1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderProbably. I'm sure I'm not the first to postulate such a possible reading of Genesis. It's a rather obvious hypothesis to anybody who cares to use the power of reason with which his creator has endowed him.
Isn't it just a re-write of the penultimate moments of Spencer Tracy's cross-examination of Fredric March in Inherit the Wind?
Originally posted by blindfaith101And you just did it again.
Yes I believe that some Science does support the thruth of THE BIBLE. As well as the thruth of THE BIBLE supports some of the facts of Science.
Now the principles of things such as evolution, THE BIBLE, does not support .
As well as those that feel that the earth is older than the timeline of THE BIBLE how do you know their calulations are right?
So science is right when it supports the bible.
Science is wrong when it disagrees with bible.
The bible is right all of the time, even when it disagrees with science.
Somewhere there's a courtroom missing a shyster.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleswouldn't it be more accurate to say, from a biblical POV, ADAM
Regardless of whether it is false, literalists believe that it is true, and the intent of my question is to operate under that premise in asking this Serious Question.
But if what you say is true, that the geneologies refer to families rather than individuals, that still means that the Bible indicates that the earth is actually no older than 6000 years.
comes from 6000 years ago. That doesn't mean the EARTH came
6000 years ago. Remember, the earth was created first so there
had to be a time before adam. What that time is from a bible POV
is pretty much open to speculation.
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, not really. I said approximately 6000 years. The universe is five days older than Adam, from the literal point of view. Only when literalism is abandoned is the time between the beginning and Adam open to speculation.
wouldn't it be more accurate to say, from a biblical POV, ADAM
comes from 6000 years ago. That doesn't mean the EARTH came
6000 years ago. Remember, the earth was created first so there
had to be a time before adam. What that time is from a bible POV
is pretty much open to speculation.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDon't you think there is maybe the possibility people who think
Well, not really. I said approximately 6000 years. The universe is five days older than Adam, from the literal point of view. Only when literalism is abandoned is the time between the beginning and Adam open to speculation.
the earth is only a few thou old are among the most paranoid
people on the planet? To look at, say, the Grand Canyon, and
come to the conclusion God made all this stuff complete with
fossils just to confuse mankind into thinking the universe is
billions of years old but of course this individual knows full well
because he analyzed the bible, that the earth, the sky, the stars,
the milky way are only 6,000 year old illusions. I think people who
live their lives thinking that are paranoid delusional, functionally
insane. You have to ask yourself, why would a god do something
so profoundly stupid? All that went before would be totally meaningless
because the charade is meant for humans of the past couple
thousand years only, anything before that is just a big prop.
How stupid and delusional can these kind of people possibly be?
To view something like Niagra falls, the Grand Canyon with its
incredible thousands of separate layers of exposed sedimentation,
How could someone in their right mind conclude its all a prop?
People like that are spiritually dead inside, no more use to the world
than burrs on a cactus.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK I'm baffled :: Where did morning come from?
Well, not really. I said approximately 6000 years. The universe is five days older than Adam, from the literal point of view. Only when literalism is abandoned is the time between the beginning and Adam open to speculation.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPitch the idea that God would use words we would get wrong when
Of course. But then one is no longer reading Genesis literally. So now let us consider that the terms used in Genesis can mean different things to God and man. If God's concept of a day can mean something different than man's concept of a day, then God's concept of creating animals could mean something quite different than man's concept of cre ...[text shortened]... ncept of that could very well take the form of evolving them rather than molding them from clay.
we read them because He understands and uses them differently
than we do, if he was communicating to us about events for our
understanding; why would God do that? Give God credit, there is no
reason to accept that as factual if you believe the scriptures to
be true, the only point that I have seen that may add to the length
age of the earth through a strait forward reading of scripture, is how
long a time was there between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, I don't think
there was any, but some think billions of years, I disagree but there
you go.
Kelly
Originally posted by WulebgrNo, some people turned into nations, but when the scripture says
The premise that the Bible's tables of nations are literal genealogies is false. Many of the names among the "begats" refer to families and tribes, ie nations, not individuals.
Inasmuch as the ages given are clearly absurd if they refer to individuals, we must look for an alternative to the literalism advocated by the young earthers. No one lived 969 y ...[text shortened]... s, as is the claim for Methuselah. Rather, his descendants maintained his family name that long.
that some were born then died, they did just that. You are just
finding ways to make it work for you, because you don't accept
that at the beginning many lived longer than today naturally
according to scripture, you are not reading what is there instead
you are adding to it by twisting the meaning as you go by doing so.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayJust to clarify, you believe that when Genesis says 'day', it means a day just like we understand the term today, and any interpretation that deviates from that fails to give God due credit in his ability to communicate with us, correct?
Pitch the idea that God would use words we would get wrong when
we read them because He understands and uses them differently
than we do
I am also patiently awaiting your responses to the Pangea and DNA Serious Questions.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrIt’s interesting to me that “literalistic” readings seem to have become “normative” relatively recently (beginning perhaps in the 18th century). It does not appear to have been normative among the early Christians, or the “Church Fathers” (e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa); on my reading it has never been normative for Judaism (though there probably have always been a few "literalists" ), partly because the Hebrew language itself—its very structure—does not support any one-and-only “right” reading.
This assertion is patently false. Misreading the Bible leads to the conclusion that the world is perhaps 6000 years old (6009 according to the terribly influential eighteenth century calculations). But, the Bible makes no such statement. The literalist hermeneutics upon which such claims are based are practically indefensible, and none of those advocating a ...[text shortened]... ish (or any other Indo-European language) requires principles of translation and interpretation.
And yet now it has become so normative that any allegorical, symbolic or metaphorical reading is likely to bring charges from both theists and atheists that one is simply being an “apologist.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Scribbles’ question is directed at literalistic readings, so…
Originally posted by vistesdA have a book in my queue called The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism that discusses this very topic.
It’s interesting to me that “literalistic” readings seem to have become “normative” relatively recently (beginning perhaps in the 18th century). It does not appear to have been normative among the early Christians, or the “Church Fathers” (e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa); on my reading it has never been normative for Judaism (though there probably have always ...[text shortened]... the Hebrew language itself—its very structure—does not support any one-and-only “right” reading.
