| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
02 May 2006 04:21:31 AM |
| Object: |
Which Is Right? |
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 05:45:17 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146561691.438307.314980@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why are you asking alt.atheism? You must know that we know the story is
pure fantasy.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eddie" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 06:03:10 AM |
|
|
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
Just how that came to be is another question.
We view the Bible as the "Inspired word of God" with "Inspired" meaning
much of the Old Testament.
Further, we know that the ancient Hebrew scribes wrote with a view
towards the symbolic. So not everything can be the literal fact.
No one was around at the moment that God called the Universe into
existence.
The best we can do is to ask what those ancient Hebrew scribes would
have thought 4 to 5,000 or so years ago when Genesis was written.
And just like the ancient Greek myths were an attempt to answer many of
life's questions, the Old Testament tried to answer them too and there
were other creation myths at the same time.
And so, the Heavens and the Earth were made in 6 days, and God rested
on the 7th day....a week.
And God created the first Man, Adam from the dust wetted to create mud.
And is that not far from the truth really? That we are made from the
Earth and Water? And what does Astronomy teach us? That we are made
from the ashes, the dust from exploded stars?
And Eve made from Adam's rib..again symbolic.
And today we know that there was indeed a Mitochondrial Eve and there
was an Adam too.
Again, the truth couched in sybolic terms.
And what about old Noah?
Perhaps Noah really did exist and that he really built an Aark and put
animals inside it.
Floods happen all the time and how much of the world did those scribes
know about?
Could very well been a Catastrophic Flood.
And God's Bow? A good way of explaining a Rainbow.
Etc. etc.
All truth but written in terms that those ancient folks 4-5,000 years
ago could understand
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 04:34:04 PM |
|
|
"eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146567790.805593.274620@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
Just how that came to be is another question.
We view the Bible as the "Inspired word of God" with "Inspired" meaning
much of the Old Testament.
Further, we know that the ancient Hebrew scribes wrote with a view
towards the symbolic. So not everything can be the literal fact.
No one was around at the moment that God called the Universe into
existence.
The best we can do is to ask what those ancient Hebrew scribes would
have thought 4 to 5,000 or so years ago when Genesis was written.
Actually the best you can hope for is 3000 years ago. Ancient hebrew script
developed out of earlier semitic script which had decended from Akkadian,
the first widly used written script in the mesopotamian area. The oldest
ancient hebrew anything dates to around 1000 BCE. Around 722, when the
Assyrians conquered the tiny empire of Damascus and in the process decimated
the backwater city-state of Israel, somehow Hezekiah in Judah managed to
strike a deal and avoid destruction, likely promising tribute. (Though the
bible would later claim that god showed up and killed all the Assyrians.)
Judah then became a vassal of the Assyrian empire and host to 1000s of
refugees from Israel, who had practices a much less stringent form of
"Yahwism" than those in Judah. The similar but slightly different
traditions were merged with the attempt to preserve as much could be so as
not to alienate. I'm not Catholic, but I'm under the impression that most
accept the bible more as "inspired word" recorded by various authors, rather
than the fundamentalist view that it's basically derived from the diary of
Moses, the war correspondents of Joshua, and other offical divinely inspired
"scribes".
And just like the ancient Greek myths were an attempt to answer many of
life's questions, the Old Testament tried to answer them too and there
were other creation myths at the same time.
Actually much of the Greek myths were known, at least by the educated, to be
myths. No one really though that Prometheus stole fire. The gods were
primarily symbols of the natural divinity they saw in the world. New ones
were even created from time to time. Even as late as Alexander and Ptolomy
in Egypt when Seripis was created as an attempt to form an amalgamated
Greco-Egyptian diety that everyone could associate with.
And so, the Heavens and the Earth were made in 6 days, and God rested
on the 7th day....a week.
Just like in other Babylonian myths. Seven is a "mystical" number that
shows up in the bible more than any other. If you see seven of anything,
raise an eyebrow. (Also forty.)
And God created the first Man, Adam from the dust wetted to create mud.
And is that not far from the truth really? That we are made from the
Earth and Water?
Just like in other mesopotamian myths which all share the same world view of
earth-sky-heaven having been created out of a watery primordial chaos (the
deep) as an act of the gods creating the world and the dome (firmament) that
supports the sky, sun, moon, stars (also), and heavens and seperates the
waters (rain) from the waters (seas). YHWH (actually Elohim, gods) is shown
superior here because things happen because he speaks, not through his
actions.
And what does Astronomy teach us? That we are made
from the ashes, the dust from exploded stars?
Nice symbolism I suppose, but early farmers and goat-hearders didn't know
this. Seeking for ancient parallels of modern ideas is like looking for
Egyptian batteries. (Note that the biblical geneology
And Eve made from Adam's rib..again symbolic.
And again, parallels, Sumerian creation. (Ninhursag, Enki, and Nin-ti. Ti
is Sumerian for both rib and life. The "Lady of the Rib" or the "Lady of
Life". Eve in Hebrew is Chavvah which means "to cause to breath" and in Gen
3:20 she is called "the mother of all living".
And today we know that there was indeed a Mitochondrial Eve and there
was an Adam too.
And again, nice symbolism, but early farmers and goat-hearders knew nothing
of male Y chromosones or female mitochondria.
Again, the truth couched in sybolic terms.
And what about old Noah?
Perhaps Noah really did exist and that he really built an Aark and put
animals inside it.
Floods happen all the time and how much of the world did those scribes
know about?
Could very well been a Catastrophic Flood.
Or, it's just another metaphorical morality tale also from mesopotamia. The
flood in other mesopotamian myths was part of creation, but in the bible is
moved to the 10th generation. The same themes from creation show up with
the flood, where god unleashes the "watery chaos" through the "fountains of
the deep" and the "skies opening" essentially undoing creation. (To quote
Cosby, "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out!") It is indeed
mythological but it is not at all mysterious.
And God's Bow? A good way of explaining a Rainbow.
Etc. etc.
All truth but written in terms that those ancient folks 4-5,000 years
ago could understand
I can't argue that your stance is not several steps above a fundamentalist,
at least you are using your brain, but you still seek literal connections
between faith, the bible, and it's "history".
The steps by the Catholic Church to dis-associate itself with fundamentalism
is an understandable survival measure by those who, having learned from
history, are wise enough to know that in the long run, denying other forms
of knowledge by either sticking your head in the sand or writing negative
songs about it is institutional suicide beacause ideas do not simply go away
because they are undesirable. The Catholic doctine bends just as much as
they need to in order to maintain god as a personal god of faith, even
sometimes at the expense of a "historically documented" god from the bible.
In doing so, intellegent and "liberal" Christians are able to maintain their
faith in a supreme being in general, without having to get caught up in the
constant "jibber-jabber" nonsense arguments over the "literalness" of the
bible, or even perhaps the man made religions doctrines concerning his
nature and other issues of life, death, and salvation.
However if you take just one more step back, you can see that stories from
the bible are recordings of the beliefs of a group of near eastern people,
who like every other culture on the planet, expressed their desire for a
connection to a "larger spiritual something" through (what eventually
developed into) the worship one particular god, YHWH, they saw was superior
to the others in the region. YHWH as the "national god" of Judea is no
different than numerous others. The Egyptians had Ra, the Babylonians had
Marduk, the Assyrians had Ashur, the Edomities had Kaus, the Moabites had
Chemosh, the Philistines had Dagon, the Ammonites had Molech. There was
also El, Ashura, Anat, Yam, Baal, the Elohim, and on and on. It's easy to
understand why the need for the commandment, "thou shall have no other gods
before me". But had the bible been the product of the Philistines you would
be reading about the pagan YHWH worshipers from Jeruselum. Trying to find
reason in the fact that the big three faiths spring from YHWH and not from
one of the others is akin to seeking design in nature. It happened because
it happened.
As a result, all one is essentially doing is the same as any other
"spiritual" person has ever done since people first started burrying their
dead and wondering what had left their body and why they were no longer with
them. Christianity (or Judism) was simply the path that lead these people
to a more higher and more evolved way of thinking about divinity. What
comes with that is a realization that belief from religion and it's
doctrines doesn't have to be taken as absolute, (unless you are a fundie,
then you've missed the point altogether), but instead the entire religion
serves the purpose of a metaphor for man's spiritual nature.
And of course to add, there are however plenty of others with no need for a
supreme being who babysits their lives, gives it "purpose", and promises an
everlasting afterlife. I'm referring not only to western atheists, but
those in the far east who make up more than half of the worlds population
and for the entire history of the rise of western culture out of the fertile
crescent have lived their lives without "god", even if not entirely without
spirituality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 08:16:40 PM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
Yep, and Santa Claus delivers toys to all the good girls and boys.
[snip drooling idiocy]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 07:16:09 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1146567790.805593.274620@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
Just how that came to be is another question.
We view the Bible as the "Inspired word of God" with "Inspired" meaning
much of the Old Testament.
Further, we know that the ancient Hebrew scribes wrote with a view
towards the symbolic. So not everything can be the literal fact.
No one was around at the moment that God called the Universe into
existence.
The best we can do is to ask what those ancient Hebrew scribes would
have thought 4 to 5,000 or so years ago when Genesis was written.
And just like the ancient Greek myths were an attempt to answer many of
life's questions, the Old Testament tried to answer them too and there
were other creation myths at the same time.
And so, the Heavens and the Earth were made in 6 days, and God rested
on the 7th day....a week.
And God created the first Man, Adam from the dust wetted to create mud.
And is that not far from the truth really? That we are made from the
Earth and Water? And what does Astronomy teach us? That we are made
from the ashes, the dust from exploded stars?
And Eve made from Adam's rib..again symbolic.
And today we know that there was indeed a Mitochondrial Eve and there
was an Adam too.
Again, the truth couched in sybolic terms.
And what about old Noah?
Perhaps Noah really did exist and that he really built an Aark and put
animals inside it.
Floods happen all the time and how much of the world did those scribes
know about?
Could very well been a Catastrophic Flood.
And God's Bow? A good way of explaining a Rainbow.
Etc. etc.
All truth but written in terms that those ancient folks 4-5,000 years
ago could understand
And reserved for kindergarten infants of the 21st century.
(Most of whom recognise it as the fairy story that it is).
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 07:45:15 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 12:19:29 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
Only sentient beings can be cruel. Nature is uncaring because nature is
not sentient. Nature is not cruel because nature has no intentions.
Nature just is.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 01:04:26 PM |
|
|
In article <4bpf4bF129d2pU3@individual.net>, Robert J. Kolker
said...
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution
is a cruel, uncaring mechanism.
Only sentient beings can be cruel. Nature is uncaring
because nature is not sentient.
There's one in every crowd... ;-)
First, we describe nature as cruel from our own vantage point.
Nature seems cruel to those of us who suffer from nature's
caprice.
Second, and more importantly, those who invoke evolution as
God's method of producing humankind are left to explain why God
would choose a means requiring so much pointless suffering, so
much pain and death -- so much cruelty. In other words, we
cannot cower behind platitudes about nature's mindlessness when
we invoke evolution as a tactic used by a sentient being. That
would be equivalent to arguing that we can't be held accountable
for the death of man squashed by a boulder -- it was gravity,
nature unmindful and devoid of concern, which destroyed that man
-- even though we pushed the boulder over the cliff with
deliberate aim, and with full intent to kill the man.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 08:58:13 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
And a big one! The same can contains also gravity and meteorology along with all other fields of science,
all of which are cruel and uncaring. Tough, ain't it :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 01:16:20 PM |
|
|
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:4bp6rlF12alkvU1@individual.net...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
And a big one! The same can contains also gravity and meteorology along
with all other fields of science,
all of which are cruel and uncaring. Tough, ain't it :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
As they say
"life's a *****........"
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 08:18:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 May 2006 19:16:20 +0100, "kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:4bp6rlF12alkvU1@individual.net...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
And a big one! The same can contains also gravity and meteorology along
with all other fields of science,
all of which are cruel and uncaring. Tough, ain't it :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
As they say
"life's a *****........"
Then you die, most of the time horribly and in agony.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 12:06:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 May 2006 19:16:20 +0100, "kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote:
- Refer: <v4qdnQC9g_ZoPMrZRVnytQ@bt.com>
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:4bp6rlF12alkvU1@individual.net...
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
This creates a whole new can of worms, because evolution is a cruel,
uncaring mechanism.
And a big one! The same can contains also gravity and meteorology along
with all other fields of science,
all of which are cruel and uncaring. Tough, ain't it :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
As they say
"life's a *****........"
And they call the ***** Theresa...
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 04:29:46 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 04:03:10 -0700, "eddie" <eddiestardust@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a practicing Roman Catholic I can say that the point of Genesis is
that God created everything, the heavens and the Earth and all life
including Mankind.
Too bad that you have no logical reason to believe that Genesis is not
just another legend with or without a literal interpretation.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 06:36:55 AM |
|
|
eddie wrote:
Further, we know that the ancient Hebrew scribes wrote with a view
towards the symbolic. So not everything can be the literal fact.
The ancient Hebrew scribes did not know the literal facts. They were
ignorant geocentric flat-earthers who did not know what a star is, and
they wrote for an ignorant audience. They could not explain what they
did not know, so the symbolic was all that they had to offer.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
05 May 2006 11:04:51 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
The Last Days were in the first century:
Revelation 1:1,3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John:
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for THE TIME IS AT HAND.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
05 May 2006 12:29:20 PM |
|
|
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 16:04:51 GMT, in article
<pptm52haomfef1bgjplsjdbt17rq1jhgsh@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times with dogmatic assurance
and without any substantiation that I finally decided to take a
quick look at the uses of the word "yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of
course, uses with a numeric adjective aren't many, not enough to
really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun,
and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous, not literal, use,
"as the light of seven days". And, yes, the word "yom" with the
numeral 7 is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false that the word
"yom" is always used to mean a literal day when a numeric
adjective is present.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
05 May 2006 01:30:42 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
"Don't let the littleness in others
bring out the littleness in you."
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 06:05:30 AM |
|
|
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
Reminder to me: Never accept what a creationist has to say
without checking it out independently.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 08:39:05 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
www.icr.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 01:33:34 PM |
|
|
"On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:39:05 GMT, in article
<cl9p52tuuohancon6pm10hi033h2gs4bvs@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
I did not "attack the person". As far as I am concerned, you
may be a very fine, upstanding fellow. However, your arguments
are severely flawed, and I will not hesitate to attack your
arguments.
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
Irony meters are exploding.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 10:02:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:39:05 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
The typical response of the creationist. When faced
with the facts, snip them without marking, attack the person and
hope the no-one goes back and checks what was actually posted. (:
If you had any way to dispute what was said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that TomS' response
was entirely logical.
--
Shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 01:47:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 May 2006 01:02:59 +1000, Shane
<remarcsd@Netscape.net> spake thusly:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:39:05 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
The typical response of the creationist. When faced
with the facts, snip them without marking,
I did not snip any facts. You are a liar.
Goodbye.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
07 May 2006 07:11:12 AM |
|
|
"On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:47:06 GMT, in article
<8lrp529g37r7tivec98su6umb32gtjv1lv@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On Sun, 7 May 2006 01:02:59 +1000, Shane
<remarcsd@Netscape.net> spake thusly:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:39:05 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Fri, 05 May 2006 18:30:42 GMT, in article
<ck5n52tj9k4biu7qhi99t2uea25ks9j975@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave stated..."
On 5 May 2006 10:29:20 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church
is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist
Christians is that this account is literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of
both viewpoints, and make them constructive
and supported by good reasoned arguments
with links to appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
I've heard this stated so many times
with dogmatic assurance and without
any substantiation that I finally decided
to take a quick look at the uses of the word
"yom" in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, uses
with a numeric adjective aren't many, not
enough to really establish a pattern, but ...
Here we have Isaiah 30:26 in the KJV-
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be
as the light of the sun, and the light of
the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light
of seven days, in the day that the LORD
bindeth up the breach of his people,
and healeth the stroke of their wound."
That is clearly a metaphorical or analogous,
not literal, use, "as the light of seven days".
And, yes, the word "yom" with the numeral 7
is in the Hebrew: shevat hayamim.
Therefore, it is simply and undoubtedly false
that the word "yom" is always used to mean a
literal day when a numeric adjective is present.
Actually, you're wrong. You are trying to label
the individual words by the theme of the whole.
The message as a whole being symbolic, does
not mean that each and every word is symbolic.
For example, if I were to say that you as stubborn
as a mule, while you are obviously not a mule,
a mule is a literal creature and is known to be
quite stubborn.
In the same way, while the writer's point is clearly
symbolic, he still refers to the light as "sevenfold",
"as the light of seven days" and there is actual light
each day, which light can be calculated times seven.
The seven days are literal days. If I were to use
your approach, it would mean that Isaiah was
saying that the light would be like the light of
seven "symbolic days", which no one can know
the length of. Yet that is not the case, since
Isaiah qualified it with "sevenfold". Therefore,
yes, he is referring to the literal light of seven
literal, 24 hour days, to make his symbolic
point.
So I will say again, that the Hebrew word "yom"
is never used to mean anything but a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
The typical response of the creationist. When faced
with the facts, snip them without marking,
I did not snip any facts. You are a liar.
Goodbye.
When you post "You are a liar", you "attack the person".
Unlike anything that I posted. "LOL" is a comment about the
posting, not about who posted it.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 05:43:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:47:06 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006 01:02:59 +1000, Shane
<remarcsd@Netscape.net> spake thusly:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:39:05 GMT, Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 May 2006 04:05:30 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
[...]
LOL
Y'gotta love it, how many contortions a "literalist" will go
through to make the Bible say what they want it to say.
The typical response of the evolutionist. When faced
with the facts, ignore the fact, attack the person and
hope the distraction works. (:
If you had any way to dispute what I said, you would
have. You didn't, because you know that my response
was entirely logical.
The typical response of the creationist. When faced
with the facts, snip them without marking,
I did not snip any facts. You are a liar.
Goodbye.
Bye Sir Robin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
06 May 2006 06:55:19 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
Genexis used the term yom, meaning day.
It does not use it in the meaning of a long period of time, but
in its normative meaning, a day, 24 hours.
Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness
he called Night. And the evening and the morning
were the first day.
Days have mornings and evenings, eons do not.
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from
the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
God supposedly creates plants on the third day and sun and moon
and stars on the fourth.
If the days were eons, this would mean eons without sunlight.
Ancient Isrealites were agriculturalists and knew full well
plants needed sunlight, most ancient men did, that is why
Egypt and other nations worshipped the sun, because its life
brought light.
The writer of this nonsense would have known that and would
not have created plants eons before teh life giving sun.
This writer also had a rather shaky concept of the fact that
day and night were caused by the rotation of earth.
Genesis 5:3
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
God created man on the 6th day and rested on the seventh.
Genesis 2:1
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had
made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which
he had made.
Thus if a day here meant a long period of time eons, thousands
or millions of years, Adam would not have been 130 when he
fathered Seth.
Obviously this writer did not mean yom, day, in sense of long
periods of time.
Anything else is ignorance.
--
"Just because you don't take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
- Pericles
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
08 May 2006 03:58:23 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
Now lets see, I didnt mention evolution, or the meaning of one
particular word in the Genesis creation account. So your response,
which by the way didnt come with the reasoned arguments and supporting
sources, is not exactly a valid reply to my posting. And can you
explain how believing the Genesis creation account denies Christ as the
Saviour? Because if this is the case that would mean that more than
half of all Christians - the Catholics - have been wrong in their
thinking for longer than you have.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
The Last Days were in the first century:
Revelation 1:1,3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John:
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for THE TIME IS AT HAND.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
08 May 2006 09:38:26 AM |
|
|
On 8 May 2006 01:58:23 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
Now lets see, I didnt mention evolution,
If you do not view it as literal, then you do
believe in evolution. There is no other option.
But to use your own words, you should note
that I did not say you specifically. I said,
"the evolutionists".
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
09 May 2006 03:47:13 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 8 May 2006 01:58:23 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
It is literal. It is presented as literal and
the Hebrew word "yom" is always used
to mean a literal day, when a numeric
adjective is present (first, second, etc.).
Thus, it is a literal account, whether
the evolutionists like it or not. And to
believe that the account is symbolic,
is to deny Christ as Savior.
Now lets see, I didnt mention evolution,
If you do not view it as literal, then you do
believe in evolution. There is no other option.
But to use your own words, you should note
that I did not say you specifically. I said,
"the evolutionists".
And did I anywhere in my response indicate that I thought you were
referring to me? No I did not, but dont you think it rather
presumptious of you to declare that anyone who doesnt accept the
Genesis account is literal automatically believes in evolution? There
are many other religions in the world with their own accounts of
creation. And I would like to point out that evolution is not a belief,
change over time (the general definition of evolution) has happened,
the theory of evolution is merely an attempt to explain how it
happened.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
09 May 2006 10:08:14 AM |
|
|
On 9 May 2006 01:47:13 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
dont you think it rather
presumptious of you to declare that anyone who doesnt accept the
Genesis account is literal automatically believes in evolution?
No. It's one or the other.
Nor is evolution science.
Have a nice day now.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
09 May 2006 10:43:39 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 09 May 2006 15:08:14 GMT, in article
<l1c162lqn4rgd5o428bjt9lucekn5mbpqt@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 9 May 2006 01:47:13 -0700, "SJAB1958"
<balfres@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
dont you think it rather
presumptious of you to declare that anyone who doesnt accept the
Genesis account is literal automatically believes in evolution?
No. It's one or the other.
Nor is evolution science.
Have a nice day now.
So, because Augustine didn't accept the idea that the "days"
of Genesis 1 were 24-hour days, Augustine believed in evolution?
Likewise, Philo of Alexandria?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
