Young Earth/Old Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, post said:

yes, and when what we observe disagrees with what we thought we understood, it's not that God deceived us, and it's not that the Bible is incorrect. 
it's that our understanding of either what we observe, or our understanding of what is written, is incorrect. quite possibly both. 

 

If the Bible says "six days"  then there is nothing to misunderstand.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, post said:

the onus isn't on anyone. 

 

You are making textual arguments that require textual evidence.  The onus to produce that  textual evidence is on you IF you expect to be taken seriously at all.  You cannot arbitrarily claim that a passage of scripture is "figurative"  and expect that claim to be taken at face value.

Quote

isn't that what you believe? that the earth was created brand-new with every indicator that it is much older

No, I believe the earth was created very recently making it a young earth.   I don't believe it wa made with indicators of being older.  I believe, as the Bible indicates that the earth was made functionally mature, not "older."   The trees were made with fruit on the boughs, the animals were created ready to reproduce.  Everthing was made ready to do what God designed them to do and to reproduce after their own kind.

To say the earth was created to look older is nonsense.  The appearance of age brings with it evidence of wear and decay, which was not the case with creation.

Quote

if you want to argue with the rocks and the stars, because you think they are lying about their age, that's fine. but the scriptures say that this same creation testifies about God & His eternal characteristics, glorifying Him and His works. if you think they're being duplicitous, then perhaps if there is any onus, it's on them to explain themselves, why they don't act their age. 

I am not at odds with rocks and stars.  I am at odds with those who think that science is an infallible standard against which the Bible must be judged.  I am at odds with the claims of those who put more faith in science in regards to issues surrounding origins than they do in an all-knowing, all-powerful God who was also the creator of those rocks and stars.

Quote

i don't know how the cosmos was created and what God considered a "day" to be -- for all but the last bit of the 6th day, He was the only one witnessing the creation, so i don't have any reason to think He was necessarily measuring time in human terms. 

I know exactly how the cosmos was created.   God spoke it into existence.    And I know exactly what the Bible means when it says that God created the earth in six days.   He means exactly what He says.  God didn't stutter, he is not trying to hide anything from us.  He recounts the creation in other places in the Bible and he uses the word "day" in the same ordinary sense as is found in Genesis 1.   It really isn't that complicated.  You simply need to believe the Bible.

 

Quote

 i'm not here to argue about this. all i meant by what i put is that we don't have cause to be dogmatic about the details of this; we're 'darkening counsel without knowledge.' 

The usage of the word "yom"  in Genesis 1 is NOT a "detail"  It is not a small issue.  It is very important that we adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis because the rest of the Bible interprets Genesis literally.  Jesus interprets Genesis literally.   It is important that we hug close to what the Bible says.   It is those who attempt to muddy the water about trying to blur how the word is used in Gen. 1 that are "darkening counsel without knowledge.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, post said:

yes, and when what we observe disagrees with what we thought we understood, it's not that God deceived us, and it's not that the Bible is incorrect. 
it's that our understanding of either what we observe, or our understanding of what is written, is incorrect. quite possibly both. 

 

But I don't think that there is anything to misunderstand in Genesis 1.  At least you have not really demonstrated that Genesis 1 has some kind of mystical, hidden meaning.   It is very straightforward and uses plain ordinary verbiage that is easy to understand.  

We have not observed anything that tells us that Genesis  1 is wrong.   It can't be wrong because God is not capable of communicating erroneous statements to us.  So if God is always correct, then it our understanding of the world around us that is deficient.  It is science that is mistaken in how it understands the world around us.  

Sometimes, we have to live with the tension.  The Bible says one thing and science says  something else, perhaps the opposite.  We can live with the tension because we know that eventually science will catch up with the Bible.

[post]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I read Hebrew, Post.  I know what I am talking about.   And your example doesn't really contradict my point concerning Gen. 1.

boasting doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make what you said an hard and fast rule. i am sure that there are plenty of legitimate Hebrew scholars who disagree with you, just as i'm sure you can waste time digging up dedicated YEC scholars who will say that this is a rule, no doubt because they want it to be one, not because it is. 

what i showed you in Deuteronomy is exactly what you said is never the case, and is even written by the same man who we attribute Genesis 1 to: yom in conjunction with an ordinal, not referring to a 24 hour period. 

you have your bias, and you want to stick with it. that's great. that's because you have faith. but it doesn't make it legitimate. that doesn't make you correct, and it doesn't mean you have perfect understanding. 

you're going to assume; you've already assumed, that i am going to argue OEC -- i'm not. i don't believe OEC, i don't believe YEC -- i believe C. 
i believe that i don't know and that there are legitimate reasons for both points of view and that no one legitimately knows but God Himself. 

this sort of talk in the end amounts to arguing over words -- arguing over one word in particular, "yom" -- and that doesn't edify; it destroys. 

it satisfies me to know that God created the heavens and the earth.
perhaps He just created me 30 minutes ago, and created me with an apparent history of decades, even a memory of them. He is no less the Creator. 
perhaps He created me before the foundation of the universe, and i existed only in His thoughts until i was found in Adam, and through many generations in my earthly father. He is no less the Creator. 
perhaps He created me first in my mother's womb decades ago. He is no less the Creator. 

who will gain wisdom by arguing about which of these is true? who will grow in knowledge of Him by calling whoever disagrees with them an heretic?
i didn't witness creation, and neither did you. if we continue down that path, we're speaking without knowledge, and we're destroying each other and anyone who listens.

[post]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But I don't think that there is anything to misunderstand in Genesis 1. 

of course you wouldn't. you believe you understand it perfectly. 

i don't have to demonstrate anything to you; i'm not here to do anything of the sort. as i said -- you think the stars and rocks are lying? then go, argue with the stars and the rocks. argue with the eroded craters on the moon, on every moon mankind has ever observed. no flood covered them. they testify of God's greatness -- maybe neither you nor i comprehend what it is they say -- maybe that is what they say, in fact: neither you nor i comprehend God's greatness. 

when Christ pitched His tent among us, there were many men who knew the scriptures very well, who thought they understood them perfectly. Jesus told them differently. many of them didn't believe Him. 

what i want to say -- my entire purpose in this thread - is that we may also be like these men: we know well what the scriptures say. we believe we understand them perfectly. we are well-prepared to argue over words for dozens of pages on every topic. we have thousands of little reputation points glittering under our names testifying of our great wisdom and skillfulness. we are mighty debate-warriors for Him, able to slay thousands with our unassailable logic and knowledge.

but we can still be wrong -- every one of us. post may be first in line to turn out to have no comprehension - but he is not last in line by any means. 
 

[Guest shiloh357]

19 minutes ago, post said:

boasting doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make what you said an hard and fast rule. i am sure that there are plenty of legitimate Hebrew scholars who disagree with you, just as i'm sure you can waste time digging up dedicated YEC scholars who will say that this is a rule, no doubt because they want it to be one, not because it is. 

what i showed you in Deuteronomy is exactly what you said is never the case, and is even written by the same man who we attribute Genesis 1 to: yom in conjunction with an ordinal, not referring to a 24 hour period. 

you have your bias, and you want to stick with it. that's great. that's because you have faith. but it doesn't make it legitimate. that doesn't make you correct, and it doesn't mean you have perfect understanding. 

you're going to assume; you've already assumed, that i am going to argue OEC -- i'm not. i don't believe OEC, i don't believe YEC -- i believe C. 
i believe that i don't know and that there are legitimate reasons for both points of view and that no one legitimately knows but God Himself. 

this sort of talk in the end amounts to arguing over words -- arguing over one word in particular, "yom" -- and that doesn't edify; it destroys. 

it satisfies me to know that God created the heavens and the earth.
perhaps He just created me 30 minutes ago, and created me with an apparent history of decades, even a memory of them. He is no less the Creator. 
perhaps He created me before the foundation of the universe, and i existed only in His thoughts until i was found in Adam, and through many generations in my earthly father. He is no less the Creator. 
perhaps He created me first in my mother's womb decades ago. He is no less the Creator. 

who will gain wisdom by arguing about which of these is true? who will grow in knowledge of Him by calling whoever disagrees with them an heretic?
i didn't witness creation, and neither did you. if we continue down that path, we're speaking without knowledge, and we're destroying each other and anyone who listens.

1.  I am not boasting.  I was explaining how I know what I know.   I know Hebrew.  That's fact.   It's not a matter of having to have a battle of scholars.   The grammar of Hebrew is as indisputable as the grammar of English. It is what it is.

2. I never said that anything was never the case.  All I said is that when you find "yom" with a Hebrew number it refers to a literal 24 hour day.  I didn't make any other claims associated with that statement.

3. Nothing I said is based on bias.  It is based on objective fact.  I am speaking to facts that you simply don't want to face up to.

4. I have not assumed you are OEC and don't really care.

5. God does legitimately know.  And HE has told us.  God is not hiding this information from us.  The reason that skeptics reject YEC is either because science has more authority in their eyes than the Bible does OR because they need to make room  for Evolution and the OEC view enables them to accept Evolution more readily.

6. Actually, muddying the waters about what God says, saying that words don't mean what the Bible uses them to mean, claiming that God hasn't really told us, is what doesn't edify.  Casting doubt on the veracity of the what the Bible says is what doesn't edify.

7. The Bible can be taken as true and I don't need to resort to silly, nonsensical hypotheticals like you do.   You either believe God or you don't.

[Guest shiloh357]

14 minutes ago, post said:

of course you wouldn't. you believe you understand it perfectly. 
 

I understand it the way God intended it to understand it.  He is not shy about making sure we understand.  He even repeats himself over and over to make sure we understand.  There is no excuse for a Christian to not understand Genesis 1.  No excuse at all.

 

Quote

 i don't have to demonstrate anything to you; i'm not here to do anything of the sort. as i said -- you think the stars and rocks are lying? then go, argue with the stars and the rocks. argue with the eroded craters on the moon, on every moon mankind has ever observed.

No, you don't have to demonstrate anything to me.  You can make unfounded textual arguments for which you can provide no evidence to your heart's delight.  And I can write off such unfounded, baseless claims as buffoonery.  

I don't think stars or rocks are lying.  I just don't think that science has yet caught up with the Bible.

Quote

when Christ pitched His tent among us, there were many men who knew the scriptures very well, who thought they understood them perfectly. Jesus told them differently. many of them didn't believe Him. 

 

Quote

what i want to say -- my entire purpose in this thread - is that we may also be like these men: we know well what the scriptures say. we believe we understand them perfectly. we are well-prepared to argue over words for dozens of pages on every topic. we have thousands of little reputation points glittering under our names testifying of our great wisdom and skillfulness. we are mighty debate-warriors for Him, able to slay thousands with our unassailable logic and knowledge.

That's just a lot of nonsense.   All this amounts to whether or not you believe that when God said "day"  he meant what he said.   There are no mystical, hidden messages or symbols.  All that is, is just a way to get around having to accept what God says is true.   God said he made the earth in six days.   That's it.  That's exactly what it means.  And "day" as it is used there is in the ordinary sense.   If you say otherwise, then produce the evidence that Genesis 1 cannot or should not be meant to be taken in the ordinary literal sense.

[Revelation Man]

6 hours ago, post said:

yes, and when what we observe disagrees with what we thought we understood, it's not that God deceived us, and it's not that the Bible is incorrect. 
it's that our understanding of either what we observe, or our understanding of what is written, is incorrect. quite possibly both. 

 

Some excellent post here Brother, and yom is a period of time, not always a day. I have done an in depth study, of science and Religion, then I tried to merge the two together using logic. For starters, God confused us at Babel, so He doesn't necessarily want us to know all that He knows. If the Universe is 14.7 billion years old and the Earth only 4.5 billion years old, why would anyone assume the First Day was 24 Hours ?  My theory is below, I am not stating it is a fact, just my deductive reasoning. 

God Created the Universe in His own time frame. (There is no Time in Gods Realm.) Looking to the WMAP, (NASA Program) the way the Universe is Mapped by the Microwaves, then reading the Creation Story, it all fits. Anyone that thinks God was speaking of Earth Rotations (Days) seems off kilter, the Earth was not even around until the Universe was 9.2 billion years old !!

God has no time in His Realm. Causation came about with the Creation of our universe. My "TIME THEORY" is based on Study not just guess work. Since the Universe was created, and Earth was Formed 9.2 billion years Latter, then the First day had to be 9.2 billion years Old.................................BECAUSE

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS WAS ON THE FACE OF THE DEEP. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

{{ Notice, the Earth was void and without form, that is because God only Spoke it into Creation, in actuality it took 9.2 Billion years to form. Notice it says there was darkness on the face of the deep ? Well the WMAP/NASA Project, which has mapped out the Universe with Microwaves, says there was darkness on the face of the deep. (Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by Cosmic Microwave background where after 380,000 years loose electrons cool enough to combine with protons. The Universe becomes Transparent to Light. The Microwave background begins to shine. Then the Dark Ages/clouds of dark hydrogen gas cool and coalesce. }}

{{ The first stars appear..........Gas Clouds collapse, the fusion of Stars begin, the first of which appears at about 400 million years after the Big Bang. SO............When the Bible says Darkness was on the face of the DEEP, God knew exactly what was happening in the VERY BEGINNING !! }}

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. {{ The First day was Darkness and Light. People have often confused this, but God is saying there was Darkness, then Light.......That was the first day. It lasted 9.2 Billion years, give or take a few million years....LOL. }}

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. {{ How does a firmament (Heaven/Air) divide the waters from the waters ? Well, God placed waters on the Earth, and the Sky has water in the Air, that's why it Rains !! This was the Second Day, so it couldn't have Started any sooner than 4.5 Billion years ago. And the Grasses and Herbs began to appear at about 900 Million years B.C. according to my study of Science books, so the Second Day lasted from 4.5 Billion years until about 900 Million years B.C. And as God stated, that was the 2ND DAY. }}

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 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.

{{ So, since the Grasses and herb yielding fruits came about around 900 Million Years B.C. to 800 Million years B.C. that becomes the 3RD 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.

{{ Seems God set the Seasons, and that was the Fourth Day. Probably happened at about the same time as the 3RD DAY, fairly close imho. And the Stars started lighting the Earth over time when their light reached the Earth. }}

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

{{ Through a study of Science books and such it is determined that the Sea Creatures have been around much longer than the Land Creatures, and that jibes with Gods account here..................About 500 Million years ago the Sea Creatures and fowl came along, and that was the 5TH DAY. It lasted until about 250 million years B.C. }}

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

{{{ Through studying Science again the land animals/creatures started showing up around 250 million years ago. So this was the 6TH day........From 250 million years B.C. until 6000 years B.C. when God created man and rested from His creation. }}}

We are now in Gods Day of Rest or the 7TH DAY............

 

 I did not just grab something out of thin air. This actually all fits together in Gods timeline. It can not be perfect by the numbers of course, but it is an approximation that makes more sense than an earth that is only 6000 years old. Or in a Universe that Magically appeared from Nothing.

Firstly, to all who think that man is much older than 6000 years old, I ask, why is it nor recorded in history ? Then secondly, Man became man when God imparted him with a Soul, and put His Spirit in us. Any Animal created before this impartation that made us into human beings (or made us in the image of God) , was not a Human Being as we are known today. They would just be another animal, nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Again, this is only my theory from studying both science and the bible. God Bless

 

[post]

 

54 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

1.  I am not boasting.  I was explaining how I know what I know.   I know Hebrew.  That's fact.   It's not a matter of having to have a battle of scholars.   The grammar of Hebrew is as indisputable as the grammar of English. It is what it is.

except i questioned the grammar and demonstrated that the "rule" you stated has a contradiction, and you didn't appeal to the grammar. you simply said "i know Hebrew" 
-- that is boasting. 

54 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

2. I never said that anything was never the case.  All I said is that when you find "yom" with a Hebrew number it refers to a literal 24 hour day.  I didn't make any other claims associated with that statement.

you said this is always the case -

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

 When "yom" is used in conjunction with an ordinal number like it is Gen 1, it is always understood to refer to a 24 hour day. 

- which means it is never the case that this is not the case.
however that is not correct; i showed you a case where it is not the case. 

54 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

3. Nothing I said is based on bias.  It is based on objective fact.  I am speaking to facts that you simply don't want to face up to.

if you truly based what you say on objective fact, you'd be apologizing for stating that "rule" that is demonstrated not to be a rule, and you'd have appealed to grammar & replied with careful, detailed justification based on linguistic analysis, instead of appealing to "i read Hebrew" - what you effectively said is "i know, because i'm smart, and you're obviously not" -- that's the basis of your argument. that's not objective. that's biased: biased toward your own opinion & understanding.

you wouldn't be accusing me of "needing to make room for evolution" or seeing "science" as more authoritative than the Bible. you wouldn't be saying that i'm "resorting to silly, nonsensical hypotheticals" or accusing me of "complete nonsense" and "buffoonery" without any justification beyond "i understand perfectly, and you disagree with me therefore you are a moron."
these are unsubstantiated personal attacks, subjective accusations and not "objective facts." 


dismissing objections without any justification, and resorting to ad hominem attacks is not "unbiased, objective" behavior. it's symptomatic of quite the opposite. 


 

i've told you the basis for what i put here -- that basis is that i admit that i do not understand completely the details of creation & i don't believe you or anyone else does either. your basis is that you believe you understand Genesis perfectly. you've stated as much that you are willing to assume all kinds of "nonsense hypotheticals" yourself - though i doubt you'd call them that - if your eyes and ears are presented with anything that makes it appear that the cosmos is anything older than 6,000 years. 
that's not because you believe the creation account in the Bible is correct -- it's because you believe your understanding of the creation account in the Bible is correct. that's the heart of it. 

my "argument" -- and it's not an "argument" -- is that human understanding is fallible. when reality doesn't match our understanding of the Bible, it's not the Bible that's wrong, and it's not reality that isn't real -- it's our understanding that is wrong. the problem with WOF? it's not that the Bible is wrong. it's not that you really aren't sick or really are wealthy but haven't "believed" hard enough yet -- it's a problem with understanding what the scriptures actually mean. 

"a day means a day" you say. well, "Elijah means Elijah" doesn't it? 
so who was John the Baptist? 
he was not Elijah (John 1:19-21) ? 
he was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14) ? 
the answer is yes, in both cases (Luke 1:13-17) -- the Bible is always correct, but our understanding of it is not always correct. Christ said if you are willing accept it He is Elijah. turns out that Malachi 4:5 -- which has no internal hint in the text that it is anything other than literal reincarnation - was not in fact literal. 

if you and i had lived in the "yom" of the first advent, and we applied the same dogmaticism to our own understanding of scripture, would we have missed the King of the Jews? He wasn't the king their careful study led them to look for. but wise men from another land, gentiles, who got their understanding from the stars instead of the talmud, knew the King was born. these, beasts of the earth, and certain shepherds - probably uneducated, who would readily admit that they did not understand all mysteries, were the ones who God chose to worship Him when He came. you see, when He 'confounded the wisdom of the wise' it is not just the wisdom of the world that He upended. it was the 'wisdom' of those who knew the scripture, even kept it, and thought they understood it. 


that is what i'm saying here. 
it is not because i "don't believe God" or "don't believe the scriptures" -- it is because i know not to lean on my own understanding; the scriptures themselves both state and demonstrate this. we should not therefore be so dogmatic about things that are actually not completely clear and are in no way "salvation issues."
what do you objectively think of this? 

[Guest shiloh357]

38 minutes ago, post said:

 

except i questioned the grammar and demonstrated that the "rule" you stated has a contradiction, and you didn't appeal to the grammar. you simply said "i know Hebrew" 
-- that is boasting. 

you said this is always the case -

- which means it is never the case that this is not the case.
however that is not correct; i showed you a case where it is not the case. 

 

No, you're misquoting me.  What I said was, "When "yom" is used in conjunction with an ordinal number like it is Gen 1, it is always understood to refer to a 24 hour day."   I stated a grammatical fact.  You did not present anything that contradicted that.   In fact, what you provided was not an ordinal number.  "40 days" isn't ordinal.  It is cardinal.  So your approach didn't really contradict my claim.  In fact, it didn't really address my claim.   I didn't say, "it is always the case."  I said that when we see the word yom connected to an ordinal number, like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  it is always understood to be a literal, 24 hour day.   If you had presented an ordinal number connected to "yom" like this "The 1st Day of the Lord"  then you would have provided a contradiction to my claim.  But you didn't.   So my claim remains unrefuted.
 

Quote

 

if you truly based what you say on objective fact, you'd be apologizing for stating that "rule" that is demonstrated not to be a rule, and you'd have appealed to grammar & replied with careful, detailed justification based on linguistic analysis, instead of appealing to "i read Hebrew" - what you effectively said is "i know, because i'm smart, and you're obviously not" -- that's the basis of your argument. that's not objective. that's biased: biased toward your own opinion & understanding.
 

you wouldn't be accusing me of "needing to make room for evolution" or seeing "science" as more authoritative than the Bible. you wouldn't be saying that i'm "resorting to silly, nonsensical hypotheticals" or accusing me of "complete nonsense" and "buffoonery" without any justification beyond "i understand perfectly, and you disagree with me therefore you are a moron."
these are unsubstantiated personal attacks, subjective accusations and not "objective facts." 


dismissing objections without any justification, and resorting to ad hominem attacks is not "unbiased, objective" behavior. it's symptomatic of quite the opposite. 

 

I don't need to apologize for correctly stating Hebrew grammar.   I don't need to because you didn't prove anything I said is wrong.  Your objection is a non-starter, and a nonrefutation.   

I didn't assign anything to you about making room for evolution.  I said nothing about what you believe about evolution or nonbelief of evolution.  I was speaking in general terms about general skepticism and I avoided mentioning or including you, so you can drop the "victim" card.   I didn't accuse you of anything.     

But yes, if you are going to make arbitrary textual arguments and the refuse to provide any evidence for those claims, your empty claims don't need to be taken seriously by anyone.   If you want to provide such evidence, that's a different story.  

I never said that I understand perfectly and that you're a moron.   Please copy and paste where I said that?     I have made no personal attacks.  You are simply making a breathless dishonest claim against me because you don't really have an intelligent argument to make.   

I have not dismissed your objections with out any justification.   If you refuse to support your objections with evidence, if you insist on saying that I said things I never said, then dismissing your objections is wholly justified.

Quote

i've told you the basis for what i put here -- that basis is that i admit that i do not understand completely the details of creation & i don't believe you or anyone else does either. your basis is that you believe you understand Genesis perfectly. you've stated as much that you are willing to assume all kinds of "nonsense hypotheticals" yourself - though i doubt you'd call them that - if your eyes and ears are presented with anything that makes it appear that the cosmos is anything older than 6,000 years. 
that's not because you believe the creation account in the Bible is correct -- it's because you believe your understanding of the creation account in the Bible is correct. that's the heart of it. 

I never claimed to understand it perfectly.   That again is something you are assigning to me that I did say.   I said I BELIEVE it and I trust God's word over scientific claims that attempt to muddy the water about what it says.   No one can claim to understand the Bible perfectly.  But I do know how to read and I can understand the plain, ordinary sense in which it is written as well as anyone.  I am not required to understand it perfectly.  I am required by God to believe it as written and to take Him at His word.

Your problem in this discussion is that you are trying to refute arguments I never raised and trying to assign things to me I didn't say.   You are responding to what you think I believe and so it is apparent to me that you are having a different conversation than I am.

 

Quote

"a day means a day" you say. well, "Elijah means Elijah" doesn't it? 
so who was John the Baptist? 
he was not Elijah (John 1:19-21) ? 
he was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14) ? 
the answer is yes, in both cases (Luke 1:13-17) -- the Bible is always correct, but our understanding of it is not always correct. Christ said if you are willing accept it He is Elijah. turns out that Malachi 4:5 -- which has no internal hint in the text that it is anything other than literal reincarnation - was not in fact literal. 

That really doesn't serve as an adequate comparison with Yom in Gen. 1.   Malachi 4:5 was not fulfilled by John the Baptist in the lifetime of Jesus.   Malachi 4:5 is talking about the "great and terrible Day of the Lord"  which has not yet come and is still future to us.   John the Baptist fulfilled Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40: 3

Mal. 4:5 is not claiming that Elijah is going to be reincarnated that is a nonsensical approach to the text.  Again, this really doesn't reflect any issue that is similar to Genesis 1.

Quote

 if you and i had lived in the "yom" of the first advent, and we applied the same dogmaticism to our own understanding of scripture, would we have missed the King of the Jews? He wasn't the king their careful study led them to look for. but wise men from another land, gentiles, who got their understanding from the stars instead of the talmud, knew the King was born. these, beasts of the earth, and certain shepherds - probably uneducated, who would readily admit that they did not understand all mysteries, were the ones who God chose to worship Him when He came. you see, when He 'confounded the wisdom of the wise' it is not just the wisdom of the world that He upended. it was the 'wisdom' of those who knew the scripture, even kept it, and thought they understood it. 
 

1. I am not applying any sort of "dogmatism."  I simply believe the Bible can be trusted and believed 100% as written.

2. The "shepherds"  were Levites from the temple.  The area where they were watching the sheep was in Migdal Edder and was where the lambs that would be used later that year in the Passover were watched and cared for by these temple Levites.  So they were not uneducated shepherds.  

3. Jesus wasn't upending anyone's "wisdom."  He was confronting the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who skirted around the Bible.  I think we need to try and correctly frame Jesus' confrontations with the religious leaders instead of trying to make ourselves victims when we are confronted with information that we can't really refute.   that's a waste of time.

Quote

that is what i'm saying here. 
it is not because i "don't believe God" or "don't believe the scriptures" -- it is because i know not to lean on my own understanding; the scriptures themselves both state and demonstrate this. we should not therefore be so dogmatic about things that are actually not completely clear and are in no way "salvation issues."
what do you objectively think of this? 

I don't see where God is not completely clear in Genesis 1.  That's where you and I part ways, I think.   You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.  At least, it doesn't exist for me because I look at Genesis 1 and simply believe what it says.