That is a bit mind changing, I never read that before, thanks, and it might be true that it is more of a poetic story…however, it still doesn’t change my view.
It is too specific and too parallel to be written off in my opinion as ‘just poetic’. If it was just poetic, it would say, and light was there, then God made the starts, then God made the earth, then ect… There is no poetic need or meaning to give it a first day, second day ect.
For me that is too specific to be unnecessary. Though I know in Numbers they also use specific numbers that probably aren’t exact, they do round, but you can’t round 1 day to be too much more than 100, or that isn’t exactly rounding. And it parallels many other 7 day events of the Bible, many of which are not argued at all.
I find it interesting that everyone take it so literal when the Bible mentions 7 day events, except in Genesis.
Soley to reconcile. That is why it is my theory. Some reconcile it by their theories of interpretation, I reconcile it by my theory of ‘time warp’.[quote=“Bill_II, post:53, topic:36495”]
No my argument is the writings say they are not literal history. If you take them to be literal that is your choice and it is not supported by the texts.
I would argue that it isn’t supported, by means of parallel importance and repetitiveness.
That is a good point. However again, due to ( I don’t believe anyone argues) literal 7 days occuring in many other parts of the texts, I do believe this.
I think you are confusing my theory (probably my fault). I think God created the universe in 13.7 bil years…but since He is outside of time, He could really assign any time He wanted to it. I believe He assigned 7 days because the whole purpose of His creation is for humans, and 7 days works well for His designed/engineered beings. Much like if you engineer and engine, you know the best operating specs.
It sounds to me like God created the heavens and the earth, and all things and animals over 13.7 bil years (according to the current laws of physics as we know them). Then one day, He wanted to create humans to subdue and rule over it. Being that the entire purpose of this universe is for human, He wants 7 days to have a special meaning for us (as He uses it over and over again literally), He decided that (the one outside of time who assigns time to things) said, I am going to say 7 days.
So the 7 days isn’t something that is confining by God, this is a number He chose as his ‘operating specs’ of mankind. Later He changed those operating specs from ~900 years to ~120 years. In choosing this number, God made this number perfect, and anything short of it, especially a 6, an unholy number, always falling short of 7, repeatedly, like 666 (metaphor for 6’s repeating for eternity), it will never be a seven, a metaphor or symbol of anything unholy, holy being God, and unholy being anything unworthy of God.
I should open anther topic for this one, I am interested in learning more about it, but I am not even sure what Biologos believes on this, though I tried to do some reading. I have a few specific questions on this.[quote=“r_speir, post:61, topic:36495”]
T^4 = a^2 tH / 2 tCMB
I assume this is trolling/mocking me? But most here are far more educated than I am. If this is mocking me, I don’t think that is along the lines of why this site was created nor “gracious dialogue”, but I have a thick skin, so I don’t really mind. If you are serious…than again, way above my head.
I’m sorry, I do not understand that explanation of this entirely, however I get the reason why you are explaining it to me. But your intent behind this has brought me to rethinking my evolutionary stance, but I am trying to unde stand EC and need to open a new thread to ask a few questions.
I got that number as a ‘representativ’ number of the YEC. I am not saying as a fact, I am simply stating with the beliefs of a YEC 7 days, then you can use 4-10k years range.
Not sure if still mocking? Or if you are genuine?
Depending on different reference points, it can be. Just like we are relative to the earth, still on the couch, but relative to the sun 23,000 mph.
That is an interesting theory. I could go along with this. It marries with my other current beliefs.[quote=“godsriddle, post:74, topic:36495”]
See Genesis 47:9 where Jacob says the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than those of the fathers.
This could mean many things though. Worse because more and more people becoming corrupted and having to live in a world with more corrupt people. And time being shorter because God was limiting the ‘general’ lifespan to 120 where as the fathers were in the 900’s.
This could also be poetic to say, being born is relatively short, and something else takes a lifetime ( a long time). There are no numbers used, or time as you said, just eons. I am not saying you might not be right, I just don’t think those verses are good evidence to say so.
Pretty much, yeah. The day humans came, we needed to use a time reference that within our ‘specs’,
no appearance, actually are that far, no more than local time.
pretty much what the Bible and historians say literally happened.
I agree. If we assume the same time reference point that is used today, has always been, that is assumption dependent evidence. However my personal theory is assumption based evidence that the Genesis was literal. I am not saying my theory is any more true or better than EC, but on the flip side, I do not think EC is any more superior than my opinon either.
This is good to do, however you yourself are also making assumptions on the literary type used when you come up with your theory. Be careful to think that you came to your own conclusions via a superior method and look down at us who did the same thing.
Pretty much, yeah. All though I realize the tongue and cheek approach of your post, I feel it is important (since I am agreeing with it) to differentiate a few things. I don’t think God was ‘bored’ with the one part. However I do think He wanted a literal 7 days to play a large role in our lives, so in terms of our reference point, yes, fast forward. I think that is a better tongue and cheek analogy than an explanation.
I don’t see why not?
But the entire EC reasoning is all using assumptions (of literary genre) as well. It is requiring all of us to come up with some kind of assumptions to develop our theories. Or else we would all have facts, and I don’t think God wanted us to have facts on certain things. I can’t claim to know why, but His ways are above my ways. Why doesn’t God come down and show Himself outright to everyone of us? First because we would all die if to see His face, but He could make Himself obviously known in scientifically and observation ways, but He chooses not to. Perhaps it is because He arguably already made Himself obviously known to us (Romans 1:19). and He only wants those who want to know Him and seek Him to find Him? I don’t know why He made it so seemingly un-knowable of how the universe was made.
I know God is big on humility and pride. Maybe He knew science would have a 13.7 bil explanation that would seem to refute His 7 day claim and He wanted those who were seeking the truth in faith, rather than those who were trying to fit their scientific beliefs with His words. I don’t know, this is all maybes.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do like to learn and debate on the merits of a theory or the validity of an argument.
[quote=“godsriddle, post:91, topic:36495”]This is why we must accept the grammar of the text instead of interpretting it with science.
God never lies in word or action. What he says is what we see.
I don’t think anyone here is claiming He does lie. We all just have different understandings/assumptions of certain literary genre’s used. I think it is dangerously prideful and arrogant to claim you have the true and only correct interpretation of the Bible. I think a more humble appraoch would be, this is what I think and here is why. Rather than, this is why you are all wrong (passively), because (insert slightly relevant Biblical wisdom that we all agree with).
But I do like your theory, I don’t know enough education to fully grasp some of the things you are saying, but it sounds fairly legit to me, I like it. Unfortunately, until I attain the knowledge or education that some of you have, I have to rely on Christians that know this stuff and sum it up for me. Or I can use a consensus of people to confirm what one other person said is accurate and have that person to sum it up for me. But I know there are too many that have a bias to try and have their paradigm fit the the ‘science’ rather than truly seeking the truth. I like when people admit association, and correlation, and (very few times) causation, and allow me to come to my own conclusions, since I have a lower IQ and/or education than many from here.
No change in speed of light required. Speed is distance over time. And time is not relative, or based on what your reference point, which for us, is what we know it to be. But if you changed the speed of time, you would no longer need to change the speed of light to achieve this.