Old Earth or Young Earth

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You know nothing about the linguistics of Hebrew and I would point out that your entire perspective is based upon proving that the Bible we have cannot be trusted and doesn't mean what it says. 

Your approach also fails to understand the literary concept of "literal."

I have multiple Hebrew dictionaries and have books from Hebrew scholars especially in paleo Hebrew. All of my definitions come from these sources. When you read the Bible you have to use linguistics as part of exegesis. What is your degree in Hebrew? How are these scholars wrong? I never said the Bible cannot be trusted, but you have to use exegesis on it and that includes going into the languages it was first written in.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Allroses48

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Allroses48 said:

I have multiple Hebrew dictionaries and have books from Hebrew scholars especially in paleo Hebrew. All of my definitions come from these sources. When you read the Bible you have to use linguistics as part of exegesis. What is your degree in Hebrew? How are these scholars wrong? I never said the Bible cannot be trusted, but you have to use exegesis on it and that includes going into the languages it was first written in.

The problem is that exegesis is more just having dictionaries.   I read Hebrew and am seminary trained in Hebrew grammar, as well.  Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell that what you're promoting isn't exegesis.

Hebrew is a very nuanced language and that means that one word can have more than one meaning depending on the context.   You can't apply the meaning that suits your theology to a given word.  The literary context drives our understanding on what a word means as it is used in that context.

There is no amount of Hebrew linguistics that will make "yom"  means "Billions of years"  in Genesis 1.   Your argument that Genesis 1 is allegorical is also defeated by Hebrew grammar.  The form of Genesis 1 is that of a historical narrative, not at allegory.   For anyone to say it is allegorical simply demonstrates that you are getting that from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.    The repeated phrase "and God said..."  at the start of each creative event demonstrates a chronological historical account, and not poetry, not allegory.   It is a historical account and that is all it is.  The rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1 as historical, as well. 

Not all biblical scholars are Christian scholars.  There are scholars of the Bible who have made a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it.  They see it in the same way we view Greek mythology.

And if you're going to say that the text is allegorical, then you ARE saying that we cannot trust the text as written. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that exegesis is more just having dictionaries.   I read Hebrew and am seminary trained in Hebrew grammar, as well.  Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Hebrew can tell that what you're promoting isn't exegesis.

Hebrew is a very nuanced language and that means that one word can have more than one meaning depending on the context.   You can't apply the meaning that suits your theology to a given word.  The literary context drives our understanding on what a word means as it is used in that context.

There is no amount of Hebrew linguistics that will make "yom"  means "Billions of years"  in Genesis 1.   Your argument that Genesis 1 is allegorical is also defeated by Hebrew grammar.  The form of Genesis 1 is that of a historical narrative, not at allegory.   For anyone to say it is allegorical simply demonstrates that you are getting that from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.    The repeated phrase "and God said..."  at the start of each creative event demonstrates a chronological historical account, and not poetry, not allegory.   It is a historical account and that is all it is.  The rest of the Bible treats Genesis 1 as historical, as well. 

Not all biblical scholars are Christian scholars.  There are scholars of the Bible who have made a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it.  They see it in the same way we view Greek mythology.

And if you're going to say that the text is allegorical, then you ARE saying that we cannot trust the text as written. 

All of the biblical scholars I use are Christian. Every single one. The PhD that I use in Paleo Hebrew specifically states the nacash is not a snake and gives multiple definitions of it. I also have multiple books on exegesis and nowhere does it say we are supposed to take every word of the Bible literally. That is a fundamentalist YEC interpretation and that's it. I also has multiple definitions and the genesis framework in days is allegorical of 6 long epochs. Like I said believe what you want. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Allroses48

[da_man1974]

I used to be a young earther.  But have changed my view point over the years.

One thing I have thought about it that God is eternal.  He is outside of time and space.  So when God said it and it came to be.  There is no real telling of how long that actually was.  It could have been thousands of years because time does not matter to Him.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

I used to be a young earther.  But have changed my view point over the years.

One thing I have thought about it that God is eternal.  He is outside of time and space.  So when God said it and it came to be.  There is no real telling of how long that actually was.  It could have been thousands of years because time does not matter to Him.  

I agree, that's why I believe the days account is allegorical and doesn't mean a literal 24 hour period of time but a long epoch. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Allroses48 said:

All of the biblical scholars I use are Christian. Every single one. The PhD that I use in Paleo Hebrew specifically states the nacash is not a snake and gives multiple definitions of it. I also have multiple books on exegesis and nowhere does it say we are supposed to take every word of the Bible literally. That is a fundamentalist YEC interpretation and that's it. I also has multiple definitions and the genesis framework in days is allegorical of 6 long epochs. Like I said believe what you want. 

There is no reason to read the Bible if you're not going to take it literally.   When do you take the Bible literally?   If Genesis isn't supposed to be literal, then what about other parts of the Bible?  How about parts you care about?   How about eternal life?   Should we take John 3:16 literally?    Should we take what the Bible says about sin literally?    I mean, at what point do you start taking the Bible literally?  Do take salvation literally?   Why? 

The problem is that for an text to be allegorical, the text would have to indicate that allegory is being used.  Every time the Bible uses allegory, it lets you know it is using allegory.    Genesis has NOTHING in it that indicates that it is to be taken as allegorical.   

And you obviously don't understand what allegory is if you are saying that the 6 days of creation are allegorical of long epochs of time.  That is not how allegory works.  Allegory is used to teach moral lessons, where the objects being allegorized stand for different things.    Allegory is not a method or device of interpretation.   Allegory is a teaching tool, meant to illustrate a moral or spritual lesson.   So right there, you really don't understand the terms you are throwing around.

Here is the BIG problem for you, and how you approach the Bible.    If parts of the Bible are not supposed to be taken literally, how do you know which parts are literal and which parts are not?   What is your method for knowing the difference?   I mean, we could easily take your method and say that Jesus' miracles never happened or that Jesus never rose from the dead. There is no end to what we could just erase from the Bible by not taking the Bible literally.  

All doctrines of the Christian faith find their point of origin either directly or indirectly in the first three chapters of Genesis.  If the story didn't really happen the way the Bible says it did, then the Bible is not our final authority and we cannot anchor our hearts to it.   And if that is the case, then we should not be putting all of our faith in what it says about salvation or eternal life.  

Your approach to the Bible is rife with theological problems and you have apparently applied no critical thinking to what you believe.  You really haven't thought this through.   You're just basing everything on books you've read and taking their word for it, no questions asked.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, da_man1974 said:

I used to be a young earther.  But have changed my view point over the years.

One thing I have thought about it that God is eternal.  He is outside of time and space.  So when God said it and it came to be.  There is no real telling of how long that actually was.  It could have been thousands of years because time does not matter to Him.  

That is irrelevant, actually.   That God is outside of time really has no bearing on the fact that God is speak to people who are bound to linear time.   He speaks to us in terms we can understand.   If God meant that the days of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and easier ways to make the point in the Hebrew language.   God is good at communication and He doesn't stutter or choose the wrong words.   In Exodus 20 God reiterated that he made the heavens and earth in 6 days.   Again, if he meant something else, either God is not omniscient, or he lied and His word cannot be trusted.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:13 AM, Allroses48 said:

The age of the Earth was drawn up by a monk and an archbishop who used bad math to calculate the Earth 's age. It is completely unbiblical and nonscientific. This is what the YEC founded their 'data' on. Nowhere in the Bible does it give the age of the earth. Nor is the the Genesis 1 and 2 account accurate historically. It is a poetic allegory that God created the earth. 

Source: Jesus and Genesis

Quote

There is precisely one instance in all of scripture where Jesus quotes from Genesis 1 and 2. OK, actually, there are two, but they are parallels of each other: Matthew 19:1-11 and Mark 10:1-12. Here’s the relevant portion of the text from Matthew’s gospel, as rendered by the NIV:

Some Pharisees came to [Jesus] to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Let’s start by laying out what Jesus did not say in this passage. He did not say the universe was created in six 24-hour days. He did not say the first human was a man named Adam, who had a wife named Eve and was evicted from a place called Eden. He did not say the world is roughly 6,000 years old, and that the exact age is difficult to determine because there was a worldwide flood that mucked up the planet and somehow makes radiometric dating impossible.

In fact, Jesus’ words, taken in their obvious context, aren’t referring to creation at all. Jesus is asked a question about marriage and divorce, and he answers the question using scripture. Being the true Word of God, that’s something he did fairly frequently.

In that understanding, I think Jesus’ use of the phrase “at the beginning” is largely incidental. It’s used to clue his audience in to the context of what he’s talking about, like when he said, “Have you not read in the book of Moses?” But even if Jesus is making a point about the creation of men and women here, I don’t think that necessarily conflicts with Darwin’s theory, because I don’t believe we are an accidental product of evolution. I believe we are, in fact, a deliberate, purposeful product of evolution — a creature made in God’s image, male and female, whom he had in mind even before the beginning.

Your argument (and of Dr. Hugh Ross) has merit.  But I believe the Gap Theory provides a more literal interpretation of Genesis.  I like to take scripture literally, if at all possible.

[siegi91]

20 hours ago, Allroses48 said:

You have to look at the linguistics of ancient Hebrew. For ex yom has multiple definitions from a 24 day to an unknown period of time. The nacash is not really a literal snake. The word means enchanter, diviner, one who hisses in the ear, one who lies/manipulates, and it also means shining one, and serpentine.  So this nacash is actually a fallen angel/entity, not a literal snake. The two trees aren't literal trees. It wasn't a literal fruit but the knowledge obtained from the nacash. 

OK. Even though I am jewish, I admit to have no clue of Hebrew, so I must trust you. I know only "Shalom", but that is hardly helpful.

But what about the order of creation events? I think to remember that water existed before the first star was created. Is that also figurative? Or does the hebrew narrative somehow hint to figurative or symbolic language?I ask because according to orthodox science, that is impossible., if taken literally.

Edited May 22, 2017 by siegi91

[da_man1974]

38 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That is irrelevant, actually.   That God is outside of time really has no bearing on the fact that God is speak to people who are bound to linear time.   He speaks to us in terms we can understand.   If God meant that the days of creation were long epochs of time, there are better and easier ways to make the point in the Hebrew language.   God is good at communication and He doesn't stutter or choose the wrong words.   In Exodus 20 God reiterated that he made the heavens and earth in 6 days.   Again, if he meant something else, either God is not omniscient, or he lied and His word cannot be trusted.

So like in Revelation, is it really a fire breathing dragon?  And how far is the East from the West?  Or how are His thoughts higher than ours?  I think there is a lot of imagery and not exact translation used in the Bible.  If it was a literal 24 hour day there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.  IT would be case closed and there wouldn't be knowledgeable scholars on each side of the fence.

Have you actually looked at these issues with an open mind? Or do you go into them with an assumption and try to find ways to back that up?