"Day" in Genesis vs. "Day" in the NT...an Old Earth Creationist dilemma-

Ohhhhh, I see.....so what it says in Genesis 1:1 should be translated as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the LAND."?

 

For all: I do not get into arguments on the existence of God. I have no problem with someone believing in the existence of God and see no problem with someone that doesn't believe. In most discussions I have the existence of God is not the subject. You may accept the Big Bang Theory of Creation and I sill say that it takes as much faith to in science to accept Big Bang as it does to accept the concept of God. In order for Big Bang to have occurred the "God Particle" had to exist. I can't even begin to conceive of the amount of time, money and energy that is being spent on looking for the God Particle. Even if something is found it really doesn’t prove anything more than science has created something that appears to be similar to a preconceived view of what a God Particle be. The major difference being the God Particle created in a lab required a lot of energy to create and a “God Particle” which would have been present for Big Bang to occur would have to had been created from nothing. When both points of view are wearing blinders it only makes finding the answer an impossible task. Each step forward may really be one step back.

 

I don't need to question creationist science, on here, thats what you guys are for. Do I question it and research what you say or others say? Of course.

Now, where is "yom" in the N.T.?

 

Why would you say that? Taken in context it looks to me like it is speaking about the planet.

Maybe this will help you understand..


Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden

The same word is used here that is used in the flood account and in the creation account.

Again, Hebrew is sophisticated, and like in English, words can have more than one meaning, so the context is very important.

 

Do you think he is incapable of learning?

 

So despite your claim to "open-mindedness" on the topics....you ONLY question evolution, radio-chemistry, astronomy, and cosmology.....but you DON'T question "creation science"?

- - - Updated - - -

So, "the Earth" is "land" (specifically one small region of the Earth)...when you want it to be.

And "the Earth" is the Earth...when you want it to be?

 

Some come to Christ because they experienced God, and some come to Christ because they researched and then experienced God.

 

No, differention is drawn from the context. "earth" is not a proper noun.

 

Only if he is a fundy.

 

And you know what their context was 3500 yrs ago, how?
I doubt it was a sophisticated language. It was just beginning to form. If anything, it was a primitive language.
This sounds like nothing more than changing things to fit one's own belief and make it more believable.

 

How is "creation science" related to that? Is it impossible to "come to Christ" without believing in Creationism???

 

Puleeze. There were no such things as proper nouns and such back at the beginning of language. There was mostly grunts.

But I could by what you're saying if the bible isn't inspired by God to be given to the entire world, but only as a book for the small tribe known to become the israelites. As, they would not know much outside a very small portion of land/earth/world that they live in.
But it is stated that every living creature will be wiped from the face of the earth, so how does that correlate with just the land they live in? As God was upset with mankind, not just folks in that small part of the land. Correct?

 

In the first of Genesis it says God created "the earth" ...you say that means "the planet Earth".

In the SAME book of the Bible, Genesis, it says, of the Flood, the waters covered "the earth".....you say that means "a small region of the Earth where humans were all still congregated since Adam & Eve".

Aside from the fact you are trying to keep Genesis "accurate" BUT deny that the Flood was "world-wide".....what leads you to declare one "the earth" is something and the other "the earth" is something else entirely????

 

Tribal languages are characteristically very complex.

Sophisticated, tho, what does that even mean?

One would not expect advanced concepts of math, psychology, commerce, astronomy, etc etc to be known or talked about by
rural or small town people of 2000 years ago.

They wont have the concepts of the vocabulary.

When you listen to people speaking in one of the native american languages or maybe from some country like Philippines, you will hear them sprinkle in a lot of English. You cant talk about things for which there are no words in the language, otherwise.

Eskimos are probably quite sophisticated when it comes to talking snow and ice.

The suggestion that middle eastern people of thousands of years ago
knew enough about "earth science' to understand that a world wide flood was impossible, and moreover, use vocabulary that was so specific that no word of mouth transmission and translation could change the meaning is not credible.

 

Possibly it might intend to mean that, but as there was no adam and eve, nor such a place where humans were congregated 60K years ago (if there ever was a small congregation anywhere, anytime), the thing is moot.

I

 

It must mean, every living thing on "earth / land" wiped out, right up to the edge of the flooded area. Two ft. away, everything was as normal, other than the influx of wet refugees.

Not much of a story...

 

You are FIRST....saying to me....here is Genesis....and it is GODS WORDS written down by Man.

So you are ASSERTING that a SUPERNATURAL ENTITY of which you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT EXISTING....somehow through telepathy or some other extra sensory method...influenced ancient man to write down the WORDS OF GOD.

Now all I have said is that your assertion is HIGHLY UNLIKELY AND HIGHLY IMPROBABLE and since you have not presented even the tiniest amount of viable evidence to support your ASSERTION....it much more likely that the Old Testament and of course GENESIS is simply a STORY WRITTEN BY ANCIENT MAN.

What you are trying to do is akin to asking me to prove what you state is my assertion that a STORK DOES NOT REALLY BRING PARENTS THEIR BABY AS THIS IS A STORY DEVELOPED BY PARENTS TO EXPLAIN A NEW BROTHER OR SISTER TO A CHILD......as you state...PROVE YOUR ASSERTION that this is a story made up by parents!!!! LOL!!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Read my post again, on here I don't have to question creation science, that's your job. On my own, I do.

 

so what you're saying is you believe "ancient man made up the creation story"?

 

I think Thomask is trying to create "realistic miracles"....in other words, an attempt to have somewhat realistic, logical events in the Bible which could be explained as "localized" (to avoid the fact nobody else on Earth recounts them....or as with the Flood, no geological evidence supports as "world-wide"). Thus he gets to both hold onto incontrovertible scientific evidence ....and still hold on to the "truth and accuracy" of events noted in the Bible....and find no contradiction.

But using that standard....couldn't one argue that maybe God was doing "other Creations" in other parts of the world....as supposedly He had a Flood, but only in Mesopotamia...and the Sun stopping in the sky for Joshua, but only in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Why not an "Adam & Eve" in Kenya....or China.....or France.....or all three or more? After all once you go down the "God doing things in regions" path....you open up ANY possibility you want.

- - - Updated - - -

"Odd" we never get to see any of your self-reflection on "creation science"???

Just your attacks on evolution, cosmology, geology, radio-chemistry, etc.

 

True. But born of fear. The science is undeniable...so you need "magic" (localized magic) to make the Bible still be "true" but not conflict with data and information that the person cannot logically or scientifically deny. But if the Bible isn't "true and accurate" (even using the "localized" argument)....then all matters of faith arising FROM the Bible come into question and doubt.

As I've said before...if cracks start appaering in the OLD Testament, then why not in the NEW? or...put another way....if "Creation" or a "world-wide Flood" (as related in Genesis) or the "Sun stopping in they sky" ("Joshua) aren't true.....why not the Resurrection as well?

Supposedly elijah questions Creationism all the time...in the privacy of his own home and we're just not privileged to see it.

 

1. It's the pitfall of those who DON'T hold a Literalist view of the Bible as much as those that do. If the non-Literalist Christian (or worse for the Jew) believes that "certain parts" of the Bible which seem to relate things of "history" are mere "allegory" or even "myth" (which they are).....then one easily asks them "So how do we know the Resurrection isn't allegory or myth?"....and they're in trouble.

The Literalist tries to avoid that "grey area" by claiming ALL the Bible is literally true, thus the Resurrection is "just as true" as Creation or the Flood or Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt. But their problem ...is science. YEC (Young Earth Creationism) which taught that the Creation was only about 6-10,000 years ago....falls flat on its face. It can't hold up to LOGIC much less cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology. OEC (Old Earth Creationism) which tries to partially embrace science and say the Earth "may be" billions of years old....also fails, because it raises questions of a time-line and why "days" aren't "days" but "millions of years" for Creation....but "days are days" for Jonah and other parts of the Bible.

(Note: ID (Intelligent Design) is a flat-out cop-out. Especially if the person is trying to use it as Old Earth Creationism-LITE....and thus try to keep SOME semblance of "accuracy" for Genesis....but still appear to be a scientific thinker.)

But the problems remain. The SOLE basis for belief in the Resurrection of Jesus...is ONE book, the Bible. Other "historical mentions" of Jesus (Romans, Judeans, etc...as are often cited in discussions of "Was there really a Jesus?").....don't matter on the KEY lynch-pin of Christian faith.....that one Jesus of Nazareth came back to life after 3 days dead.

ONLY the Bible makes that claim, from "witnesses" who were religious zealots who JUST MIGHT have been a little prejudiced in their viewpoints. (Another discussion).

BTW, that's why it's called FAITH....which is something else so odd about those who try to convince others that the Bible is "historical fact" or even "science". In a way...they are denying faith....and want to pretend that it is knowledge, not belief.



2. While I like elijah in whatever sense a person can "like" someone on an anonymous blog.....I seriously QUESTION that he has ever seriously questioned Creationism, despite his claim.