|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
It doesn't say that. You're making it up.
It actually does not link the ages from father to son. It reads how long some lived. DOCJ writes:
It was written for humans so there's no reason to think it meant anything but what humans think it means. And days are different for God. It could be 24h and it may not be. You don't know. If all you can do is make up stuff to cover up the errors, that's not very satisfying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
I don't use the word "probable" unless it's an actual mathematical probability that can be calculated. Can you show what the mathematical value of the "probability" is? Or are you just stating your own preference?
When I read the text and look at the concordance it looks probable. When I look at nature, and the fossil record of humanity, history, etc it is probable. DOCJ writes:
As I said, you need to show that it does mean that, not just that it hypothetically "could" mean that. Otherwise, you're just bending the word's meaning to fit your preconceived interpretation. You will find the definition is as noted below father can mean to bring forth x fathered y can mean brought forth a person many ages later. We need to be honest here and decide what the text actually says and only then can we decide whether or not there are errors in it. We can't decide a priori that there are no errors and then look for flimsy excuses to mean something else. Edited by ringo, : Inserted missing word "you".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
It says he created the heavens and the earth. There's no "then". There's certainly nothing to suggest billions of years.
And the text tells you God created the heaven i.e. space, and then focused on the earth in next part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
That isn't what it says. There is no "prior to" time frame mentioned between verse 1 and verse 2.
Ref Gen 1:1 to see that the heavens and the earth just came into existence. They were created prior to what happened in Gen 1:2. DOCJ writes:
I agree that it's a revolution of Biblical revisionism that came up with your interpretation. It wasn't Bible scholars who discovered that the earth was billions of years old. Bible revisionists have been struggling to shoehorn the Bible into reality ever since science was invented.
I am not making anything up, it is a body, or rather a revolution of people that this thought is ultimately culminating into this tiny forum. DOCJ writes:
So which is it? Are you looking for possibilities within scripture or are you looking for the truth?
I will admit though I wish I was the individual responsible for this interpretation permitting billions or hundreds of thousands as noted, because it is leaving the possibility within scripture. DOCJ writes:
Huh? Are you disputing the length of time from Abraham to Jesus? Are you inserting untold generations in there? Remember that Abraham was from Ur and we can date Ur independently of the Bible. Thus many generations are actually left out. You find this in the new testament when listing how Jesus was linked to Abraham. Matthew 1:1. The biggest problem in Biblical dating of the earth is that the gap before humans is way too small. You can't insert generations there.
DOCJ writes:
Indeed. That includes your interpretation. That's why we need to look at what it actually says instead of trying to rewrite it to conform to the science of the day.
What different people see or interpret at different periods in history may or may not be that truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
Scripture allows for a lot of things both true and false. You can't decide that scripture is accurate just because it maybe could possibly be warped to fit reality. However scripture does allow for a old earth. You have to look at what it actually says. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
DOCJ and I haven't gotten to verse 3 yet. He said in Message 355 that, "Genesis 1:1 is where the universe was created. It does represent billions of years." That's what I was referring to.
Yes, there IS a "then", at the beginning of verse 3, after the circumstantial clause which is verse 2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
That doesn't help you. Most of the age of the earth occurred before there were any humans and the Bible doesn't suggest that at all.
The genealogy in both cases are not used to calculate the age of the earth. So if you use it for calculating the age of the earth I would expect it to be incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
Does it really suggest that or do you just wish it did? If you were reading Genesis 1 with no preconceived notions, would you conclude that there were billions of years?
The Bible does suggest the heaven and the earth were created before anything in the earth was created. And it happened before the 6 days of creation. DOCJ writes:
Well of course Genesis 1:1 is looking down on the earth; there was nowhere to stand on earth yet. How can you stretch a different viewpoint to billions of years?
Gen 1:2 is a new sentence beginning from on the earth. Genesis 1:1 is looking down at the heavens and the earth. DOCJ writes:
No, the Big Bang didn't expand "into" anything. It was an expansion OF everything.
2, the expansion is evidence of an outside region for it expand into it. DOCJ writes:
That's like saying that Ian Fleming mentioned Paris and Paris exists so the James Bond stories must be true. Even if there are some congruencies, it's the incongruencies that determine whether or not the Bible is reliable.
If the bible were wrong I wouldn't expect congruency between the evidence and scripture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
So God created the dryness. Since it was covered with water, it was not dry. Really, this nitpicking about whether anything was "created" is pretty silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
You can be too careful, to the point of being catatonic.
You might consider it "nitpicking", but I would call it "being careful".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
The Bible is not true. We know that.
It is elementary that if the bible is true....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
There is no distinction between "space" and "material" in Genesis 1. Did the Hebrews even have a concept of "space"?
IF you read the passage in order, the (1)heavens (space) and the (2)earth (material) were created by God and then God created everything in the earth that we know and understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DOCJ writes:
Sure, it's possible for an author of fiction to make up something that coincidentally agrees with reality.
The author didn't have to be aware of the Science in order to author the correct sequence of events. DOCJ writes:
There's nothing objective about the concept of "God", so your point is moot.
What you don't seem to be understanding is that, and I'm being objective in this context, if the author was picked by God to author the passage then God would know what was going to be written and that is all that is required for it to be the truth. DOCJ writes:
What if God knew that He was dictating fiction?
If God knew what would be authored, that is all that is required for it to be the truth.... DOCJ writes:
On the contrary, I'm saying that we should just read the text as it is written. You're the one who's trying to shoehorn "truth" into it.
I presume according to you, that we should JUST listen to your side because you know what God is thinking, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
We do, even if you don't. We (humans) know how to split an atom even if you (personally) do not. ringo writes:
No we don't. The Bible is not true. We know that. We don't have to go beyond page 1 of the Bible to find mistakes. You might be able to jump through enough hoops to convince yourself that it's still "true" but you'll find it hard to drag everybody else through the hoops with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 706 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
It says they were in the "firmament". Note the root word "firm". The Hebrews thought of it as a solid dome over the earth. It has nothing to do with what we call "space".
ringo writes:
Well Genesis does say the stars were put in something. Did the Hebrews even have a concept of "space"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025