Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Reply to topic
McCulloch
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:30 am  Does the Bible support any particular age of Earth? Reply with quote

Scrotum wrote:
The world is not flat, the world was not "made in 7 days", the world is not 6000 years old etcetera, all this is fiction, WE KNOW THIS.


Easyrider wrote:
Where does it say the world is 6,000 years old?


Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 81: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:28 pm
Reply
Does the Bible support any particular age of Earth?

Like this post
In addition to the fact that Genesis Narrative, not Poetry, there are all kinds of problems with the person who tries to reconcile the Bible with the latest trends in scientific theory. The issue itself --Young Earth vs Old Earth is really less important than some other issues of doctrine. Christians from denominations all across the board hold various views from the Gap Theory, to Progressive Creationism and the Literal Day view. The problem is that the progressive creation view is really concerned with forcing the Bible to fit Darwinian Evolution, and it sets a precedent for how you interpret other passages, and puts one on a slippery slope. Let me explain. The Literal day view holds that the days were literal days and they recognize God's supernatural work in Creation but they don't try to make the Bible wrap around the Theory of the Day by secular scientists. The problem gets worse for those who try to reconcile MacroEvolution with scripture. The problem is that they typically say that "yom" can and sometimes does mean long ages, which it does, but in Genesis 1 the days are modified by two clear grammatical markers, the evening and the morning, and also the ordinal number.

"In Genesis, the word day (yom) has certain grammatical contexts, any of which alone point strongly to 24-hour days.
1. with a numeric -- cardinal or ordinal
2. with evening and morning
3. associated with night.
Yet Genesis 1 has all three features, so this becomes overwhelming evidence that the days are ordinary-length days" Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise.

"When modified by a cardinal number (for example, one, two, three, ...) or ordinal number (for example first, second, third,) as used 359 times in the Old Testament outside Genesis chapter 1, yom always means a literal day of about 24 hours, or the light portion of the day-night cycle. This is true in narrative, legal writings, prophecy, wisdom literature, and even poetry. The only time there appears the word day with an ordinal number that is figurative is in Hosea 6:2, in a very very specific sort of poetic structure called synonynous parallelism." J. Sarfati, Refuting Comp. p 75.
Even in this case, however, it is not modified by the evening and morning, and the characteristic poetic structure stands out sharply to even a novice of Hebrew.

The problem gets worse when we suggest that the earth existed for four thousand or forty thousand years before the sun. [For the Christian this is not a problem, because the same situation of heaven's light is described in Revelation.]
Darwinian Evolutionists insist that the sun existed before the earth.
Then what about plants being around for four year, or forty years, or forty thousand.
Darwinian Evolutionists also insist that reptiles were here before birds, but the Genesis account says God made the birds first.
Darwinian Evolutionists insist that ocean animals were living long before plant life gained a foothold on land, but the creation account in Genesis says God made land plants first.

Once again, McCulloch the atheist shows the problem of those who deny that Scripture intends a literal day. The fourth commandment listed twice makes no sense whatsoever if the days are not literal. OK, so we work for six thousand years and rest for seven. Or maybe we work sixty thousand years, and then we get a ten thousand year Sabbath.

"In both Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:17, has the causal explanation "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth... but he rested on the seventh day." (the word "for" -Hebrew ki also having the sense "because") at the beginning of this expression is a causal explanation, showing that the creation week is the very basis of the working week. There is no point in even trying to understand the Bible if a word in the same passage and same grammatical context can switch meanings, without any hint in the text itself." J. Sarfati, Ref Comp. 73.
I would like to hear some kind of Evolutionary mechanism for the sun appearing four hundred or thousand years after plants. The creation account was used in the first century as a polemic against pagan Sun worshipers who taught that the sun was the source of all life.

For the person who says that each day were different in length-- each a different indefinite period of time, the whole sabbath situation is worse. OK, so we all work for indefinite periods of time --which no one knows the length of these periods, and then when six indefinite periods of time are passed, we have a Sabbath. How would anyone know when six different indefinite periods were passed.

In addition, they also have to throw out the entire chapter of Genesis 5 which gives the age and descendents of Adam, from when he was made, (on the sixth day, for those keeping score at home) to his death. If the days are not literal, then you can't say the years, used in the normal way to mean a calendar year is real either.
This also means that the Genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke are false. Perhaps the most glaring example of the exegetical gymnastics required to make the text mean a long period of time, is that a person has no basis whatsoever for determining that any use of day in the entire Old Testament is a real day. If you throw out the most specific passage in the Bible, with multiples grammatical modifiers and descriptors, then we could say that Jonah was in the whale for 3 thousand years, and that it rained for forty thousand years, or that they marched around Jericho for seven thousand years, and on and on.

If at first, the text seems to make literal sense, seek no other sense, or it will be nonsense.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 82: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:07 am
Reply
Re: Does the Bible support any particular age of Earth?

Like this post
This pretty much sums it up for me...

http://www.theseason.org/genesis/genesis1.htm

Chay



Salt Agent wrote:
In addition to the fact that Genesis Narrative, not Poetry, there are all kinds of problems with the person who tries to reconcile the Bible with the latest trends in scientific theory. The issue itself --Young Earth vs Old Earth is really less important than some other issues of doctrine. Christians from denominations all across the board hold various views from the Gap Theory, to Progressive Creationism and the Literal Day view. The problem is that the progressive creation view is really concerned with forcing the Bible to fit Darwinian Evolution, and it sets a precedent for how you interpret other passages, and puts one on a slippery slope. Let me explain. The Literal day view holds that the days were literal days and they recognize God's supernatural work in Creation but they don't try to make the Bible wrap around the Theory of the Day by secular scientists. The problem gets worse for those who try to reconcile MacroEvolution with scripture. The problem is that they typically say that "yom" can and sometimes does mean long ages, which it does, but in Genesis 1 the days are modified by two clear grammatical markers, the evening and the morning, and also the ordinal number.

"In Genesis, the word day (yom) has certain grammatical contexts, any of which alone point strongly to 24-hour days.
1. with a numeric -- cardinal or ordinal
2. with evening and morning
3. associated with night.
Yet Genesis 1 has all three features, so this becomes overwhelming evidence that the days are ordinary-length days" Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise.

"When modified by a cardinal number (for example, one, two, three, ...) or ordinal number (for example first, second, third,) as used 359 times in the Old Testament outside Genesis chapter 1, yom always means a literal day of about 24 hours, or the light portion of the day-night cycle. This is true in narrative, legal writings, prophecy, wisdom literature, and even poetry. The only time there appears the word day with an ordinal number that is figurative is in Hosea 6:2, in a very very specific sort of poetic structure called synonynous parallelism." J. Sarfati, Refuting Comp. p 75.
Even in this case, however, it is not modified by the evening and morning, and the characteristic poetic structure stands out sharply to even a novice of Hebrew.

The problem gets worse when we suggest that the earth existed for four thousand or forty thousand years before the sun. [For the Christian this is not a problem, because the same situation of heaven's light is described in Revelation.]
Darwinian Evolutionists insist that the sun existed before the earth.
Then what about plants being around for four year, or forty years, or forty thousand.
Darwinian Evolutionists also insist that reptiles were here before birds, but the Genesis account says God made the birds first.
Darwinian Evolutionists insist that ocean animals were living long before plant life gained a foothold on land, but the creation account in Genesis says God made land plants first.

Once again, McCulloch the atheist shows the problem of those who deny that Scripture intends a literal day. The fourth commandment listed twice makes no sense whatsoever if the days are not literal. OK, so we work for six thousand years and rest for seven. Or maybe we work sixty thousand years, and then we get a ten thousand year Sabbath.

"In both Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:17, has the causal explanation "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth... but he rested on the seventh day." (the word "for" -Hebrew ki also having the sense "because") at the beginning of this expression is a causal explanation, showing that the creation week is the very basis of the working week. There is no point in even trying to understand the Bible if a word in the same passage and same grammatical context can switch meanings, without any hint in the text itself." J. Sarfati, Ref Comp. 73.
I would like to hear some kind of Evolutionary mechanism for the sun appearing four hundred or thousand years after plants. The creation account was used in the first century as a polemic against pagan Sun worshipers who taught that the sun was the source of all life.

For the person who says that each day were different in length-- each a different indefinite period of time, the whole sabbath situation is worse. OK, so we all work for indefinite periods of time --which no one knows the length of these periods, and then when six indefinite periods of time are passed, we have a Sabbath. How would anyone know when six different indefinite periods were passed.

In addition, they also have to throw out the entire chapter of Genesis 5 which gives the age and descendents of Adam, from when he was made, (on the sixth day, for those keeping score at home) to his death. If the days are not literal, then you can't say the years, used in the normal way to mean a calendar year is real either.
This also means that the Genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke are false. Perhaps the most glaring example of the exegetical gymnastics required to make the text mean a long period of time, is that a person has no basis whatsoever for determining that any use of day in the entire Old Testament is a real day. If you throw out the most specific passage in the Bible, with multiples grammatical modifiers and descriptors, then we could say that Jonah was in the whale for 3 thousand years, and that it rained for forty thousand years, or that they marched around Jericho for seven thousand years, and on and on.

If at first, the text seems to make literal sense, seek no other sense, or it will be nonsense.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 83: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:09 am
Reply

Like this post
Salt Agent wrote:
This also means that the Genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke are false.


Well, if they're not false, they at least contradict one another.

Luke 3
23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as o teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shon of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.


In the spirit of the serpent of gnosis - M

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version