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

I do too, which is why i put him on ig, the more i see the worse it gets.

As for "seriously questioning", there is a saying of some sort
about how a man has to know his limitations.

He displayeth not the capacity to question or understand much of anything in science.

 

Well, two things in play...maybe simultaneously-

1. It's likely he has never been "forced" to question his beliefs in the "literal truth" of the Bible. He's not prepared for it. But really it wouldn't help. No "creation scientist" would survive under a debate with a REAL scientist on evolution, astronomy, geology...or even a logician.

The basic problem lies in their starting point...i.e. "The Bible is accurate and literally true." And then it's a matter of trying to find evidence (with little hope) to support that, but mostly punching holes in OTHER theories like evolution, which conflict with it.

The scientist on the other hand, as has happened over the past centuries, discovers facts and artifacts and fossils and elemental laws of physics...and then creates theories which explain them. If the theory fails...it is abandoned. If it works...it is kept. The "creationist" CANNOT abandon their core theory, no matter what....despite no evidence, evidence against it, or its own internal logical failures....i.e. things like "God creating plants BEFORE He created the Sun."

The creationist believes the world was created 10,000 years ago. Their only "evidence"?...a literal reading of the Bible's Genesis (and back-dating from the ages given of the men of the OT). And that's it....they have nothing else.

The scientist looks at geology and radio-carbon dating and discovers things which date back not only before 10,000 years ago...but 10-20-50-100-200-500 MILLION years ago, with a method of dating which is also corroborated when it is used on post-prehistoric items (farm implements from the Iron Age, etc.). He determines that the method that shows a Sumerian wood plow is 5000 years old (and is recounted in texts 5000 years old)....is a worthy method of determining the age of something dating back 25,000 years ago.

The creationist is left with nothing but weak attempts to claim the method is flawed...EVEN IF such a method might even be used to date things that were in the Bible? Imagine a radio-carbon dating of the fallen "walls of Jericho"....would the creationist deny the science then???

So even a "prepared Creationist" is in a weak position.....so someone like elijah is even worse off.

2. Fear....again, the fear of a "grey area" Bible. Many intellectual Christians are able to resolve this fear....they put down to faith the fact that while they don't believe "necessarily" in a world-wide Flood....they DO believe that Christ was dead and buried and rose three days later. Despite them being in the same Book...they reject the Old Testament as "near-truth"..."tall tales"...or even myth. And simply put their faith in the New Testament as accurate.

But some....fear that route. Perhaps they see the inherent trap of "Okay so why is the Resurrection true....but Jonah didn't live three days in a fish and Adam and Eve were't "alone" in the beginning but in a tribe of Cro-magnons?" Especially since there are references to the Old Testament...in the New....allusions to it at the very least to the life and death and "resurrection" of Jesus.

To those people it is as VITAL to believe in Genesis...as it is to believe in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They (more than we) may see it as a "house of cards"....pull out the "bottom layer" (the Old Test....even just Genesis)....and the whole thing collapses.

 

Survive? Do you mean that literally?

 

Well, to a fundy there is "literal or lie".

So when a comedian "dies on stage", well, its heart attack or gunfire, not a failure to impress the audience.


It would be funny in a way, to see a creo try to do a thesis defense on some creationist theory he had written up.

It would be a horrible slaughter (metaphorically).

The only thing he'd have left would be, blame it on the one item I noticed GG left out of his list there, which is, the HWWCOSSTSSTTOG

(Horrible World Wide Conspiracy of Satanic ScientistsTo Suppress The Truth Of God)*

*We do see this advanced sometimes as a serious argument, that scientists (other than the few brave and about-to- be-Expelled
but Godly scientists)
are all dupes of Satan, willingly or otherwise.

I on the other hand hold that if there is a satan, father of lies, he is who the creos learn from; we never see them advance an argument that is not a falsehood, after all.

What do you think?

 

Figuratively.

Though a prodigious amount of forehead sweating might involved for them.

 

Not only does that exist....it exists in the HALLS OF CONGRESS...sadly-

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-...ig-bang-‘lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell’/

And likely that man has been...and will continue to be re-elected by his constituents...who agree with him.

 

You're mostly talking yourself into believing things about people you don't really know for the sake of some illusion of moral superiority.

 

Hence the label of "self reflection". Its not meant for public scrutiny, only private study. Theres many other issues that self reflect, evaluate, or examine, that will also never be known publicly.

On another note, you seem to be doing just fine questioning scripture without my help.

 

At best that's disingenuous.

 

And I don't believe you when you claim you EVER question it.

- - - Updated - - -

No....but a 3000 year old tribal creation myth holds none.

 

"Why Gorn, does this mean we can't be friends? You know Gorn, If I thought you were't my friend........I just don't think I could bear it."

You know, I really don't care if you don't believe me, what with my history of telling lies, and my dishonesty and all...........

 

Age quod agis.

 

psychological projection is so unsophisticated. Try to avoid it.

 

We look at the differences between the Biblical account of creation and “Big Bang” with a closed mind and accept one account as truth and the other as false. We feel it is our duty to disprove the view we reject and support.
Where did the idea of “Big Bang” originate? It didn’t have MIT or USC or any other of the leading universities of the USA, it came from a lesser known school in Belgium. The idea was a departure from all the thought of the scientific community and caused quite a stir within the community. When I was born “Big Bang” was not the accepted theory of the creation of the universe that it is today.” The “Father of Big Bang” was not one of the well-known minds we may think of it came from a paper written in 1931, by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. This radical new idea, was in fact, rejected by the scientific community and it took decades to evolve into “the Big Bang Theory” we know today. Several of the accepted community’s leading scientists were having problems with the accepted model of a static universe; Albert Einstein was a part of this group.
It should also be noted that several iterations of this new model were being investigated and the one we have accepted is not the one which proved to be the correct one, it was the one which satisfied a predefined conditions. Science does not provide all the answers it is the tool which allows us to find them. We will make incorrect assumptions and falter as we search and may be required to retreat slightly in order to advance. The problem has always been that science is the answer instead of a tool to be used to find the answer. I’m sure it was known that in order for “Big Bang” to be the answer they ignored the requirement for the existence of something. The Big Bang is something new, becoming accepted by the scientific community a little over 50 years ago, it has evolved considerably with much work being carried out with limited information available. The search for the “God Particle” began shortly after the acceptance of Big Bang We heard of the attempts to find it just over a decade ago.
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître sees not conflict between religion and science.

 

Well, it's an attempt to "scientificize" Genesis and still keep it as "true". Turn days into "undeterminable lengths of time"....you get to try to claim that a "day" for God could be "millions of years"...and thus Genesis isn't contradicted by clear science (geology, astronomy, evolution, etc.)

Problem is, you have to have TWO standards for the word "yom" ("day") in the Old Testament...and try to explain why it was "millions of years" for God to create grass and plants and fruit trees......but Jonah was NOT in the belly of a fish for "millions of years"....same word for "day" used in the same writings in the supposed "inspired Word of God".

- - - Updated - - -

That was so far back up in the hills of Kentucky....the Presbyterians were handlin' snakes!

 

"yom" is used in FOUR standards, not TWO.

If the days are meant to be considered 24 hour periods of time, then why is there no end to day 7?

 

taikoo

There are a great number of people that accept "Big Bang" as fact. It is a theory. If ever proven to be fact it will no longer be a theory. I do see you as a closed minded person who hopes for arguments rather than discussions. So for we agree that theories can not be proven, for if proven they are no longer theories. The greatest problem with "Big Bang" is that something can be made from nothing, to put it as simply as possible. The "God Particle" is a name given to something that must have existed in order for "Big Bang" to have occurred, someone/group is spending a lot of money to prove the existence of that particle. They are looking for something THEY have defined which may or may not have existed or still exists. If you note, I have never said that science has all the answers though several posting here have. Science as we are calling it has been the cause of some major problems and as such shown they don't have all the answers.
This Thread: "Day" in Genesis vs. "Day" in the NT...an Old Earth Creationist dilemma- has to do with reconciling Literalist's Genesis account with that of today's scientific dating. I reject the literal translation and have presented one called "Progressive Revelation" which is becoming accepted by many conservatives/fundamentalists Christians. I find it interesting that the smartest people I have encountered don't look for arguments but for answers?

 

There are 4 standards for the word "yom" in the Old Testament - and there are probably 10 standards for the word "day" in English.. You can make the word mean whatever you want it to when you take it out of context.

 

Great post!

Whether you believe the 6 day account is 24 hours or not, there are young earth creationist, some of which are physicists, that take issue with carbon dating and other means of measuring age..