LookingForAnswers Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2014 thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. No, we are not. YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative? I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day. Ah, I stand corrected. When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years. I think you know that. But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time. The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account. It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. No, we are not. YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative? I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day. Ah, I stand corrected. When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years. I think you know that. But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time. The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account. It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. I don't need a passage that says, "The days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long." The use of "day" in that chapter is in the ordinary sense. Unless you can provide evidence that Moses did not intend for us to view those as ordinary days, then the default understanding of the passage as written is the days mentioned are intended to be understood as 24 hour days. I haven't made it personal How have i made it personal?? You are the one coming after me and trying pick hairs over everything I say. You are the one trying to discredit me I am simply responding to you. I think this is very personal for you for some reason, but it isn't personal for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2014 thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. No, we are not. YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative? I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day. Ah, I stand corrected. When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years. I think you know that. But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time. The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account. It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. I don't need a passage that says, "The days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long." The use of "day" in that chapter is in the ordinary sense. Unless you can provide evidence that Moses did not intend for us to view those as ordinary days, then the default understanding of the passage as written is the days mentioned are intended to be understood as 24 hour days. I haven't made it personal How have i made it personal?? You are the one coming after me and trying pick hairs over everything I say. You are the one trying to discredit me I am simply responding to you. I think this is very personal for you for some reason, but it isn't personal for me. See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal... YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. I am not coming after you, I am responding to post in a thread, in this thread I responded to a different person and you choose to respond to me. You have to assign motives and such to people that have the gall to disagree with you, this is where you make things personal. I have no reason to discredit you, all I would like is for you to quit making things personal. Statements that start with the word "you" are always personal and have nothing to do with the topic. As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days. I disagree with this assumption. I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal... YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. That is not a personal attack. That is my assessment of your line of argumentation. A personal attack would be if I denigrated your intelligence. I am not attacking you as a person. I am addressing the line of argumentation you are presenting and showing that it is based on an unproven assumption. You are operating from a assumption that the earth is millions of years old. And you are trying to make that fit into Genesis 1. That is ultimate goal of your line of argumentation as far as I can tell based on your position that the days of Genesis 1 are really millions of years. You cannot get millions of years from the text, so you have to go outside the Bible for that information. You are trying to modify the Scriptures to make that assumption fit. As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days. I disagree with this assumption. I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. No, it is not an assumption. It is what the text clearly indicates. That I am going from the default meaning of the word "yom" means I am not making an assumption. An assumption is a belief based on nothing, no evidence, no data just a subjective opinion. That the earth is millions of years old was an assumption that began back in the 1700s long before modern science. That assumption is held to even when there is no proof that the assumption is true. Our modern dating methods have proven to be unreliable even in providing incorrect dates of millions of years for things we know are of recent origin. So yes, you are operating from the unproven assumption that the earth is millions of years old. And is not a personal attack to point that out. The difference between your line of argumentation and mine is that I am basing my argument on what the Bible says and I have data to prove that I am not assuming anythng. I can made the textual and grammatical arguments needed to support the view that the Bible means 24-hour days in Genesis 1. Therefore, I am not operating from assumption . If, on the other hand, the text had simply stated that God created everything and it simply listed in order what God created without specifying any time period at all, and I were to assert that it was six days, THEN I would be making an assumption. However, since my argument is tethered to the direct data offered by the Bible, my argument by definition is not based on an "assumption." You may disagree with the data, but my line of argumentation is not rooted in a baseless assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 10, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal... YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions. That is not a personal attack. That is my assessment of your line of argumentation. A personal attack would be if I denigrated your intelligence. I am not attacking you as a person. I am addressing the line of argumentation you are presenting and showing that it is based on an unproven assumption. You are operating from a assumption that the earth is millions of years old. And you are trying to make that fit into Genesis 1. That is ultimate goal of your line of argumentation as far as I can tell based on your position that the days of Genesis 1 are really millions of years. You cannot get millions of years from the text, so you have to go outside the Bible for that information. You are trying to modify the Scriptures to make that assumption fit. As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days. I disagree with this assumption. I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. No, it is not an assumption. It is what the text clearly indicates. That I am going from the default meaning of the word "yom" means I am not making an assumption. An assumption is a belief based on nothing, no evidence, no data just a subjective opinion. That the earth is millions of years old was an assumption that began back in the 1700s long before modern science. That assumption is held to even when there is no proof that the assumption is true. Our modern dating methods have proven to be unreliable even in providing incorrect dates of millions of years for things we know are of recent origin. So yes, you are operating from the unproven assumption that the earth is millions of years old. And is not a personal attack to point that out. The difference between your line of argumentation and mine is that I am basing my argument on what the Bible says and I have data to prove that I am not assuming anythng. I can made the textual and grammatical arguments needed to support the view that the Bible means 24-hour days in Genesis 1. Therefore, I am not operating from assumption . If, on the other hand, the text had simply stated that God created everything and it simply listed in order what God created without specifying any time period at all, and I were to assert that it was six days, THEN I would be making an assumption. However, since my argument is tethered to the direct data offered by the Bible, my argument by definition is not based on an "assumption." You may disagree with the data, but my line of argumentation is not rooted in a baseless assumption. When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit. Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days. But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected. There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth. Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word. An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason. Some of the synonyms for assumption are hypothesis, theory and postulate. None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1. Edited January 10, 2014 by LookingForAnswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit I didn't assign a motive. I didn't accuse you of deception, or malicious intent. That would be assigning motive. I am simply pointing to the fact that entire old argument is derived from trying to modify the Bible to accomodate the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days. But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected. There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth. Now, we are getting somewhere... That is an interesting claim. Can you provide me with the additional texts of Scripture that indicate that the earth is old? Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word. An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason. Fair enough. But that still precludes my argument being made from assumption. None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1. But I am not assigning a meaning to the Genesis 1. I am using exegesis which draws out the author's intent. To assign something to a text, I would have to read it into the text. You are assigning millions of years to Genesis 1 when there is no justification in the text for it. I don't have that kind of handicap in my line of argumentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 11, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2014 I am too tired and your habit of poo pooing everything that anyone post is enough for me to just give you a link to a biblical defense of an old earth. Have fun with it, I am not going to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary and will do no good at all. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted January 11, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted January 11, 2014 This subject gets way too much air time as I've said about another subject in the forum. A person need not totally buy into YEC to experience a transformation of life. Let God convict of the truth, whatever that may be. As Ken Ham likes to ask, Were you there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I am too tired and your habit of poo pooing everything that anyone post is enough for me to just give you a link to a biblical defense of an old earth. Have fun with it, I am not going to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary and will do no good at all. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html ~ Whereas I'm Too Much In Love With The Truth Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, 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: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11 Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer writes, “On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.” Dr. Norman Geisler states, “Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that ‘day’ in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period.”http://godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html (Gleason And Geisler Appear Not To Know God Is The Real Author Of Genesis One And Two And All Of The Sixty-Six Books Of The Bible So They Appear To Think They Are Free To Change The Twenty Four Hour Rotation Of Earth Into Whatever Allows Them To Steal The Glory Of The Universe Away From Jesus It's Creator And Give It To The Pagans With Their Campfire Yarns..... I Wonder How These Folk Can Find Time To Write Their "Opinion" Pieces With All Those Six Million Year Saturdays They Live Through, lol) And To Respectful To Scribble God's Word Out O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20 No Matter Who's Philosophy It May Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16 Outrage And And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 Offend Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 ~ Believe That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12 And Be Blessed Beloved But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 11, 2014 I think it is clear that the first day of creation was Sunday October 23, 4004 BC (Ussher). Which makes the universe 6017 years and ~2.5 months old give or take a few days. Wouldn't it have to be Sat Oct 22, since that would bring the seventh back to a Jewish Sabbath? Or is my math off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts