|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 10:56:43 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I have yet to see any such "theory" stand up to peer review. And who would you consider to be the "peers" of YEC scientists, benelchi?
Peers are any scientists who specialize in the field being studied regardless of their political and ideological point of view. The objective, measurable, and observable data doesn't change based on an ideology.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 12:00:34 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
One of my problems with this interpretation is that I can observe starlight that took longer than the above period to reach me. The speed of light is known. Using proper instrumentation an observer on earth can calculate distances to visible stars. When I zoom in from astronomy to the what I know of radioactive decay I encounter other problems. The universe and elements in it are clearly older than ten-thousand years. Welcome to the Forums, PR!
Are you aware that many creation scientists have developed reasonable theories for dramatic changes in light velocity and radioactive decay rates during the first half of creation week? It is a faith-based assumption that these so-called constants have been truly constant throughout the history of the universe.
How exactly, what criteria do you use, to determine when some theory or idea, espoused by a scientist, is reasonable? Or do you just assume reasonableness because it allows your view of the Bible to persist?
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 1:26:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The objective, measurable, and observable data doesn't change based on an ideology. You have a very naive understanding of origins science, benelchi. Data does not change, however one's interpretation of data is critically based on one's ideology.
quote:
How exactly, what criteria do you use, to determine when some theory or idea, espoused by a scientist, is reasonable? For example, evolution has never occurred in the past and is not occurring in the present. Thus it is reasonable to assume that it will never occur in the future. BTW, it's not merely my view of the Bible, ND...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 2:36:49 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
You did not answer my question Dr. Mark. What criteria do you use to determine when some theory or idea, espoused by a scientist, is reasonable? All you did above was to tell me you do not think the scientific idea of evolution is reasonable but provide no standards, no guidelines, no criteria you rely upon or look to for guidance in determining or assessing the reasonableness of the scientific idea of evolution or any other scientific idea.
I suppose you may retort the fact evolution has never occurred is your criteria for rejecting the scientific idea of evolution as reasonable. Yet, this just begs the question of how exactly you came to the determination, and upon what criteria you relied upon, to make the deduction evolution never transpired?
So I ask once again, what criteria, standards, and/or guidelines do you rely upon to assist you in reaching the conclusion some scientific idea is reasonable or unreasonable? What specifically have you relied upon to reach the conclusion the scientific notion light traveled at a different rate of speed X number of years ago is a reasonable proposition?
< Message edited by NotreDame -- 10/2/2009 3:32:58 PM >
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 8:06:22 PM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
drmark,
Let me get this straight. All of modern science was born out of the expectation of an orderly universe (which comes straight out of a Christian worldview). I am sitting here with physical observations based on that order and you get to merely assert that these observations aren't valid, without explaining in detail why?
There are others. Recent deep ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica can be counted backward just like tree rings. The age of the layers can be confirmed at certain places by layers of volcanic ash from eruptions known in historical references. And this physical observation is wrong also?
Your argument could just as easily be applied to the evidences in the link you provided. Nobody was around to observe them either.
I must frankly disagree with you about welding evolution and the age of the earth into one package. While evolution is clearly impossible without an old earth it does not logically follow that the reverse is true.
< Message edited by PrimorisRes -- 10/2/2009 8:59:21 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 9:19:33 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your argument could just as easily be applied to the evidences in the link you provided. Nobody was around to observe them either. Indeed, I thought I already established that origins science demands faith-based assumptions. Mine are reasonable because they come from the only Eyewitness account of origins. From where do you derive your faith-based assumptions, PR?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 10:22:24 PM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mine are reasonable because they come from the only Eyewitness account of origins. From where do you derive your faith-based assumptions, PR?
And you are dead certain you have read this account correctly?
As I pointed out in my original response to your invitation to this thread, six calendar days less than 10,000 years ago is not the only way theologically orthodox Christians have read the text.
While Augustine's reading has problems (he was mired in worldview, just as we are) I have concluded he may have been on to something by identifying the light in Genesis 1 as something other than corporeal and the days as something other than a chronology.
All truth is God's truth. The heavens declare His glory. If a reading of Scripture flies in the face of what I can see and measure the possibility exists that my reading may be wrong.
***
Concerning the link you provided. On a cursory reading I already know that #2, concerning supernova remnants, is dead wrong. Russell Humphreys asserts that we observe too few supernova remnants to account for an ancient universe.
Well now. Supernovas occur when stars run out of fuel, which given the volume available should take a bit longer than 10,000 years. Do the math.
And of course we can't see very many of them. Once they expand past a certain size there won't be enough material left for us to detect with our instruments. Humphreys might as well argue that what Galileo couldn't see with HIS telescope didn't exist.
If that's the quality of the evidence for a young earth...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 8:22:10 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And you are dead certain you have read this account correctly? Are you "dead certain" you have interpreted man's faulty science correctly? I see we are not communicating effectively, PR, and I have better ways to spend my time. Have a nice day and God bless!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 9:26:42 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrimorisRes
quote:
Mine are reasonable because they come from the only Eyewitness account of origins. From where do you derive your faith-based assumptions, PR?
And you are dead certain you have read this account correctly?
As I pointed out in my original response to your invitation to this thread, six calendar days less than 10,000 years ago is not the only way theologically orthodox Christians have read the text.
While Augustine's reading has problems (he was mired in worldview, just as we are) I have concluded he may have been on to something by identifying the light in Genesis 1 as something other than corporeal and the days as something other than a chronology.
Which in turn makes God into a liar, since He could have told His writers to use other Hebrew words perfectly suited to indicate something OTHER than real light and literal 24-hour days.
quote:
All truth is God's truth. The heavens declare His glory. If a reading of Scripture flies in the face of what I can see and measure the possibility exists that my reading may be wrong.
Gotta love it when the assumption is that Scripture is wrong instead of what is seen and measured. Classic materialism/naturalism. If you want to worship the creation rather than the Creator, then that is your idol to deal with.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 10:20:52 AM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I see we are not communicating effectively, PR, and I have better ways to spend my time. Have a nice day and God bless!
I am afraid I have to agree.
< Message edited by PrimorisRes -- 10/3/2009 10:30:39 AM >
_____________________________
St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," Bk 1, Ch 19, Par 39. Translated by John Hammond Taylor, Paulist Press, 1982.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 10:41:40 AM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
Which in turn makes God into a liar, since He could have told His writers to use other Hebrew words perfectly suited to indicate something OTHER than real light and literal 24-hour days.
The fact that light was created on day 1 and the sun on day 4 doesn't suggest to you that we might be dealing with something other than a straight up calendar on the wall?
quote:
Gotta love it when the assumption is that Scripture is wrong instead of what is seen and measured. Classic materialism/naturalism. If you want to worship the creation rather than the Creator, then that is your idol to deal with.
I'm done & I doubt I'll be back. As I recall I responded to an invitation. You might think about your tone in light of your signature.
< Message edited by PrimorisRes -- 10/3/2009 10:59:54 AM >
_____________________________
St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," Bk 1, Ch 19, Par 39. Translated by John Hammond Taylor, Paulist Press, 1982.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 10:44:18 AM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
drmark - Are you "dead certain" you have interpreted man's faulty science correctly?
I would suggest that in the same regard YECs attempt to dismiss science as "fallible" so too is our various interpretations of scripture, hermeneutics, just as "fallible"
The misconception that "extra-biblical" evidence is not valid then impacts Biblical interpretation as much as it does science.
Further, to use the "creation scientists" as having any merit would also come under the umbrella of "faulty".
Ken Ham and his ilk propose that a straightforward reading of the Bible does not suggest millions of years. At the same time this same reading, without the use of reason, would suggest that God has fingers, hands, walks, that He has eye everywhere, etc.
"We cannot without inconsistency employ the printing-press, the railroad, the telegraph in the propagation of our gospel, and at the same time denounce as evil those activities of the human mind that produced these things." J Gresham Machen
As someone suggested one could substitute for "printing press, the railroad, the telegraph" with computers, the internet, DNA, MRIs, cell phones, moon landings, jet planes, the Hubble, etc., etc. etc. etc. ,...
To dismiss Science with myriad advances in every area of human activity is simply the misuse of the intellect/reason that God has given us. Extra-biblical evidence and observation has considerable value and merit in biblical interpretation.
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 10:50:22 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrimorisRes
quote:
Mine are reasonable because they come from the only Eyewitness account of origins. From where do you derive your faith-based assumptions, PR?
And you are dead certain you have read this account correctly?
As I pointed out in my original response to your invitation to this thread, six calendar days less than 10,000 years ago is not the only way theologically orthodox Christians have read the text.
While Augustine's reading has problems (he was mired in worldview, just as we are) I have concluded he may have been on to something by identifying the light in Genesis 1 as something other than corporeal and the days as something other than a chronology.
Which in turn makes God into a liar, since He could have told His writers to use other Hebrew words perfectly suited to indicate something OTHER than real light and literal 24-hour days.
And actually he DID tell "His writers to use Hebrew words perfectly suited to indicate something other than real light and literal 24-hour days", so the only one who is "made a liar" is the person who declares that God said something that could ONLY mean a literal a "24-hour" literal day when in fact he did NOT! The one other passage in the OT that demonstrates a usage of a ordinal with 'yom' that most closely matches the grammar in creation account of Gen. 1 i.e it includes an ordinal, it lacks the definite article or preposition is Zec 14:7-9.
והיה יום אחד הוא יודע ליהוה לא־יום ולא־לילה והיה לעת־ערב יהיה־אור׃ והיה ביום ההוא יצאו מים־חיים מירושׁלם חצים אל־הים הקדמוני וחצים אל־הים האחרון בקיץ ובחרף יהיה׃ והיה יהוה למלך על־כל־הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה יהוה אחד ושׁמו אחד׃
It will happen in one day (a day known to the LORD); not in the day or the night, but in the evening there will be light. Moreover, on that day living waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it will happen both in summer and in winter. The LORD will then be king over all the earth. In that day the LORD will be seen as one with a single name. (Zec 14:7-9 NET)
Let's compare this to the usage in Ge. 1:5
ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשׁך קרא לילה ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום אחד
Isn't it interesting that the only other example in Scripture that uses the same grammatical construction used in creation account (Ge. 1:5) refers to a day that is an "indefinite eon of time?" Many other translations translate "day one" in this passage as a "unique day" because they recognize that this is not a literal 24 hour day.
Then there is always passages like 2 Chronicles 21:19
ESV 2 Chronicles 21:19 In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. His people made no fire in his honor, like the fires made for his fathers.
KJV 2 Chronicles 21:19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers.
NAU 2 Chronicles 21:19 Now it came about in the course of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels came out because of his sickness and he died in great pain. And his people made no fire for him like the fire for his fathers.
YLT 2 Chronicles 21:19 and it cometh to pass, from days to days, and at the time of the going out of the end of two years, his bowels have gone out with his sickness, and he dieth of sore diseases, and his people have not made for him a burning like the burning of his fathers.
ויהי לימים מימים וכעת צאת הקץ לימים שׁנים יצאו מעיו עם־חליו וימת בתחלאים רעים ולא־עשׂו לו עמו שׂרפה כשׂרפת אבתיו׃
The text here literally says "two days"; it seems that these translators didn't buy the lie promoted by many YEC'ers when they tell us that 'yom' when combined with an ordinal always means a literal 24 hour day.
quote:
quote:
All truth is God's truth. The heavens declare His glory. If a reading of Scripture flies in the face of what I can see and measure the possibility exists that my reading may be wrong.
Gotta love it when the assumption is that Scripture is wrong instead of what is seen and measured. Classic materialism/naturalism. If you want to worship the creation rather than the Creator, then that is your idol to deal with.
Actually, the assumption is that some peoples interpretation of Scripture is wrong, God's word is inerrant and infallible, but the interpretation of his word offered by you is not either infallible or inerrant. Gotta love it when the assumption is that our personal interpretation of God's word carries the same authority as the word of God itself.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/3/2009 10:55:44 AM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ManimalX - Gotta love it when the assumption is that Scripture is wrong instead of what is seen and measured.
No, the question arises as to the proper interpretation not the validity of scripture. Scripture requires reading and understanding with a Chestertonian "sufficient delicacy". To dismiss what is "seen and measured" is to disregard Psalm 19, Isaiah 40, and Romans 1, which clearly speak to our "God given" ability to understand Him through the creation.
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/6/2009 4:32:36 PM
|
|
|
JoeyWest
Posts: 976
Joined: 10/1/2008
From: Alabama with a guitar in my hands
Status: offline
|
it bugs me that christians cant accept the fact that that is God's timeline and not their's.
_____________________________
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW.
The Medic, the unsung hero on every battlefield. It is impossible to imagine the mental/emotional trauma inside a Medic, and there is no triage for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/6/2009 5:23:47 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
JoeyWest - it bugs me that christians cant accept the fact that that is God's timeline and not their's.
Since God is the Creator of course it is His timeline but shouldn't we try to understand His creation, His timeline? As I noted isn't that why we were given intellect/reason that in some way we could come to know Him through His creation? ...and scripture speaks directly to this.
The YEC/OEC belief is also important on an academic/cultural level, if Christianity in certain circles is to be taken seriously.
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/14/2009 9:02:25 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
YLT 2 Chronicles 21:19 and it cometh to pass, from days to days, and at the time of the going out of the end of two years, his bowels have gone out with his sickness, and he dieth of sore diseases, and his people have not made for him a burning like the burning of his fathers.
åéäé ìéîéí îéîéí åëòú öàú ä÷õ ìéîéí ùÑðéí éöàå îòéå òíÎçìéå åéîú áúçìàéí øòéí åìàÎòùÒå ìå òîå ùÒøôä ëùÒøôú àáúéåÓ
The text here literally says "two days"; it seems that these translators didn't buy the lie promoted by many YEC'ers when they tell us that 'yom' when combined with an ordinal always means a literal 24 hour day.
Hey benelchi,
I decided to check you out on this against Logos, and found you to be subtly mistaken. I have to assume you to believe this verse to be an example LIKE Genesis 1 in the use of yom with an ordinal. However it is not.
The closest fit with 2Chron 21:19 would be Gen 1:8 "And the evening and the morning were the second day." But the "number" used here is the Hebrew word "sheniy" (sorry, I don't type Hebrew alphabet), whereas the "number" used in 2Chron 21:19 is "shanayim". The difference is "sheniy" is the ORDINAL number 2nd, and "shanayim" is the CARDINAL number 2.
A CARDINAL does not modify the meaning of whatever it counts. An ORDINAL does, to a specific, particular instance of the noun. Even though your post specifically denounces the use of contextual ordinals as an exegetical analysis of yom, your examples were all cardinal numbers. So I have to conclude that your examples are "red herrings" (were the contextual use of "red" modifies the meaning of "herrings"). 
< Message edited by demolay -- 10/14/2009 9:08:55 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/14/2009 9:56:00 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ken Ham and his ilk propose that a straightforward reading of the Bible does not suggest millions of years. At the same time this same reading, without the use of reason, would suggest that God has fingers, hands, walks, that He has eye everywhere, etc.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the YEC lesson that taught us "that God has fingers, hands, walks, that He has eye (sic) everywhere, etc." Do think that perhaps this is a straw-man argument? I case you don't know, the definition of a straw-man is "to misrepresent your opponent's position in a fallacious way, as to hold up to ridicule." Any person with "reason" knows that such arguments hold no merit, as they are fictitious.
quote:
To dismiss Science with myriad advances in every area of human activity is simply the misuse of the intellect/reason that God has given us. Extra-biblical evidence and observation has considerable value and merit in biblical interpretation.
What you advocate is an ancient sin. There are no examples in history where man improved the morality, strength, or longevity of a civilization by deciding man's ideas could and should override God's Word. Sola scriptura, my friend. Look it up. The Church has strayed from God's Word as ultimate authority many times, always with terrible consequences. "Did God really say..." Gen 3:1. This has always been the mantra of man, from the beginning, as an excuse to ignore what God did plainly say.
Those who follow the path you advocate drift ever further from the Word of God. Did God really say abortion is wrong? After all, science can tell us if embryos feel pain, or are evolving from fish to humans in the womb. Did God really say homosexuality is an abomination? After all, science is looking to prove men are born that way. Did God really say women should not preach from the pulpit? Did God really say Jesus is the only way to salvation? And so on it goes, to the damnation of those who follow.
Your argument that YEC's advocate "To dismiss Science" is also a straw-man. NO ONE advocates such. The YEC position is one of "sola scriptura", which places God's Word as the ultimate authority in ALL areas to which it speaks. This does not deny other authorities, such as legitimate government or science, but only places them SUBORDINATE to the authority of scripture. This was the position of Martin Luther, of John Calvin, and, I believe, of Jesus who said we are to live "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (and no, I'm not looking for a physical mouth)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/14/2009 1:09:14 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
YLT 2 Chronicles 21:19 and it cometh to pass, from days to days, and at the time of the going out of the end of two years, his bowels have gone out with his sickness, and he dieth of sore diseases, and his people have not made for him a burning like the burning of his fathers.
åéäé ìéîéí îéîéí åëòú öàú ä÷õ ìéîéí ùÑðéí éöàå îòéå òíÎçìéå åéîú áúçìàéí øòéí åìàÎòùÒå ìå òîå ùÒøôä ëùÒøôú àáúéåÓ
The text here literally says "two days"; it seems that these translators didn't buy the lie promoted by many YEC'ers when they tell us that 'yom' when combined with an ordinal always means a literal 24 hour day.
Hey benelchi,
I decided to check you out on this against Logos, and found you to be subtly mistaken. I have to assume you to believe this verse to be an example LIKE Genesis 1 in the use of yom with an ordinal. However it is not.
The closest fit with 2Chron 21:19 would be Gen 1:8 "And the evening and the morning were the second day." But the "number" used here is the Hebrew word "sheniy" (sorry, I don't type Hebrew alphabet), whereas the "number" used in 2Chron 21:19 is "shanayim". The difference is "sheniy" is the ORDINAL number 2nd, and "shanayim" is the CARDINAL number 2.
A CARDINAL does not modify the meaning of whatever it counts. An ORDINAL does, to a specific, particular instance of the noun. Even though your post specifically denounces the use of contextual ordinals as an exegetical analysis of yom, your examples were all cardinal numbers. So I have to conclude that your examples are "red herrings" (were the contextual use of "red" modifies the meaning of "herrings").
Ordinal vs cardinal. I knew there was a more scholarly way to put it. Good work, Demolay.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/14/2009 1:15:10 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Demolay - Do think that perhaps this is a straw-man argument?
No, not at all. What I merely suggested was that an unreasoned literal reading would lead to wrongheaded interpretations...no inference that YECers believe that God has fingers, etc. only that reason and logic are a necessary component of interpretation and understanding scripture. Further as I stated "No, the question arises as to the proper interpretation not the validity of scripture". This discussion has a very narrow focus and the points sould be read as such.
quote:
What you advocate is an ancient sin.
I would disagree as you again are taking this far beyond the scope of this discussion. There is no attempt explicitly or implicitly to place science over scripture or to involve the whole of scripture. What I am advocating is that there exists sufficient room for valid interpretations in certain distinct areas of the bible and at present this area is the creation account and more specifically the age of the earth. I am also advocating that science does have a valid role in this specific area. Though my "literal" interpretation of Gen. 1 is counter to YEC.
quote:
Your argument that YEC's advocate "To dismiss Science" is also a straw-man. NO ONE advocates such.
Again, I am not sure where I wrote that YEC's advocate to dismiss science. What I did write was in response to
ManimalX - "Gotta love it when the assumption is that Scripture is wrong instead of what is seen and measured"
Now that is more of a strawman argument as no assumption was made that scripture is wrong! Clearly you are misreading my posts and somehow twisting what I wrote and intended.
I consider my response to that post appropriate:
"No, the question arises as to the proper interpretation not the validity of scripture. Scripture requires reading and understanding with a Chestertonian 'sufficient delicacy'. To dismiss what is 'seen and measured' is to disregard Psalm 19, Isaiah 40, and Romans 1, which clearly speak to our "God given" ability to understand Him through the creation."
If somehow you read a "strawman" into my posts I assure you it was not intended. Further I believe that there is nothing unbiblical regarding the role of science in attesting to the truth of scripture.
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/14/2009 7:00:21 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
YLT 2 Chronicles 21:19 and it cometh to pass, from days to days, and at the time of the going out of the end of two years, his bowels have gone out with his sickness, and he dieth of sore diseases, and his people have not made for him a burning like the burning of his fathers.
ויהי לימים מימים וכעת צאת הקץ לימים שׁנים יצאו מעיו עם־חליו וימת בתחלאים רעים ולא־עשׂו לו עמו שׂרפה כשׂרפת אבתיו׃
The text here literally says "two days"; it seems that these translators didn't buy the lie promoted by many YEC'ers when they tell us that 'yom' when combined with an ordinal always means a literal 24 hour day.
Hey benelchi,
I decided to check you out on this against Logos, and found you to be subtly mistaken. I have to assume you to believe this verse to be an example LIKE Genesis 1 in the use of yom with an ordinal. However it is not.
The closest fit with 2Chron 21:19 would be Gen 1:8 "And the evening and the morning were the second day." But the "number" used here is the Hebrew word "sheniy" (sorry, I don't type Hebrew alphabet), whereas the "number" used in 2Chron 21:19 is "shanayim". The difference is "sheniy" is the ORDINAL number 2nd, and "shanayim" is the CARDINAL number 2.
A CARDINAL does not modify the meaning of whatever it counts. An ORDINAL does, to a specific, particular instance of the noun. Even though your post specifically denounces the use of contextual ordinals as an exegetical analysis of yom, your examples were all cardinal numbers. So I have to conclude that your examples are "red herrings" (were the contextual use of "red" modifies the meaning of "herrings").
To begin with, the statement "A CARDINAL does not modify the meaning of whatever it counts. An ORDINAL does, to a specific, particular instance of the noun" is pure nonsense. In both instances the number is used as an adjective that modifies the meaning of the noun. However, let's ignore the glaring error here and look back at the text. The other example I provided from Zachariah 14 and Genesis 1 also included an "CARDINAL" number in both texts. The literal Hebrew of Genesis 1:5 reads "one day/יום אחד" rather than "first day/יום ראשון." In Hebrew the names of the days of the week i.e. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc... are the same as the days in Genesis 1 with a few exceptions Sunday is "first day/יום ראשון" rather than "one day/יום אחד", Friday is "day of the sixth/יום הששי" rather than "sixth day/יום ששי"and Saturday is "Shabbat/שבת" rather than "the seventh day/היום השביעי." Additionally, except for the seventh day and maybe the sixth day, all of the days of Genesis one are indefinite i.e. "a second day", "a third day", etc... if we assume the article used in "The seventh day" was placed there to draw are attention to the lack of an article in the other days then, as some theologians have suggested, there may even be gaps between the days of Creation. If we were to accept your proposition that only days with ORDINAL numbers require a literal 24 hour definition, but days with CARDINAL numbers can specify an undefined period of time then the we must assume that the unusual switch between CARDINAL numbers and ORDINAL numbers in Gen. 1 was God's way of drawing attention to the fact that the FIRST day of creation was an undefined period of time i.e. kind of a modified GAP theory? The problem of simply inventing Hebrew grammar rules to try and add support for a particular interpretation is that these invented and fictitious rules of Hebrew grammar ALWAYS create even greater hermeneutic problems when applied to verses found elsewhere in Scripture.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/14/2009 7:10:54 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 9:00:18 AM
|
|
|
mikeman2
Posts: 155
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
Why don't you take the early part of Genesis literally?
Please explain.
I have debated this many times on this forum. The most compelling explanation I have run into are from a litreal standpoint is from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Basically he uses his own scientific knowledge, because he is a scientist, and the writings of pre-modern science rabbis to point out that these ancient rabbis read and understood the original Hebrew translation of Genesis to mean that it was not a literal 6 days. Basically, they came up with the notion that creation was not a literal 6 days from passed down knowledge as well as their own expertise in the language. In short, his position is that the text is not taken literally enough. Your regurgitated KJV and limited knowledge of the Hebrew langauge is the problem.
_____________________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
-Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 9:12:07 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Basically he uses his own scientific knowledge, because he is a scientist, and the writings of pre-modern science rabbis to point out that these ancient rabbis read and understood the original Hebrew translation of Genesis to mean that it was not a literal 6 days.
How does he define "the original Hebrew translation of Genesis"?
What evidence does he provide to support the idea that the "ancient rabbis" understood that the Genesis account required a non-literal understanding of the text?
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 10:11:13 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Original: Benelchi
If we were to accept your proposition that only days with ORDINAL numbers require a literal 24 hour definition, but days with CARDINAL numbers can specify an undefined period of time...
Hi Benelchi,
Sir, you are mistaken again. I made no such proposition. I was only pointing out that your "proof by examples" against the use of ordinal numbers actually provided no such examples. My assertion of cardinal vs ordinal, while true, is actually irrelevant towards pointing out that you provided no example of the use of an ordinal day with a generally accepted translation for an indefinite period of time.
But even in your example of a cardinal case, Zec 14:7-9, you are mistaken. If you had included verses 5-6 (more context), it would be apparant to all readers that the "one day" is referring to that unique 24-hour day when "the Lord my God will come", not the duration of His occupancy, on a day only "known to the Lord".
quote:
The problem of simply inventing Hebrew grammar rules to try and add support for a particular interpretation is that these invented and fictitious rules of Hebrew grammar ALWAYS create even greater hermeneutic problems when applied to verses found elsewhere in Scripture.
This is something disturbing to me that I've picked up on in many of your posts. What is your position here? Where are we (the world) to get our hermeneutics as to understand what Hebrew says? Do you believe Hebrew has no rules, or that for some reason only you know them? What is your source?
True, I've taken what groups like AiG have published, but also try to check out their claims against 3rd party authoratative sources. Unfortunately, you are not such a source (to me) since you are just a name on a blog. But when I look at Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, I read this:
Strong's Hebrew #3117
3117 éׄåí, éׄåí [yowm /yome/] n m. From an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT 852; GK 3427 and 3428; 2274 occurrences; AV translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles + 1697” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full 8 always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. 1 day, time, year. 1a day (as opposed to night). 1b day (24 hour period). 1b1 as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 1b2 as a division of time. 1b2a a working day, a day’s journey. 1c days, lifetime (pl.). 1d time, period (general). 1e year. 1f temporal references. 1f1 today. 1f2 yesterday. 1f3 tomorrow.
Is Strong's Lexicon just wrong in your opinion? Are the "Brown-Driver-Briggs" and "Koehler & Baumgartner" lexicons commonly referenced by AiG just wrong too? What authoratative source supports your position?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 10:58:49 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
Original: Benelchi
If we were to accept your proposition that only days with ORDINAL numbers require a literal 24 hour definition, but days with CARDINAL numbers can specify an undefined period of time...
Hi Benelchi,
Sir, you are mistaken again. I made no such proposition. I was only pointing out that your "proof by examples" against the use of ordinal numbers actually provided no such examples. My assertion of cardinal vs ordinal, while true, is actually irrelevant towards pointing out that you provided no example of the use of an ordinal day with a generally accepted translation for an indefinite period of time.
But even in your example of a cardinal case, Zec 14:7-9, you are mistaken. If you had included verses 5-6 (more context), it would be apparant to all readers that the "one day" is referring to that unique 24-hour day when "the Lord my God will come", not the duration of His occupancy, on a day only "known to the Lord".
Not only is it NOT "apparent to all readers" but your interpretation is not even apparent to those who translated this text from Hebrew into English. This is why many translations have chosen to translate this as a "unique day" and NOT "one day" (the NLT translates this as "continuous day").
quote:
quote:
The problem of simply inventing Hebrew grammar rules to try and add support for a particular interpretation is that these invented and fictitious rules of Hebrew grammar ALWAYS create even greater hermeneutic problems when applied to verses found elsewhere in Scripture.
This is something disturbing to me that I've picked up on in many of your posts. What is your position here? Where are we (the world) to get our hermeneutics as to understand what Hebrew says? Do you believe Hebrew has no rules, or that for some reason only you know them? What is your source?
Menheham Mansoor's Hebrew Grammar.
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar.
Waltke's Hebrew Grammar.
S.R. Driver's works on Hebrew Grammar.
NIDOTTE
etc....
Can you cite one reputable Hebrew scholar or Hebrew grammar that supports any of YOUR crazy idea's about how Hebrew grammar works?
quote:
True, I've taken what groups like AiG have published, but also try to check out their claims against 3rd party authoratative sources. Unfortunately, you are not such a source (to me) since you are just a name on a blog. But when I look at Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, I read this:
Strong's Hebrew #3117
3117 éׄåí, éׄåí [yowm /yome/] n m. From an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT 852; GK 3427 and 3428; 2274 occurrences; AV translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles + 1697” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full 8 always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. 1 day, time, year. 1a day (as opposed to night). 1b day (24 hour period). 1b1 as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 1b2 as a division of time. 1b2a a working day, a day’s journey. 1c days, lifetime (pl.). 1d time, period (general). 1e year. 1f temporal references. 1f1 today. 1f2 yesterday. 1f3 tomorrow.
Is Strong's Lexicon just wrong in your opinion? Are the "Brown-Driver-Briggs" and "Koehler & Baumgartner" lexicons commonly referenced by AiG just wrong too? What authoratative source supports your position?
Both Strong's and BDB demonstrate that 'YOM' can be understood as a literal 24 hour day or an indefinite period of time. I have no problem with the definition provided by Strong's or BDB, the problem I have is with the YEC contention that 'YOM' as used in Genesis 1 EXCLUDES the possibility of an indefinite period of time when EVERY Hebrew lexicon (including Strong's and BDB) include this definition. To say that it CANNOT EVER mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day is just as dishonest as saying that it MUST NOT mean a literal 24 hour day; no Hebrew reference supports either contention.
FYI - Strong's is one reference that I rarely use, not because it is inaccurate, but because it is extremely limited. It does not provide the grammar notes in the definition about VERB or NOUN constructions that are critical to understanding the Hebrew text. For example, Strong's will list the definitions of eat, devour, feed, be fed, digest, etc.. for the Hebrew verb אכל; however, there is no indication in Strong's that every one of these definitions requires a different form of the verb i.e. Eat (qal), devour (piel), feed (hiphil), 'to be fed' (hophil), digest (hitpiel). Without looking at the text where a specific instance is used and seeing the construction i.e. what auxiliary letters have been added to the root to form the conjugation in a particular case, the appropriate definition cannot be known. References like BDB are much better because they do group the definitions by Hebrew construction, so when a particular construction is encountered in the text the definition of THAT PARTICULAR construction can be identified in the lexicon. One of the biggest abuses of Strong's (or even BDB by those who don't understand Hebrew) is the tendency to pick the definition that one "likes best" even when that Hebrew grammar excludes that definition as a possibility.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/15/2009 11:08:35 AM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
