| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2003 06:02:22 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis
chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5
God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion “day.”
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
“day”.
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean
different lengths of time. Among the meanings
possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put
for time in general, or for a long time; a whole
period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a
particular season or time when any extraordinary event
happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the
creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when
extraordinary events were described as happening. It
also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
27 Aug 2003 11:20:01 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030827110222.2739.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com...
Many consider the word "day" used in Genesis
chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5
God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion "day."
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
"day".
The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day," can mean
different lengths of time. Among the meanings
possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put
for time in general, or for a long time; a whole
period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a
particular season or time when any extraordinary event
happens." This last sentence appears to fit the
creative "days," for certainly they were periods when
extraordinary events were described as happening. It
also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Not only that, the text is of the form, G-d did XXX, it was evening, it was
morning Day Y. Note that no time is specified for the creative acts; they
could have taken eons. The creative periods are demarcated by the days.
This was a project with six milestones, but unknown length.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
27 Aug 2003 11:35:42 AM |
|
|
Not only that, the text is of the form, G-d did XXX, it was evening, it was
morning Day Y. Note that no time is specified for the creative acts; they
could have taken eons. The creative periods are demarcated by the days.
This was a project with six milestones, but unknown length.
If they were of unknown length one would think that they would not have used a
known measurement of time to describe them.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "De Zoolz" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a day - 24 hours. |
27 Aug 2003 05:18:13 PM |
|
|
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bii5kd$4dr$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
: jabriol wrote: (total BS as usual) which was snipped.
::
: If you choose to reinterpret things to mean something
: you have no evidence that the original authors meant,
: and which contradicts the original words, you can of
: course make up whatever you like. It's a miracle!
-----------------------------
Jabriol and his cult must do this since they are NOT allowed to believe
anything else. They'd be disfellowshipped, shunned and called apostates.
Several Jehovah's Witnesses have told me that each DAY mentioned in Genesis
was perhaps a thousand years long. They change the meanings of what the
bible says to agree with their beliefs. They believed (they probably still
do) that the earth was created in only a few thousand years. That things
like the Grand Canyon and other areas where it took millions of years for
the water to cut down that far were CREATED by Satan to fool people - yet on
the other hand they claimed that only their special god Jehovah could create
anything...... their contradictions are outrageous and so obvious to
everyone but themselves. Oh, and they also said that Satan created all the
fossils and other things appearing to be millions of years old. That nasty
devil Satan did this to fool mankind into turning away from their god
Jehovah.
--
Marlyman.....
I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer
god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods,
then you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen F. Frost-
-=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=- -=*=-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 01:14:23 PM |
|
|
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bii5kd$4dr$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
jabriol wrote:
Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to
mean 24 hours.
Not least because "yohm" was the word for a day.
However,
... you desperately want to cling to the belief that the
biblical account is "accurate", and hence need to "interpret"
it in some way that doesn't conflict with scientific views.
in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion “day.”
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
“day”.
And your "holy days" are seven days apart, rather than
millions of years.
"And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because
on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had
done."
Genesis 2:2
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean
different lengths of time.
Normally, however, it meant one day.
Among the meanings possible,
is whatever you project onto it.
William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put
for time in general, or for a long time; a whole
period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a
particular season or time when any extraordinary event
happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the
creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when
extraordinary events were described as happening. It
also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
If you choose to reinterpret things to mean something
you have no evidence that the original authors meant,
and which contradicts the original words, you can of
course make up whatever you like. It's a miracle!
Do six days equal 144 hours and yet must also be 24 hours, since 6 days
are all one day? How can six days (24 hours X 6) be one day of 24 hours?
Genesis 2:4 - This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and
the heavens.
Exodus 20:11 - for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed
the Sabbath day, and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17 - It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever;
for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
rested, and was refreshed.
And, on the first day, God caused light [owr, illumination, Strong's #215]
to appear (Genesis 1:4,5), which he called "day" as opposed to the darkness,
which he called night. This light could have been the sunlight, but as yet
the sun had not been made to be seen in the sky, for this took place on the
fourth day. So assuming that sunlight is meant here, we would have to say
that the light from the sun was getting through the canopy around the earth,
but as yet the sun itself could not be seen in the sky.
But the point here is that the light is called "day", while the the darkness
is called "night". From this standpoint, a day would equal whatever period
of time the light was there, while the darkness would not be "day", the
period of time that darkness was upon the surface of the earth. But then we
are told in the same verse that there was an evening and morning, the first
day. It should be apparent that "day" referring to the time of the light in
first part of Genesis 1:4 is not the same length of time as "day" referring
to the evening and morning in the same verse, or else you would have to say
that the first day was from the morning, the beginning of the day to the
evening, the ending of the day, a period of about 12 hours. Actually, most
would agree that two different periods of time are spoken of there. Even if
one one would assume that evening and morning here refers to 24 hours, it
should be apparent that the first usage of the word "yowm" in Genesis 1:5 is
not a 24-hour period. Jesus used a similar usage of "day" as recorded in
John 11:9. Nevertheless, the point is made the "yowm" does not always mean
24 hours, and we have no reason to think that "evening and morning, the
first day" means a period of 24 hours.
Actually the Hebrew word "yohm" is often used to speak of periods of time
other than 24 hours.
As time [yowm] passed, it happened that Cain brought an offering to Yahweh
from the fruit of the ground. -- Genesis 4:3.
Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
[yowm]. -- Genesis 6:5
It happened, when he had been there a long time [yowm], that Abimelech king
of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was
caressing Rebekah, his wife. -- Genesis 26:8
So my righteousness will answer for me hereafter [yowm], then you come
concerning my hire that is before you. Everyone that is not speckled and
spotted among the goats, and black among the sheep, that might be with me,
will be counted stolen." -- Genesis 30:33.
Even the following scriptures appear to refer to days as "years": Genesis
5:4,5,8,11,14,17,27,31; 6:3,5, etc.
One could continue this throughout the Hebrew scriptures.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
http://hessel.no/visdomsord/h3/11.htm#7
http://www.kiva.net/~kls/page3.html
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/C_1b.html
Agape love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "soCode" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 04:50:21 PM |
|
|
ResLight wrote:
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bii5kd$4dr$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
jabriol wrote:
Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to
mean 24 hours.
Not least because "yohm" was the word for a day.
However,
... you desperately want to cling to the belief that the
biblical account is "accurate", and hence need to "interpret"
it in some way that doesn't conflict with scientific views.
in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion “day.”
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
“day”.
And your "holy days" are seven days apart, rather than
millions of years.
"And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because
on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had
done."
Genesis 2:2
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean
different lengths of time.
Normally, however, it meant one day.
Among the meanings possible,
is whatever you project onto it.
William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put
for time in general, or for a long time; a whole
period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a
particular season or time when any extraordinary event
happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the
creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when
extraordinary events were described as happening. It
also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
If you choose to reinterpret things to mean something
you have no evidence that the original authors meant,
and which contradicts the original words, you can of
course make up whatever you like. It's a miracle!
Do six days equal 144 hours and yet must also be 24 hours, since 6 days
are all one day? How can six days (24 hours X 6) be one day of 24 hours?
Why don't you tell us? The creation of the heavens and the earth didn't
take one day according to the biblical account, and the bible
contradicts itself. Since you are such an expert, perhaps you can
explain how you deduce from the fact that it is inconsistent that the
account is _actually_ saying something completely different?
Genesis 2:4 - This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and
the heavens.
In principio deus creavit caelum et terram.
Notice that took one day.
Exodus 20:11 - for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed
the Sabbath day, and made it holy.
soCode
.
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 08:03:38 PM |
|
|
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:biltet$fl2$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
ResLight wrote:
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:bii5kd$4dr$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Do six days equal 144 hours and yet must also be 24 hours, since 6 days
are all one day? How can six days (24 hours X 6) be one day of 24 hours?
Why don't you tell us? The creation of the heavens and the earth didn't
take one day according to the biblical account, and the bible
contradicts itself. Since you are such an expert, perhaps you can
explain how you deduce from the fact that it is inconsistent that the
account is _actually_ saying something completely different?
I did show that yowm does not always mean 24 hours. There is no
contradiction. Go back and read what I posted. As I pointed out, there is no
reason to believe that the creative days are 24 hours in length. How long
they actually were is not given. The Hebrew word "yowm" simply refers to the
period of time being spoken of. Some have assumed that measuring the seventh
day as 7,000 years long, then each day of creation would be 7,000 years
long, but, as I say, this is an assumption. I do not venture to state how
long each day of creation was, nor would I state that each day was equal in
length.
Agape love,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "soCode" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
29 Aug 2003 02:53:09 AM |
|
|
ResLight wrote:
I did show that yowm does not always mean 24 hours. There is no
contradiction. Go back and read what I posted. As I pointed out, there is no
reason to believe that the creative days are 24 hours in length. How long
they actually were is not given. The Hebrew word "yowm" simply refers to the
period of time being spoken of. Some have assumed that measuring the seventh
day as 7,000 years long, then each day of creation would be 7,000 years
long, but, as I say, this is an assumption. I do not venture to state how
long each day of creation was, nor would I state that each day was equal in
length.
Do you believe that when "day" is used to describe periods of time
longer than 24 hours, that they are separated into day and night?
soCode
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that
the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God
called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there
was evening, and there was morning-the first day."
Genesis 1:3-5
.
|
|
|
| User: "BearMan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
29 Aug 2003 10:25:23 AM |
|
|
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message =
news:bin0p5$8pn$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
ResLight wrote:
Do you believe that when "day" is used to describe periods of time=20
longer than 24 hours, that they are separated into day and night?
"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that =
the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God=20
called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there=20
was evening, and there was morning-the first day."
Genesis 1:3-5
Your question is not correct. You changed the actual hebrew words do not =
say DAY (yom) and NIGHT (lailah). If they had then there would be no =
question that a 24 hour period was intended. Rather the actual words =
'boker' and 'erev' are more correctly interpreted as dawn and twilight =
which does lend itself to the interpretation of a period of time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 05:34:55 PM |
|
|
"soCode" <news@socode.com> wrote in message
news:biltet$fl2$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Genesis 2:4 - This is the history of the generations of the heavens and
of
the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth
and
the heavens.
In principio deus creavit caelum et terram.
Notice that took one day.
The Hebrew (definitive) text uses the word "yom," which can be
indeterminate.
Exodus 20:11 - for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea,
and
all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh
blessed
the Sabbath day, and made it holy.
Should have recognized that from the liturgy. Uses "yom" also. Not used to
seeing that "Y" word in print.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
27 Aug 2003 10:58:06 AM |
|
|
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<20030827110222.2739.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com>...
Many consider the word ?day? used in Genesis
chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5
God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion ?day.?
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
?day?.
All this is certainly true; the Hebrew _yohm_ is used in pretty much
the same way the English "day" is used. However, the division of the
seven "days" into "morning and evening," and their description as the
"first," "second," etc. "day," all make them sound very much like
standard, 24-hour days. We don't, and AFAIK speakers of Hebrew did
not, standardly speak of the "evening and morning" of long periods of
time.
OTOH, the idea that the "days" may not have literally referred to
*any* particular sequential periods of time has been around for a long
time. Augustine of Hippo, a YEC in the sense of holding to a
less-than-10,000-year-old Earth, took to its extreme the idea that an
omnipotent God would not *need* six days to create the world; he held
that the world was created instantaneously, and that the "six days"
were simply an expository framework, not a timeline. Augustine, I
think, would not have rejected the idea that the study of geology,
paleontology, and astronomy could reveal something of the history of
the Earth, or refute YECism. If you are minded to accept the
possibility that the world is actually old, there is no particular
need to try to match up the "six days" to actual periods of geological
history.
The Hebrew word yohm, translated ?day,? can mean
different lengths of time. Among the meanings
possible, William Wilson?s Old Testament Word Studies
includes the following: ?A day; it is frequently put
for time in general, or for a long time; a whole
period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a
particular season or time when any extraordinary event
happens.? This last sentence appears to fit the
creative ?days,? for certainly they were periods when
extraordinary events were described as happening. It
also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 05:38:49 PM |
|
|
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<20030827110222.2739.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com>...
Many consider the word ?day? used in Genesis
chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5
God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion ?day.?
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
?day?.
Rest of Jabriol Horseshit(TM) snipped. In the story of the creation,
day is day - 24 hours - as defined by each reference specifically
stating that there was evening and morning. No other time-period has
these divisions. The Jewish day does - it starts with sundown on day
one and ends with sundown on day two - evening and morning. Deal with
it.
And before you blather more lies, ***** and assininity on this
topic, you need to catch up on your previous moronic displays first.
Define and detail what the "colossal holes" are in the Theory of
Evolution. I have been waiting some consdierable time to see you list
them. Can you or can you not? If you can, then do so. If you
cannot, then admit that you are doing nothing but spreading lies with
your clueless posts.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
28 Aug 2003 06:19:09 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0308281438.53ed413b@posting.google.com...
jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:<20030827110222.2739.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com>...
Many consider the word ?day? used in Genesis
chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5
God himself is said to divide day into a smaller
period of time, calling just the light portion ?day.?
In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one
?day?.
Rest of Jabriol Horseshit(TM) snipped. In the story of the creation,
day is day - 24 hours - as defined by each reference specifically
stating that there was evening and morning. No other time-period has
these divisions. The Jewish day does - it starts with sundown on day
one and ends with sundown on day two - evening and morning. Deal with
it.
For your convenience I will quote my post immediately above this one:
Not only that, the text is of the form, G-d did XXX, it was evening, it
was
morning Day Y. Note that no time is specified for the creative acts; they
could have taken eons. The creative periods are demarcated by the days.
This was a project with six milestones, but unknown length.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
30 Aug 2003 04:08:04 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
Not only that, the text is of the form,
G-d did XXX, it was evening, it
was morning Day Y. Note that no time is
specified for the creative acts;
Yes there is a time period - evening and morning. Duhh!
they could have taken eons. The creative
periods are demarcated by the days.
This was a project with six milestones,
but unknown length.
This is your interpretation. I gave mine. When you have something
that supports your or overturns mine, please do post again.
Meanwhile, here is a quote direct from your handbook:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen 1:5)
This is one of the very first things established - night and day - 24
hour days - so that God would have a working day, six of which he
would use to create the heavens and Earth. Why he needed six and why
he had to rest after is another issue entirely.
The word used for day comes from a root meaning "hot" - as in the heat
of the day. It is the same root that is used for "day" in both cases
in this verse. It meant day as in the lighted portion of one twenty
four hour period.
24 hour periods were the only divisions of time people understood when
it came to accomplishing specific tasks such as those desribed as
being accomplished by God in the creation myth, which is why they
described God as accomplishing these tasks in regualr, 24 hour days.
A longer time period does not have a warm, lit period followed by a
cooler dark period as a 24 hour day does, nor does it have evening and
morning.
You seem to be saying, "Yes, the Bible does specify day, but these
were days between the creative periods", yet there is no reason
whatsoever ot interpret it in that way. You theists need to get your
stories straight. All of the young earth creationists disagree with
you.
"info" <info@as-if.com> wrote
ftp://info-02:info-02@65.127.169.45/info.html
You refer me to Josn McDowell? Excuse me while I retrieve my socks
that I just laughed off.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
31 Aug 2003 12:43:15 AM |
|
|
Your fatuous arrogance serves you badly. You are about to be proven wrong.
First of all, two definitions of the Hebrew work "yom."
Per Alcalay (the standard Hebrew-English dictionary): yom: day; time (Note
the second definition, buddika)
Per Klein, E. "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew
Language for Readers of English" (New York, Macmillan 1987):
yom: m.n. 1. day 2. time 3. year (Note the second definition, and even the
third, buddika)
Now that we have that cleared up, we can get started.
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0308301308.76a961be@posting.google.com...
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
Not only that, the text is of the form,
G-d did XXX, it was evening, it
was morning Day Y. Note that no time is
specified for the creative acts;
Yes there is a time period - evening and morning. Duhh!
Because you do seem unclear on the concept, I will parse a few examples for
you. Let's start with the first creative act: I'm quoting from Genesis,
Chapter 1.
3 And God said, "Let there be
light," and there was light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good, and
God separated between the light and between the (these lines are the
creative act. Note that no time is specified)
darkness. 5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night,
and it was evening and it was morning, one day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, and let
it be a separation between water and
water." 7 And God made the expanse and it separated between the water that
was below the expanse and the water that (these lines are the
creative act. Note that no time is specified)
was above the expanse, and it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven,
and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
9 And God said, "Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one
place, and let the dry land appear,"
and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of
the waters He called seas, and God saw that it
was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding
herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according (these lines are the
creative act. Note that no time is specified)
to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so. 12 And
the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding
herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is
found, according to its kind, and God saw that it
was good.
13 And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
14 And God said, "Let there be luminaries in the
expanse of the heavens, to separate between the day and between the night,
and they shall be for signs and for appointed
seasons and for days and years. 15 And they shall be for luminaries in the
expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the
earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great
luminary to rule the day and the lesser (these lines are
the creative act. Note that no time is specified)
luminary to rule the night, and the stars. 17 And God placed them in the
expanse of the heavens to shed light upon the
earth. 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate
between the light and between the darkness, and God
saw that it was good.
19 And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
I think that even you could figure out days 5 and 6. Just follow the
examples.
they could have taken eons. The creative
periods are demarcated by the days.
This was a project with six milestones,
but unknown length.
This is your interpretation. I gave mine. When you have something
that supports your or overturns mine, please do post again.
I think I've done exactly that. I expect an apology, not for your errors,
but for your arrogance and rudeness.
Meanwhile, here is a quote direct from your handbook:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen 1:5)
This is one of the very first things established - night and day - 24
hour days - so that God would have a working day, six of which he
would use to create the heavens and Earth. Why he needed six and why
he had to rest after is another issue entirely.
This is dead wrong. Night and Day were defined, but not time. There is a
very old interpretation of Genesis 1:5 (maybe
3rd Century CE) to the effect that there must have been some creating
going on before the 6 days because the biblical text says "...and there was
evening, and there was morning, day one." G-d did not say "let there be
evening" as a part of this Creation.
The inference is that evening and morning had been created before, and
therefore already existed. So there must have been some prior creation. The
midrash also concludes that G-d went about creating and destroying worlds
until finally satisfied with this one. This latter conclusion is based upon
the grammatical form of the words in the original Hebrew. If you want to
find it, it's Midrash Rabbah, Genesis III-7.
The word used for day comes from a root meaning "hot" - as in the heat
of the day.
Klein indicates that the word is related to words for "day" (as opposed to
night) in Syriac, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic. Nowhere is any
reference to any word meaning "hot." What word did you have in mind, and
what is your source?
It is the same root that is used for "day" in both cases
in this verse.
What do you mean by this? Please provide a civil answer.
It meant day as in the lighted portion of one twenty
four hour period.
Yes, but this is the day demarcating the creative acts.
<snip>
You seem to be saying, "Yes, the Bible does specify day, but these
were days between the creative periods", yet there is no reason
whatsoever ot interpret it in that way.
I believe that I have addressed that above.
You theists need to get your
stories straight. All of the young earth creationists disagree with
you.
I'm not a YEC, so I have no problem with their disagreement. Do you?
So, as we continue the conversation, please attempt to be more civil, and
check your arrogance at the door. Maybe we'll both learn a thing or two.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
02 Sep 2003 08:51:28 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote in message news:<TVf4b.2888$Lk5.1934@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Your fatuous arrogance serves you badly. You are about to be proven wrong.
Hey, you're a Christian, try turning the other cheek.
[Self-servingly blind ***** deleted]
3 And God said, "Let there be
light," and there was light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good, and
God separated between the light and between the (these lines are the
creative act. Note that no time is specified)
darkness. 5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night,
and it was evening and it was morning, one day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
Sez you. Dream on. If you had actually refuted my case instead of
dancing around it, you might have been worth a read.
Let me refer you to the Exodus:
"Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day
is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" (Ex 20:9-11)
Pop quiz:
The traditional work week is:
A. Six literal days
B. Six time periods of unspecified duration
C. Six years
Note that only one of the above options is correct.
So anyway, why not write Strong's and tell them they don't know what
they're talking about? Or do you *not* deny that the root of the word
comes from hot, as in the heat of the day, as in the light period of a
24 hour day?
Or maybe you're right. There was the formation of the Earth, which
was a very hot period, and then there was the Dark Ages, obviously
representing the night, so we can see that the entire time period from
the Earth's formation, 4.5 billion years ago, to the Dark Ages could
readily be confused with one 24 hour day....
Verses four and five define the day. Verse five specifies "one day" -
not one year, not one "time period", but **one day**. Everything that
follows counts those days. First the definition, then the
enumeration. These were days, 24 hours long, and you can blather
exasperatedly all you want, but it ain't gonna get you a thing. You
can whine all you want, but there is nothing here whatsoever to
suggest that the time talked about was anything other than a series of
24 hour days except for your desperately wishful thinking.
Now have you taken your case before the young earth creationists and
literalists? Because it's you guys who need to get the plank removed
from your own eye before you start trying to see what you claim is a
mote in mine.
Kinda makes a person wonder, if the Bible was dictated by some god to
be our handbook, why on Earth it is that no two people can agree on
what it says. I guess this explains why there are 20,000 Christian
sects.
[Rest of flatulent, meaningless, evangelistic blather deleted]
I think I've done exactly that. I expect an apology, not for your errors,
but for your arrogance and rudeness.
And you accuse *me* of arrogance? Hey, I've got an idea: Kiss my *****.
How about that? I promise I'll turn the other cheek.
This is dead wrong. Night and Day were defined, but not time.
LoL! You're hilarious. Do please post more of these cute
translations of yours. So night and day have nothing whatsoever to do
with the rotation of the Earth. Alrighty then.
There is a very old interpretation of Genesis 1:5
There are endless interpretations, just as yours is yet another one.
It doesn't make 'em right, just as yours is wrong.
The inference is that evening and morning had been created before, and
therefore already existed. So there must have been some prior creation. The
midrash also concludes that G-d went about creating and destroying worlds
until finally satisfied with this one. This latter conclusion is based upon
the grammatical form of the words in the original Hebrew. If you want to
find it, it's Midrash Rabbah, Genesis III-7.
Like I care about finding out the exact wording of a myth. Jeeze.
BTW, there was no original Hebrew! It was a word of mouth fairytale
designed to explain what was, to them, back then, the inexplicable.
They had no scientific understanding. Let's face it, they made it up,
passed it down, and whatever the current story was when it got written
down, became set in stone (apart from the changes various translators
made to it over the ages, that is).
There is no such thing as an original Hebrew because no one has ever
seen or heard of the very first story that was ever written that
eventually became part of the mish-mash that the Bible is. There was
no single author. Not a one of them is known, unless you accept that
there really was a Paul, the inventor of Christianity, who wrote some
of the letters. The creation and flood material was bodily stolen
from Babylonian and Sumerian mythology. And you're arguing semantics
about days? Do you have any idea how trivial it is?
The word used for day comes from a root meaning "hot" - as in the heat
of the day.
Klein indicates that the word is related to words for "day" (as opposed to
night) in Syriac, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic. Nowhere is any
reference to any word meaning "hot." What word did you have in mind, and
what is your source?
Er, Strong's. And here you have just defeated your own argument by
specifically stating that "the word is related to words for "day" (as
opposed to night)" - an as opposed to unspecified time period. Thank
you, thank you, thank you so very much, I'm here all week.
It is the same root that is used for "day" in both cases
in this verse.
What do you mean by this? Please provide a civil answer.
You're asking *me* to provide a civil answer? (Yawn) Here it is,
spelled out: "And God called the light **DAY**, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first **DAY**."
(Ge 1:5)
And to repeat the obvious: It is the same root that is used for "day"
in both cases in this verse.
He called the light - the hot part of the 24 hour period, "day", then
this same word is used to tell us this was the first day - i.e. 24
hour period. Are you keeping up? This was not just any day, but the
**first** day - the first 24 hour marked period. Everything else
follows from this.
It meant day as in the lighted portion of one twenty
four hour period.
Yes, but this is the day demarcating the creative acts.
For which you have supplied not a shred of supporting evidence (unless
you count "if" "but" "maybe" and so on. Personally, I don't) to
suggest that your claim takes precedence over any other
interpretation.
You theists need to get your
stories straight. All of the young earth creationists disagree with
you.
I'm not a YEC, so I have no problem with their disagreement. Do you?
You have no problem that people who believe as devoutly as you have a
completely different interpretion of the supposed *one* Word and are
just as bigoted about it? If that's the case, you have a more serious
problem than I had hitherto noted.
So, as we continue the conversation, please attempt to be more civil, and
check your arrogance at the door. Maybe we'll both learn a thing or two.
LoL! You're too cute. Take a look in the mirror before you post
again. Just so you know who you're talking to.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
02 Sep 2003 10:37:56 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309021751.3816dfb6@posting.google.com...
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote in message
news:<TVf4b.2888$Lk5.1934@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Your fatuous arrogance serves you badly. You are about to be proven
wrong.
Hey, you're a Christian, try turning the other cheek.
I'm not a Christian; I'm Jewish. How could you have missed that?
[Self-servingly blind ***** deleted]
3 And God said, "Let there be
light," and there was light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good,
and
God separated between the light and between the (these lines are
the
creative act. Note that no time is specified)
darkness. 5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called
night,
and it was evening and it was morning, one day.
(this line is the day (see above) demarcating the creative acts)
Sez you. Dream on. If you had actually refuted my case instead of
dancing around it, you might have been worth a read.
I stand by what I wrote in the earlier post. The periods of creation
themselves were of indeterminate length, while the days between were of
presumably "normal" duration.
Let me refer you to the Exodus:
"Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day
is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:" (Ex 20:9-11)
Once again, the days of creation were of indeterminate length. But the days
on a human scale are of course of the 24-hour variety. So the the multiple
meanings of the word "day" come into play here.
<snip>
So anyway, why not write Strong's and tell them they don't know what
they're talking about? Or do you *not* deny that the root of the word
comes from hot, as in the heat of the day, as in the light period of a
24 hour day?
Provide me the citation. Strong's, like many other non-Jewish translators,
sometimes translate the Hebrew in ways that are not necessarily correct, but
do support their beliefs.
<snip>
Verses four and five define the day. Verse five specifies "one day" -
not one year, not one "time period", but **one day**. Everything that
follows counts those days. First the definition, then the
enumeration. These were days, 24 hours long, and you can blather
exasperatedly all you want, but it ain't gonna get you a thing. You
can whine all you want, but there is nothing here whatsoever to
suggest that the time talked about was anything other than a series of
24 hour days except for your desperately wishful thinking.
Now, I get it. You are a fundamentalist.
Now have you taken your case before the young earth creationists and
literalists? Because it's you guys who need to get the plank removed
from your own eye before you start trying to see what you claim is a
mote in mine.
No, I'm not a Creationist. I don't answer to them.
Kinda makes a person wonder, if the Bible was dictated by some god to
be our handbook, why on Earth it is that no two people can agree on
what it says. I guess this explains why there are 20,000 Christian
sects.
[Rest of flatulent, meaningless, evangelistic blather deleted]
I'm not an evangelist, I'm not even Christian, in case you hadn't notice by
now. So don't accuse me of evangelizing - it's slanderous.
I think I've done exactly that. I expect an apology, not for your
errors,
but for your arrogance and rudeness.
And you accuse *me* of arrogance? Hey, I've got an idea: Kiss my *****.
How about that? I promise I'll turn the other cheek.
I stand by what I said, and I'd be happy to kiss your ***** with my boot.
This is dead wrong. Night and Day were defined, but not time.
LoL! You're hilarious. Do please post more of these cute
translations of yours. So night and day have nothing whatsoever to do
with the rotation of the Earth. Alrighty then.
There is a very old interpretation of Genesis 1:5
<snip>
There is no such thing as an original Hebrew because no one has ever
seen or heard of the very first story that was ever written that
eventually became part of the mish-mash that the Bible is. There was
no single author. Not a one of them is known, unless you accept that
there really was a Paul, the inventor of Christianity, who wrote some
of the letters. The creation and flood material was bodily stolen
from Babylonian and Sumerian mythology. And you're arguing semantics
about days? Do you have any idea how trivial it is?
The original text of Tanach was written in Hebrew. That was the "original"
that I was referring to. To simplify, I was referring to the language in
which it was originally written. All the other versions since the Hebrew
have been translations.
The word used for day comes from a root meaning "hot" - as in the heat
of the day.
Klein indicates that the word is related to words for "day" (as opposed
to
night) in Syriac, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Ugaritic. Nowhere is
any
reference to any word meaning "hot." What word did you have in mind, and
what is your source?
Er, Strong's. And here you have just defeated your own argument by
specifically stating that "the word is related to words for "day" (as
opposed to night)" - an as opposed to unspecified time period. Thank
you, thank you, thank you so very much, I'm here all week.
No the multiple definitions apply in the Hebrew. The related words were for
"day" as opposed to night. I can't speak to their meanings and derivations.
It is the same root that is used for "day" in both cases
in this verse.
What do you mean by this? Please provide a civil answer.
You're asking *me* to provide a civil answer? (Yawn) Here it is,
spelled out: "And God called the light **DAY**, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first **DAY**."
(Ge 1:5)
You ignore what I posted earlier. The naming of day and night came during
the creative period, and before evening and the morning of the 24 hour
demarcation day.
<snip>
You have no problem that people who believe as devoutly as you have a
completely different interpretion of the supposed *one* Word and are
just as bigoted about it? If that's the case, you have a more serious
problem than I had hitherto noted.
You don't know anything about my beliefs, so this statement is completely
inappropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
03 Sep 2003 08:27:39 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
news:<omd5b.7351$Lk5.6842@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Hey, you're a Christian, try turning the other cheek.
I'm not a Christian; I'm Jewish. How could you have missed that?
My psychic powers are greatly overrated.
I stand by what I wrote in the earlier post. The periods of creation
themselves were of indeterminate length, while the days between were of
presumably "normal" duration.
You can stand by it all you want but the bottom line is that all you
have is wishful thinking and not a shred of support for it. Your own
Bible refutes you and you are in serious denial. You have *still*
offered nothing to support your claim that there were indeed these
periods of time between the days.
Once again, the days of creation were of indeterminate length. But the days
on a human scale are of course of the 24-hour variety. So the the multiple
meanings of the word "day" come into play here.
In your dreams. There is no other way to interpret this: "For in six
days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day:" This says nothing whatsoever about
indeterminate periods, it specifies six days. Your claim that there
were periods *between* these six 24 hour days has no foundaiton
whatsoever, and you have offered not a shred of evidence to support
your wishful thinking except vague blathering about semantics, which
does not help you with this.
The word used for day is from an ancient root meaning "hot" - i.e. the
warmest part of the 24 hour period - meaning the day time - not the
era or the eon or the "indeterminate period". There is no way to
understand this as anything other than a 24 hour day unless you
desperately want to ignore the facts. Six days shalt thou labor. Are
you suggesting that the commandment instructs us to work for six
indeterminate periods, perhaps of thousands of years, and then rest on
the seventh indeterminate period?
Provide me the citation. Strong's, like many other non-Jewish translators,
sometimes translate the Hebrew in ways that are not necessarily correct, but
do support their beliefs.
The Strong's reference comes from an online Bible called e-sword. You
can find it through a search. But it doesn't matter, because even if
Strong's is wrong about the root, you still cannot get away from the
Exodus commandment which specifies unambiguously a six day work week
that God followed and therefore so should we.
The issue is not about what the word "yom" means, because you are
apparently agreeing that the actual days specified are of 24 hours
duration, but you have an additional claim, nowhere supported in the
creation story, that these 24-hour days were specified to demarcate
creative periods of an unspecified length of time between the "yom"s.
There is nothing in the creation story to support this.
Now, I get it. You are a fundamentalist.
LoL! Your psychic powers are also greatly overrated, it appears.
Now have you taken your case before the young earth creationists and
literalists? Because it's you guys who need to get the plank removed
from your own eye before you start trying to see what you claim is a
mote in mine.
No, I'm not a Creationist. I don't answer to them.
But you still have to reconcile your views with theirs, since you are
both in the same camp ground, no matter how far apart your tents are.
At least one of you is wrong. If that doesn't bother you, it should.
[Rest of flatulent, meaningless, evangelistic blather deleted]
I'm not an evangelist, I'm not even Christian, in case you hadn't notice by
now. So don't accuse me of evangelizing - it's slanderous.
My what a thin skin you have. You might want to reposition your
presence on the Internet if you''re that sensitive. So what do you
call the gratuitous quotation of endless irrelevant Bible verses if
not evangelizing? it's not like I didn't know what Genesis 1 says.
The original text of Tanach was written in Hebrew. That was the "original"
that I was referring to. To simplify, I was referring to the language in
which it was originally written. All the other versions since the Hebrew
have been translations.
This still doesn't get away from the fact that the story was ripped
off in the first place from the Sumerians and Babylonians. It went
through god knows how many retellings before it was written down, and
then god knows how many copyings before it got to the earliest copy
that is still extant. That's why it's meaningless, because we have no
idea what the original story was. And even if we did, it would still
have been told by primitive people who had no scientific understanding
whatsoever of the universe and amde up a cute "just-so" story to
explain it all.
No the multiple definitions apply in the Hebrew. The related words were for
"day" as opposed to night. I can't speak to their meanings and derivations.
Exactly! And multiple definitions do not apply in **a specific
context**. If that were the case there is no way in Hell to read the
Bible because everything could be multiply interpreted all over the
place. The interpretation depends on the context. The story tells of
six days, with no indication whatsoever that there was, in each case,
an additional time period to be taken into consideration. The
interpetation of that section of text as specifying six days of
creation in total is made clear by the Exodus commandment.
Even if this were not the case, it still calls into question the
supposed divine roots of the Bible or the wisdom of attempting to
impart so important a message when it can be so readily
misinterpreted.
You're asking *me* to provide a civil answer? (Yawn) Here it is,
spelled out: "And God called the light **DAY**, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first **DAY**."
(Ge 1:5)
You ignore what I posted earlier. The naming of day and night came during
the creative period, and before evening and the morning of the 24 hour
demarcation day.
You ignore the fact that you are liberally interpreting this text to
meet your preconceived notions. All I am doing is reading what's
written. The first thing God does before the main creation sequence
is divide light from darkness (just how is that done, BTW?) and label
them day and night. Immediately after that it specifies that evening
and morning were the first day. It then immediately goes on to
describe the creation, each "act" being of the duration of one of
these days. The days are even counted off. Exodus then bolsters this
interpretation with the commandment that we emulate God by working six
days and resting on the seventh. It is so obvious as to be laughable
that anyone should have to explain this to you. You would have to be
permanently *in* the dark side of the divide to not see this.
You don't know anything about my beliefs, so this statement is completely
inappropriate.
Well I know that you believe everyone else is wrong on this topic if
they disagree with you, yet you cannot offer any support at all for
these invented "indeterminate periods" that the Bible makes no mention
of, but which you nevertheless claim were interspersed between the six
days, so that's the first clue.
All you are able to do is say, "Well they were there, so there". All
this arm-waving about interpretations of the meaning of "yom" are
actually a thoroughly irrelevant smoke screen. You are saying that
day actually does mean 24 hours, but in between these 24 hour days
were huge periods of time when God actually did the creating. I am
still awaiting your evidence supporting this claim, because it is
nowhere to be found in the Bible, and equivocating about the meaning
of "yom" does not help you conjure up these "lost" periods of time.
Neither would it help if you *could* conjure some support, because the
order of creation in Genesis does not match the fossil record!
I'm sorry, but you need to find another hobby horse to ride. Your old
one has been hobbled.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
05 Sep 2003 02:10:39 AM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309031727.7cbe9678@posting.google.com...
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
news:<omd5b.7351$Lk5.6842@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
<snip>
I think we will have to disagree on the issue of days.
But you still have to reconcile your views with theirs, since you are
both in the same camp ground, no matter how far apart your tents are.
At least one of you is wrong. If that doesn't bother you, it should.
No, I don't have to "reconcile" my beliefs with theirs. There are several
reasons:
1. They are literalists, and I am not.
2. They blindly adhere to their translated versions, whereas I rely upon the
definitive Hebrew, and commentaries
3. My comments here reflect a Jewish perspective, and lie solidly within
that tradition. No reconciliation with their view is IMO possible
4. My comments do not necessarily reflect my personal views. I'm solidly in
the evolutionist camp. BTW, Judaism does not require belief.
5. My goal is not to persuade, but to encourage people to think a bit. I
have no expectations of anyone in the creationist camp beyond a willingness
to look seriously at other viewpoints. I have been somewhat disappointed,
but, hey, easy come easy go.
My what a thin skin you have.
Yes, I am a bit thn-skinned on some matters. When I am, I speak up. If I'm
told that offended someone, I apologize.
The original text of Tanach was written in Hebrew. That was the
"original"
that I was referring to. To simplify, I was referring to the language
in
which it was originally written. All the other versions since the
Hebrew
have been translations.
This still doesn't get away from the fact that the story was ripped
off in the first place from the Sumerians and Babylonians. It went
through god knows how many retellings before it was written down, and
then god knows how many copyings before it got to the earliest copy
that is still extant. That's why it's meaningless, because we have no
idea what the original story was.
Doesn't matter. We work with the version we have.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
06 Sep 2003 07:37:34 AM |
|
|
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com>
wrotenews:<PFW5b.22$Yt.13@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
I think we will have to disagree on the issue of days.
Clearly - but that does not make you right.
No, I don't have to "reconcile" my beliefs with theirs.
Yes you do have to reconcile your beliefs with the literalists,
because you are both claiming that the Bible makes a clear statement
on the topic of the length of time of the creation, and both claims
are contradictory. You cnanot both be right.
Before you even think of taking up these issues outside of your camp,
you need to all agree what it is that the Bible says. Otherwise all
your opponents have to do is say you are, in effect,
self-contradictory, and that, therefore, your position is a joke. You
cannot even begin to put yourself in the position of trying to assure
me that the Bible says 'X' when others on your side of the fence are
claiming with equal certitude and conviction that it says 'Not X'.
1. They are literalists, and I am not.
They claim to interpret the Bible just as well as you do.
2. They blindly adhere to their translated versions, whereas I rely upon the
definitive Hebrew, and commentaries
They claim their translations are true and they are interpreting them
correctly.
3. My comments here reflect a Jewish perspective, and lie solidly within
that tradition. No reconciliation with their view is IMO possible
Then you have a serious problem.
4. My comments do not necessarily reflect my personal views. I'm solidly in
the evolutionist camp. BTW, Judaism does not require belief.
It is irrelevant whose camp you are in with regard ot evolution. This
has nothing to do with science. You are still in the position where
two people using the exact same book are claiming contradictory things
for it. This completely negates any claim others have made that you
can use the Bible to support itself. How can you do that when you
have 20,000 different sects in christianity alone who claim the Bible
says different things - all of whom claim it says more than the
Judaists are willing to allow, and less than the Islamists claim? The
religious camp is in a shambles and not in any position to claim
anything until these conflicts are resolved and the resolution
supported with facts - or at least solid logic.
5. My goal is not to persuade, but to encourage people to think a bit. I
have no expectations of anyone in the creationist camp beyond a willingness
to look seriously at other viewpoints. I have been somewhat disappointed,
but, hey, easy come easy go.
You are not going to make people think anything other than that your
position is weak because of the conflicts and poor understanding of
the texts. Reslight was complaining that he gets in trouble when
using one part of the bible to supprot another, but when I used Exodus
to support the creation week length, everyone complained about that.
What goes around comes around.
Yes, I am a bit thn-skinned on some matters. When I am, I speak up. If I'm
told that offended someone, I apologize.
Fugedaboudit.
This still doesn't get away from the fact that the story was ripped
off in the first place from the Sumerians and Babylonians. It went
through god knows how many retellings before it was written down, and
then god knows how many copyings before it got to the earliest copy
that is still extant. That's why it's meaningless, because we have no
idea what the original story was.
Doesn't matter. We work with the version we have.
But if that version is based on earlier mythology, it behooves you to
go further back to get at the truth. If you do not, you are blinding
yourself to the truth.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
07 Sep 2003 12:59:45 AM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309060437.1a6de423@posting.google.com...
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com>
wrotenews:<PFW5b.22$Yt.13@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
I think we will have to disagree on the issue of days.
Clearly - but that does not make you right.
No, I don't have to "reconcile" my beliefs with theirs.
Yes you do have to reconcile your beliefs with the literalists,
because you are both claiming that the Bible makes a clear statement
on the topic of the length of time of the creation, and both claims
are contradictory. You cnanot both be right.
You are either very fanatical, very young, or have never dealt with lawyers.
It is perfectly possible for a specific text to have multiple
interpretations. Sometimes these different interpretations are
irreconcilable, for any number of reasons. For civilized people, that is
very often OK. It is not for fanatics and the immature.
Before you even think of taking up these issues outside of your camp,
you need to all agree what it is that the Bible says.
Dream on!
Otherwise all
your opponents have to do is say you are, in effect,
self-contradictory, and that, therefore, your position is a joke. You
cannot even begin to put yourself in the position of trying to assure
me that the Bible says 'X' when others on your side of the fence are
claiming with equal certitude and conviction that it says 'Not X'.
We are not self-contradictory, we merely disagree. For other than the
immature and religious fanatics, that's OK.
1. They are literalists, and I am not.
They claim to interpret the Bible just as well as you do.
No, they claim to interpret the Bible, just as I do, and just as many others
do.
2. They blindly adhere to their translated versions, whereas I rely upon
the
definitive Hebrew, and commentaries
They claim their translations are true and they are interpreting them
correctly.
Of course they do. But if they are working from incorrect translations
(regardless of what they claim), they cannot be correct.
3. My comments here reflect a Jewish perspective, and lie solidly within
that tradition. No reconciliation with their view is IMO possible
Then you have a serious problem.
Not at all, unless you regard being Jewish as a problem. See above.
4. My comments do not necessarily reflect my personal views. I'm
solidly in
the evolutionist camp. BTW, Judaism does not require belief.
It is irrelevant whose camp you are in with regard ot evolution. This
has nothing to do with science. You are still in the position where
two people using the exact same book are claiming contradictory things
for it. This completely negates any claim others have made that you
can use the Bible to support itself. How can you do that when you
have 20,000 different sects in christianity alone who claim the Bible
says different things - all of whom claim it says more than the
Judaists are willing to allow, and less than the Islamists claim? The
religious camp is in a shambles and not in any position to claim
anything until these conflicts are resolved and the resolution
supported with facts - or at least solid logic.
Dream on, or grow up.
5. My goal is not to persuade, but to encourage people to think a bit.
I
have no expectations of anyone in the creationist camp beyond a
willingness
to look seriously at other viewpoints. I have been somewhat
disappointed,
but, hey, easy come easy go.
You are not going to make people think anything other than that your
position is weak because of the conflicts and poor understanding of
the texts. Reslight was complaining that he gets in trouble when
using one part of the bible to supprot another, but when I used Exodus
to support the creation week length, everyone complained about that.
What goes around comes around.
No, your interpretation was one of many. You post it, you are subject to
disagreement. Deal with it.
Yes, I am a bit thn-skinned on some matters. When I am, I speak up. If
I'm
told that offended someone, I apologize.
Fugedaboudit.
OK
This still doesn't get away from the fact that the story was ripped
off in the first place from the Sumerians and Babylonians. It went
through god knows how many retellings before it was written down, and
then god knows how many copyings before it got to the earliest copy
that is still extant. That's why it's meaningless, because we have no
idea what the original story was.
Doesn't matter. We work with the version we have.
But if that version is based on earlier mythology, it behooves you to
go further back to get at the truth. If you do not, you are blinding
yourself to the truth.
No, the Masoretic text is considered the definitive Hebrew version. Other
versions are interesting, and might even shed some light on the origins of
the stories. But they do not have any theological weight for Judaism,
Christianity or Islam. Just as the Koran has no theological impact on
Judaism and Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
07 Sep 2003 09:53:09 PM |
|
|
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
news:<lPz6b.2219$Yt.2198@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Yes you do have to reconcile your beliefs with the literalists,
because you are both claiming that the Bible makes a clear statement
on the topic of the length of time of the creation, and both claims
are contradictory. You cnanot both be right.
You are either very fanatical, very young, or have never dealt with lawyers.
It is perfectly possible for a specific text to have multiple
interpretations.
You are wrong on all three counts, but if you are not training to be a
lawyer, then you are going into the wrong profession. For someone so
expert at evading direct questions and avoiding dealing with reality,
you are well-qualified. The plain and simple fact is that it is not
possible for a single story to have two **completely contradictory**
interpretations and for both of them to be right!
Let me spell this out: one interpretation is that Earth was created as
the Bible states, in six literal days, God resting on the seventh.
Your interpretation appears to be that creation took place over a
lengthy but indeterminate amount of time and that the six days of
creation were, while being actual 24 hour days, not the actual
creation periods, but markers between those creation periods.
Now are you saying that these two interpretations are not in conflict?
If so, please explain how this is so.
Sometimes these different interpretations are
irreconcilable, for any number of reasons. For civilized people, that is
very often OK. It is not for fanatics and the immature.
It is okay for the Bible to say Pi is 3, rather than 3.14, because you
can say it was rounded, or the writer was giving an approximation.
It is okay for one person to interpret the Bible as claiming, say,
3,000 fought in a battle, and for another to say, no, it was 30,000.
A number like that could easily be miscopied.
It is okay for someone to interpret the Bible as saying person B was
the son of person A, and for someone else to say, no, person B was the
grandson of person A. These are matters of interpretation or
differences of translation or errors in translation.
It is **not okay** to say that two diametrically opposed
interpretations of a story fundamental to the rest of the Bible are
okay. At least one of them is a lie. Doesn't that bother you? It
should.
Are you willing to reconcile this by admitting that your
interpretation is a lie? No? Then you are, by taking that position,
insisting that the young Earth creation stance is a lie.
Who is lying and how do you prove it?
This is not an issue of whether this Jesus character actually spent
three days and three nights in the ground. I can see where there can
be unresolved conflict there and people would still be able to pretend
that he was crucified and rose from the dead as prophesied.
But that is not the case with the creation story. This story is not a
matter of interpreting slightly more this way or slightly more that.
It is a case of two completely opposed versions of how the universe
came to be, one of which does not mesh remotely with what science can
demonstrate about the origin of the unvierse.
I am amazed that you do not find it important to resolve this issue -
that it does not appear to bother you that a large portion of the
population, at least in the USA, solidly believe (with more evidence
than you appear able to muster), that the Earth was created in six
literal days. They believe this because the Bible is supposed to be
the inerrant word of God and because the Bible clearly states that the
creation took six literal days. Or do you believe that there aren't
any such people? Or do you not claim the Bible is inerrant?
Before you even think of taking up these issues outside of your camp,
you need to all agree what it is that the Bible says.
Dream on!
Well if you're schizophrenic enough to be able to hold both these
impossible things before breakfast, why did you even start up with me
in this thread? Talk about illogical.
We are not self-contradictory, we merely disagree. For other than the
immature and religious fanatics, that's OK.
You're in denial is what you are. Yes you disagree, and the reason
you disagree is that what you say completely contradicts what they
say. How is that not contradictory? How does this claim of yours now
sit with the earlier statement you made: "3. My comments here reflect
a Jewish perspective, and lie solidly within that tradition. No
reconciliation with their view is IMO possible"? Isn't this admitting
that this is not a mere disagreement, but an irreconcilable
contradiction?
I said: "They claim to interpret the Bible just as well as you do."
You said: "No, they claim to interpret the Bible, just as I do, and
just as many others do."
!!!!!!
How does this irrelevant equivocation resolve the conflict?
They claim their translations are true and they are interpreting them
correctly.
Of course they do. But if they are working from incorrect translations
(regardless of what they claim), they cannot be correct.
You have yet to make the case that the literalist translation is
incorrect. All you have offered so far is that day can mean more than
one thing, but you have not even used this to establish you case.
Instead, what you have done is **agreed** that the day used in Genesis
is a 24 hour day, but that what is not said in the creation story is
that these days were not the time-periods of creation, but markers
between the time periods, which were of indeterminate length!
And as of this far in these proceedings, you have offered not a single
shred of support for your position despite my repeatedly asking for
it. You have offered nothing to explain where the impetus comes from
for this assumption - for your interpretation taking precedence over
the literalist interpretion. All you are doing is making an argument
from authority - that *your translation* is better than theirs.
Not at all, unless you regard being Jewish as a problem. See above.
I have never considered being Jewish a problem (unless you happen to
live in Israel surrounded by hostile neighbors), nor do I consider
following Judaism a problem if that's what you want to do with your
life. The issue is not who you are, nor what you believe in a general
sense. The problem is reconciling belief 'X' with belief 'not X' when
both beliefs are held to be true and are based on precisely the same
text.
It is irrelevant whose camp you are in with regard to evolution. This
has nothing to do with science. You are still in the position where
two people using the exact same book are claiming contradictory things
for it. This completely negates any claim others have made that you
can use the Bible to support itself. How can you do that when you
have 20,000 different sects in christianity alone who claim the Bible
says different things - all of whom claim it says more than the
Judaists are willing to allow, and less than the Islamists claim? The
religious camp is in a shambles and not in any position to claim
anything until these conflicts are resolved and the resolution
supported with facts - or at least solid logic.
Dream on, or grow up.
Is that how you resolve these conflicts between three major religions
all supposedly based on the same texts? Way to go. You just
conceded, BTW.
No, your interpretation was one of many. You post it, you are subject to
disagreement. Deal with it.
You are the one who has to deal with it, not me. I do not believe in
any of the Genesis stories, but there are two significant camps who
do. There is your camp which itself has several splinter groups, but
in general believes the Bible to be true, but that Earth is several
billion years old. Then there is at least one other camp, and this
camp believes the creation story is literally true, and the truth of
it is that god created the universe from nothing in six consecutive 24
hour days, resting on the seventh, the whole thing taking literally
one week as we, today, understand that time period.
I am not talking about one of many interpretations. I never have been
talking about that throughout this entire thread. I have consistently
been talking about two specific interpretions: yours, for which you
have offered not a single shred of support despite my repeated
requests, and the six literal day interpretation. These two
interpretations are irreconcilable, as you have admitted. They cannot
both be true. One of you is lying to yourself in what you believe and
about what the Bible says. If that doesn't bother you, then you have
your head in the sand.
No, the Masoretic text is considered the definitive Hebrew version.
And that's as far back as you are willing to look? Forget that this
is not the first version of the Bible. Forget that the people who
wrote the Masoretic text were not in existence when the first Bible
stories were told and written down. Forget that there are myths from
Sumeria and Babylon that predate the Bible stories of the creation and
the flood. You are drawing a line and saying this is as far as I go
in my search for the truth.
Your version of Genesis (based on what you posted towards the
beginning of our exchanges) does not differ from the one I use. What
differs in what you posted was the fact that you kept on adding:
"(these lines are the creative act. Note that no time is specified)".
There was nothing in the actual text supporting this claim of yours.
It was entirely interpolated by you. And *despite your reapeated
claims* that no time period was specified, you were overruled each
time by the words which came right after your claim, along these
lines: "and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day." So
that the unadulterated text for verses six through eight, with verse
numbers removed, reads: "And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the
midst of the water, and let it be a separation between water and
water." And God made the expanse and it separated between the water
that was below the expanse and the water that was above the expanse,
and it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening,
and it was morning, a second day."
There is no indication whatsoever of a huge passage of time here.
Right after the words that describe evening and morning being the
first day, the text rolls immediately into the above quote. The quote
does not pause or halt or indicate any significant passage of time.
It is all compounded with repeated use of the word 'and'. If you
remove the periods that are in the English (but which I sincerely
doubt were in the original), it is all one sentence, running on from
the previous section covering the first day and running right into the
next section covering the third day.
Nor does the wording specify "a day" or specify "a day passed" or
specify any period of rest or break between the creative acts as it
does at the end of the entire creation period. It specifically
enumerates the days - "a first day", "a second day" and so on. These
days are being counted off - the individual days that God took to
create everything.
This idea that there was some invisible, unspecified amount of time
between these days is purest fiction, and you have offered nothing
whatsoever beyond the "yes there was" variety of "evidence" to support
your claim that vast periods of time did pass between the specified 24
hour days. The text isn't there. All that's there is your claim that
this invisible, unmentioned, unspecified time period was there.
Nor does cosmology or geology support such a claim even if you could
offer a solid reason to understand that there was. The separation of
light from darkness is meaningless drivel, as is the separation of the
"water below" from the "water above" There never could have been a
canopy of water surrounding Earth.
There never was a waterworld here such that some god had to cause dry
land to rise up above it. The land came first and the water likely
arrived in the form of a bombarment of comets. There were no fruiting
plants until long after animal life had become established.
The Sun and other stars were here long before Earth, not afterwards,
as the Genesis story claims, and the Moon and the Sun did not arrive
on the same day or even in the same time period. The Moon came long
after the Sun had formed.
Nor does the Moon rule over the night in the way the Sun rules over
the day. Nor does it emit light of its own. It is nothing but a
mirror for the sun and a poor one at that. It is always up there, of
course, but it is frequently obscured by clouds or going through a
non-reflective or limited-reflection phase, and it is often visible
during the day instead of all night.
Nor did whales appear before the "beasts of the land" from which they
descended.
Other
versions are interesting, and might even shed some light on the origins of
the stories. But they do not have any theological weight for Judaism,
Christianity or Islam. Just as the Koran has no theological impact on
Judaism and Christianity.
The fact that the Bible is based on earlier myths and contains
contradictions is not relevant because you have a cosy interpretation
which works like a security blanket for you? Well that tells me all I
need to know about the value of your interpretation.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: How long is a "yohm"? |
07 Sep 2003 10:50:28 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0309071853.22fa9a7d@posting.google.com...
"cactus" <be131344@hotmal.com> wrote
news:<lPz6b.2219$Yt.2198@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Yes you do have to reconcile your beliefs with the literalists,
because you are both claiming that the Bible makes a clear statement
on the topic of the length of time of the creation, and both claims
are contradictory. You cnanot both be right.
You are either very fanatical, very young, or have never dealt with
lawyers.
It is perfectly possible for a specific text to have multiple
interpretations.
You are wrong on all three counts, but if you are not training to be a
lawyer, then you are going into the wrong profession. For someone so
expert at evading direct questions and avoiding dealing with reality,
you are well-qualified. The plain and simple fact is that it is not
possible for a single story to have two **completely contradictory**
interpretations and for both of them to be right!
True, as far as it goes. However, you left two additional possibilities:
first, that neither is correct and, second, that the text is sufficiently
ambiguous to legitimately allow two (or more) interpretations.:
Let me spell this out: one interpretation is that Earth was created as
the Bible states, in six literal days, God resting on the seventh.
Your interpretation appears to be that creation took place over a
lengthy but indeterminate amount of time and that the six days of
creation were, while being actual 24 hour days, not the actual
creation periods, but markers between those creation periods.
Now are you saying that these two interpretations are not in conflict?
If so, please explain how this is so.
Well, they do differ. Since day is not mentioned in the creative
activities, only in the evening/morning between them, there is some room for
interpretation.
This seems to bother you. Why?
Sometimes these different interpretations are
irreconcilable, for any number of reasons. For civilized people, that
is
very often OK. It is not for fanatics and the immature.
It is okay for the Bible to say Pi is 3, rather than 3.14, because you
can say it was rounded, or the writer was giving an approximation.
Some might assume this. A literalist might not.
It is okay for one person to interpret the Bible as claiming, say,
3,000 fought in a battle, and for another to say, no, it was 30,000.
A number like that could easily be miscopied.
For the Jews at least, the text is standard, and has been for a very long
time. The redactors of the standard version would have reconciled whatever
information available to decide on the canonical number/text etc. The Dead
Sea Scrolls include some variant texts, but that is the only place the
occur.
It is okay for someone to interpret the Bible as saying person B was
the son of person A, and for someone else to say, no, person B was the
grandson of person A. These are matters of interpretation or
differences of translation or errors in transl | | | | | | | | | | | |
