonable expectation that I explain myself when I am not willing to take the time to go into stuff that I went into so deeply before. Maybe it’s wrong of me to wade in under those circumstances.
I should correct something I said in my first post: it is not that Judaism, in general, eschews literal readings (which are included under the Hebrew term p’shat: the “plain” meaning). It is that Judaism, in general, eschews any univariate reading/understanding. On the other hand, the main form of Torah study is—argument: you are supposed to take different positions (different interpretations) and argue them, so that all options (1) get recognized, and (2) are challenged. This process, like Gal’s mention of the “Sabbath without closure” (if I can use those words, which are not his), is ongoing, and there are few readings that are ever “closed out” (except for the one-ness of YHVH, which can be taken either monotheistically or nondualistically without “heresy” ). That means, in the spirit of a Torah study avoiding any “idolatry [which may or may not be used metaphorically here] of the one right meaning”, I can only argue for one reading—and as ably as I can—but without pretending to a final “closure”. (Mostly, the rabbis of the talmuds and the midrashim do not offer a final closure, either—which is why it is mostly incorrect to say something like “the Talmud says…”, even though people sometimes use that a a sort of shorthand.)
So, no doubt you disagree with all of that (or nearly all of it). That’s okay. My refusal to make the time now to debate these questions further is no reflection on anyone here. We’re cool, as far as I’m concerned.
Originally posted by vistesdYour very welcome. The Bible says that sometime in the future that "New Scrolls" will be opened up to us and maybe this will be one issue that will be answered for us all.
[b]However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued.
Now that is interesting, Gal. Thank you.
[I am a nondualist, as you might recall (since you’ve been around here for some time, and we’ve had exchanges before), who often finds agreeable aesthetic and symbolic expr ...[text shortened]... ht use it: in this case, perhaps to weave a little midrash. Thanks again for that gem.][/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI also owe you and apology for lashing out at you unfairly some time back. I was wrong; I apologize.As we know. The bible says God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Can anyone here confidently define the unit of time the bible calls a "day?" If so, please elaborate.
You mean God [b]"made" the earth in six days according to Exodus 20:11?
Do you believe that there should be regarded any distincti ink there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the same in meaning.[/b]
I think there is ground to view the two words as not always necessarily the same in meaning.
My initial thinking is that you’re right, and you have put it perfectly. Sometimes Jewish translators use “create” for b’riah, and I think sometimes “made”. But I’m going from dim recall (even if I still am able to remember a bit of my Hebrew without looking it up—and it was never as extensive as it should have been anyway).
I set aside my Jewish studies a couple of years ago now, I think. Maybe I need to get back to it; and the only way I ever do that is in a participatory manner—e.g., observing Sabbath (even if in a heterodox way). And Torah study is a central practice. We’ll see…. Be well.
___________________________________________
EDIT: Ooops. The Ex. 20:11 verse uses asah: made; Gen. 1:1 uses b'ria: created; (taking those as general translations). Hebrew exegetes will most likely emphasize a distinction between them. And likely that is what you what you were getting at. (Am I rusty!)
Originally posted by sumydidI respect your right to believe in this literally but if you so believe you must have a clear understanding of what a day is.
I'm a fundamentalist (in the strict sense of the word, not the derogatory "fundy" ). I believe the entire universe was created in literally 6 days.
And no, that's not a reversal of my position in the prior post.
Synodic (Solar) days? Sidereal days?
Take your pick. Although a solar day without the sun or a sidereal day without stars is pretty meaningless.
And then of course the length of the day will depend on the time of year. (When did he start creation? 1st Jan or sometime in Spring?)
And of course average days were shorter in the past (but perhaps you do not believe that)
I know you cant answer this because your bible was written by ignorant men trying to explain the world around them.
Originally posted by sumydidAnd God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
As we know. The bible says God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
Can anyone here confidently define the unit of time the bible calls a "day?" If so, please elaborate.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
What do you think?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIsn't like everything kinda dependent on everything else? So how can you have 1/6th of creation for 1000 yrs and then have another 6/th, and so on ...
That doesn't apply to creation.
[b]I'm not sure it's in perfect balance but it just seems that you would need more than was created on the first day for the universe to function at all.
Why would that be?[/b]