6 Literal Days

6 Literal Days

YouTube

On the eighth day machine just got upset...

YouTube : Hazel knows more about it tha...

Originally posted by RJHinds
6 Literal Days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nj-x3I2EeM

Just for once, seeing I have nothing better to do this Friday morning, I watched this video, well, almost all the way through.

The most encouraging part for me was the beginning, where he lamented the fact that "most American Christian leaders" did not believe the 6-Day-Theory. That was indeed good news, I always thought it was the other way around.

Secondly, his (Ken Hamm's) main emphasis that the word "day" in Genesis is ALWAYS a literal day in the Bible, is demonstrably not true. Most scholars agree that whenever the words "Three days and three nights" are used, it means a short time, and "Forty days and forty nights" means a long time, neither phrase should be taken literally. Same as for Genesis 1.

But thirdly, I totally agree that the quotes from Martin Luther are really significant. And that they belong in 1523, exactly where this 6-Day doctrine belongs.

Originally posted by CalJust
Just for once, seeing I have nothing better to do this Friday morning, I watched this video, well, almost all the way through.

The most encouraging part for me was the beginning, where he lamented the fact that "most American Christian leaders" did not believe the 6-Day-Theory. That was indeed good news, I always thought it was the other way around.

Se ...[text shortened]... are really significant. And that they belong in 1523, exactly where this 6-Day doctrine belongs.

Would it change anything in your life it really was a literal 6 days? I know for me it would not,
neither would it change anything if were not a literal 6 days.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Would it change anything in your life it really was a literal 6 days? I know for me it would not,
neither would it change anything if were not a literal 6 days.

What a question!

It seems you have never thought this through: Oh well, it really makes no difference what one believes!

For many years I was a schizophrenic. I knew that the science is overwhelming, and consistent, and each discipline supporting and strengthening the others (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Biochemistry, Zoology, etc etc) but at the same time I was compelled by people like Ken Hamm to believe the 6-day creation story as absolutely fundamental to the Bible. Throw out one, the whole gospel collapses, his theory goes.

Not true. The day I jettisoned the literal intpretation of the Bible in Gen. 1 a huge load fell from my shoulders.

Your question (would it change anything?) only makes sense to people who know absolutely NOTHING about science. To them even the Stork Theory of birth "doesn't change anything"!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Would it change anything in your life it really was a literal 6 days? I know for me it would not, neither would it change anything if were not a literal 6 days.

If your creed requires you to believe preposterous things, what does that say about your creed and the credulousness of people who share it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
6 Literal Days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nj-x3I2EeM

bwahahahahaha

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
bwahahahahaha

It would be funny if it wan't so sad...

Seriously, grown - ups even discussing this as a subject worth discussing, in a big meeting! Makes one weep.

😳

Originally posted by CalJust
Just for once, seeing I have nothing better to do this Friday morning, I watched this video, well, almost all the way through.

The most encouraging part for me was the beginning, where he lamented the fact that "most American Christian leaders" did not believe the 6-Day-Theory. That was indeed good news, I always thought it was the other way around.

Se ...[text shortened]... are really significant. And that they belong in 1523, exactly where this 6-Day doctrine belongs.

You are being dishonest or you did not pay attention to what Ken Hamm actually said. He said the word "day" can mean something other that a literal day, but it can also mean a literal day. And in most cases in the Holy Bible the word "day" means a literal day. And it always means a lteral day when accompanied by the word "morning" or the word "evening" or by a number. The word "day" in Genesis one is accompanied by "morning", "evening", and a number. So that is even more reason why the word "day" in Genesis one must mean a literal day. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are being dishonest or you did not pay attention to what Ken Hamm actually said. He said the word "day" can mean something other that a literal day, but it can also mean a literal day. And in most cases in the Holy Bible the word "day" means a literal day. And it always means a lteral day when accompanied by the word "morning" or the word "evening" or ...[text shortened]... mber. So that is even more reason why the word "day" in Genesis one must mean a literal day. 😏

As I said, grownups discussing this in this day and age....

Welcome to 1532.

Edit: This talk, (emphasising passionately that we should believe the Bible, and in particular one specific interpretation of the Bible), could very well have been made word for word by the local Ken Hamm in the days of Copernicus and Galileo, pleading with parishioners to ignore the recent discoveries of science and adhere to a "Bible supported" geocentric view of the universe.

Originally posted by CalJust
As I said, grownups discussing this in this day and age....

Welcome to 1532.

Edit: This talk, (emphasising passionately that we should believe the Bible, and in particular one specific interpretation of the Bible), could very well have been made word for word by the local Ken Hamm in the days of Copernicus and Galileo, pleading with parishioners to ign ...[text shortened]... recent discoveries of science and adhere to a "Bible supported" geocentric view of the universe.

Your problem is that you are ignoring all the scientific discoveries that suggests a young earth in favor of old earth pseudoscience so you can hold on to the theory of evolution fairy tale.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your problem is that you are ignoring all the scientific discoveries that suggests a young earth in favor of old earth pseudoscience so you can hold on to the theory of evolution fairy tale.

There are NO 'scientific' discoveries supporting a young Earth. All they have are statements that have been refuted time and time again and yet you continue to push those BS video's on to people here as if they are going to be converted to your narrow way of thinking. You convince nobody.

If I am wrong, let them speak up, your disciples.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your problem is that you are ignoring all the scientific discoveries that suggests a young earth in favor of old earth pseudoscience so you can hold on to the theory of evolution fairy tale.

You really are quite delusional.

The men in white coats are coming for you...

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your problem is that you are ignoring all the scientific discoveries that suggests a young earth in favor of old earth pseudoscience so you can hold on to the theory of evolution fairy tale.

Your problem is that you are not even prepared to look at the massive evidence for evolution that anybody here mentions - as I did myself.

Also, I am quite familiar with the so-called scientific discoveries supposedly pointing to a young earth, mostly quoted by AiG. Some are, admittedly, quite interesting, but not one of them counters the basic facts of evolutionary science.

Edit: Why am I even holding this conversation? 😛

Originally posted by CalJust
What a question!

It seems you have never thought this through: Oh well, it really makes no difference what one believes!

For many years I was a schizophrenic. I knew that the science is overwhelming, and consistent, and each discipline supporting and strengthening the others (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Biochemistry, Zoology, etc etc) but at the same ...[text shortened]... olutely NOTHING about science. To them even the Stork Theory of birth "doesn't change anything"!

I've thought about this a lot, 6 days seem just as reasonable to me as any other number to
a God who speaks things into being. There is quiet a bit about scripture that in my opinion
that if you lose the reasons for, like the fall of man into sin, the rest has no meaning so in that
Ken Hamm and I agree. Why would Jesus have to come and die if there were no sin,
and why save us from death it were nothing but a natural part of life.

You didn't answer my questions.