I recently looked into trying to date when the Sabbath was instituted in Judaism compared to when Genesis in its current form is dated to see if it can be established that the seven-day work week in Israel pre-dated the narrative, but it was not a clear-cut thing. One thing that was interesting was that although surrounding cultures had seven day weeks, the Sabbath (seventh day of rest) was uniquely Jewish and nothing similar is attested in other ANE cultures.
3 Likes
According to Wikipedia, the ancient Romans had a 8 day cycle, with 7 day week coming in around the time of Augustus and both used for a while. Again with sun (Sunday) moon (Monday) and 5 planets being incorporated.
Trying to figure out how you could divide up a month into 8 day “weeks” led to the realization that there is more than one way of calculating the length of a month. The 29.53 day length is measured with respect to the sun, i.e. how long the moon takes to come back to the same position respect to the line joining the earth and sun. But perhaps the more natural way to measure the length of the month is to do it with respect to the background stars which is more than two days shorter - 27.32 days. From this length you can then round up to 28 days or down to 27, the latter of which supports dividing the month up into three “weeks” of nine. The connection to an eight day week is something the Celts did based on nine nights with eight days in-between them.
Interesting. Kind of neat, because in Hausa (the Chadic African language that surrounded us as we grew up in Niger), the word for “seven” is “saba’in,” and Saturday is “Asabar” much like Hebrew. But since Hausa is about 1/4 influenced by Arabic, that makes sense–being related to Hebrew.
Which is a fallacy of the false dilemma.
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
Another option is that God created in 6 days and rested on the seventh, giving the 7 day week which was passed through Noah to Babel and then generally followed but with some nations adopting a different “weekly” cycle.
But since the Hebrews were enslaved for hundreds of years and would have been forced to follow the Egyptian calendar it is surprising they didn’t use the 10 day week.
What? Flat Earth? Where did that come from?
No what is amazing is if they have lived in Egypt for hundreds of years and didn’t pick up anything from the Egyptians. Like what was Moses’s Egyptian name? He had to have had one didn’t he? No Egyptian loan words. There is actually nothing to show they actually did live there for hundreds of years.
We are told the seventh day of rest was to commemorate God leading the Hebrews out of Egypt. So which is correct?
1 Like
[quote=“Relates, post:6, topic:40226”]
Hello Roger,
Thank you for the complete explanation of the sabbath that represents the seventh day of the Creation week and I thank the other posters for their input.
.
The reason I brought the sabbath issue up is to express it as a reminder that God created six days as indicated in the scriptures, and to express its connection to the six day creation week where God rested the seventh. What reminder do we have that we evolved over millions of years even if seen as God’s action?
Moreover, today is in the year 2019. This year is the number (circa) after the Savior promised in Genesis 3:15 was born and died for your and my redemption. The BC / AD division of time is thus another reminder of Genesis account and the fall that occurred during the account. But the supposed evolution account has no explanation even of the fact that man fell let alone any mention of hope from the consequences of the fall we experience daily.
Finally, may I ask out of curiosity why does it appear so terribly important that we must believe the supposed evolutionary account? Evolution is usually spoken of as a theory and the Bible states the creation account point blank.
ELD
First, there is no evolutionary account. The way most who are EC types interpret the Genesis creation account is that it does not support nor deny evolution, but its purpose is theologic, not scientific (or even historic, though there is more variation of belief there).
Now, why is it important to accept evolution? From my standpoint, it is important because it is a truthful expression of the data at hand, and thus we must deal with it if we are to better understand creation, and ultimately the Creator. I’ll leave it there, but will get back when I have time,
4 Likes
You’re right - there is nothing in evolutionary theory remotely about this. Or about calligraphy. Or about how to fix my car. The theory does explain a lot [about the hereditary development of life from much simpler (but already existing) life to now], but no theory is a tool to explain everything, despite the best efforts of some to present it that way.
Certainly nothing about that in evolutionary theory either. Right again!
I wouldn’t say that believers around here are calling that important. I think the main drum that gets lots of pounding around here is that it is important not to make other people’s access to the gospel of Christ contingent on them believing correct or accepted things about evolution or science generally. We’re about removing stumbling stones around here - not creating more of them. The cross of Christ is a bitter offense enough for all of us to come to terms with - there is no other foundational cornerstone (including your’s or anybody else’s particular understanding of Genesis or anything else) that the Christian should be obliged to align with. Christ is sufficient. And when we are finally found in that sufficiency (or crushed by it), that is not an end, but just the beginning. We grow together and many of us find it unthinkable that the gospel should be packaged with injustice or falsehood. Yes, we can still be and are wrong about a good many things as believers, but when we discover that we should flee such chaff and pursue the truth doggedly, because our God is worthy of nothing less. That’s why so many believers find encouragement and support here.
7 Likes
Jesus said that God did not rest on the 7th day. Don’t you think that He was telling the truth?
Why do we need a reminder that we are evolved over millions of years?
The promise of God to Abraham has nothing to do with evolution.
The BC/AD break has nothing to do with evolution or creation. Original sin is a theological concept, not a scientific one.
The earth shows for the true glory, power, wisdom, and love of God. Limiting God’s Creation of only 6 days limits God. The true story shows how God is able to carry out God’s salvation history over billions of years.
God wants us to think and to grow in truth and knowledge. God called to subdue, to bring into knowledge God Creation as cre4ated in God’s Image to be God’s Stewards. AMEN
Hello Merwin,
Your post:
[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:26, topic:40226, full:true”]
I wouldn’t say that believers around here are calling that important. I think the main drum that gets lots of pounding around here is that it is important not to make other people’s access to the gospel of Christ contingent on them believing correct or accepted things about evolution or science generally. We’re about removing stumbling stones around here - not creating more of them. The cross of Christ is a bitter offense enough for all of us to come to terms with - there is no other foundational cornerstone (including your’s or anybody else’s particular understanding of Genesis or anything else) that the Christian should be obliged to align with. Christ is sufficient. And when we are finally found in that sufficiency (or crushed by it), that is not an end, but just the beginning. We grow together and many of us find it unthinkable that the gospel should be packaged with injustice or falsehood. Yes, we can still be and are wrong about a good many things as believers, but when we discover that we should flee such chaff and pursue the truth doggedly, because our God is worthy of nothing less. That’s why so many believers find encouragement and support here.
[/quote]
I only hope to help us guard against error that could cause drifting away from the sufficiency of Christ. An error in calculation of a formula renders it useless and possibly devastating. Such was the case of a failed Mars probe. Neither do we want error in the use of the “math book” for our ultimate destination. Life is a one-way street.
As we know that Exodus 20:11 tells us that God made heaven and earth in six days and not 5 trillion, 37 billion days, the links below should give insight to the answer to the question I ask by pointing to a man that thought the millions of years earth origin scenario was extremely important. He was among those that promoted it to be inculcated so that we all may be “encouraged” to be “open-minded” to accept it. He was a lawyer and not a scientist.
God of the Bible has the power of the spoken word to bring things to past quickly. Here are the links:
charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses
Let’s therefore please beware of serpentine science.
Earl
Why should science be subject to the Bible, anymore than the Bible be subject to science?
Science can not tell us how to be saved, nor faith tell us how to build an airplane or a computer.
1 Like
Some people want science to be dictated by the Bible, because those without faith in the Bible (but who simply use the Bible for their agenda) don’t want the Bible tested. They don’t want questions. Questions might get people to actually read the Bible and that could be really dangerous, since people might find out that the Bible doesn’t say what they claim after all.
Nearly everything in this entire article ironically is a lie. The field of geology is not based upon an invention to ‘free science from Moses,’ but a remarkably precise study of the features of the Earth. The global flood as a hypothesis to explain the earth’s geological features was rejected, not because of anti-Moses bias, but because a global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology.
4 Likes
Hello Relates,
@Relates
Why should science be subject to the Bible, anymore than the Bible be subject to science?Science can not tell us how to be saved, nor faith tell us how to build an airplane or a computer.
But truth lines up with truth does it not? It better! Science is our servant for truth in the natural and the Bible is our servant for truth in the natural and supernatural realms.
You say that faith (the bible?) cannot tell us how to build an airplane or a computer? Has the Bible any part in governing these affairs? To build an airplane or computer, measurements are required and the measurements are based on standards (they better be)! There is an institution called the NIST that operates on a $1.2 billion budget per year whose operation in maintaining standards is based on scriptures in the Bible of which it better not deviate! May I please ask any of you what those scriptures are? Please?
Moreover, conformance to Biblical truth is necessary and very helpful in the use of our gadgets given us by science. Is it not? It better be! Or would you prefer that someone murder you with a fancy high tech scientifically developed device? Even though we do not depend on the sciences for our salvation, it verifies much Biblical truth. Today’s science has proven the Jewish diet superior.
For you, Matt
@pevaquark,
The field of geology is not based upon an invention to ‘free science from Moses,’ but a remarkably precise study of the features of the Earth.
I like that! Thank you!
@pevaquark
The global flood as a hypothesis to explain the earth’s geological features was rejected, not because of anti-Moses bias, but because a global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology.
But here, you carried out Lyell’s exact mandate! How do you know that the global flood had no explanatory power to account for the earth’s geology? If you find info that proves contrary to your claim, would you believe it?
Earl
The early geologists were looking for proof of Noah’s flood. They were Christians and believed the Flood to be real. The problem they faced was they could find no evidence and kept finding evidence that the world was much older than 6,000 years. This is also pre-Darwin so they weren’t trying to support evolution.
Scientists actually have no problem accepting real evidence that goes against their claim. It is how science has worked for a very long time.
5 Likes
Which is what?
Because I’m familiar with things like plate tectonics and their rates of motion (present and historical), things like paleomagnetic strips, or geological strata or the fossil record, etc.
There is no evidence of a worldwide global flood just 4 kya, I’m sorry.
2 Likes
