I like/find intriguing the suggestion in the “Space Trilogy” that the angels “speaking” is essentially directly manipulating the brain, rather than the air in between.
1 Like
Okay, I will, even though I don’t expect to make a difference in your position.
- What’s the probability that the Greek words, written for a Hellenic literate audience after Jesus’ resurrection, in Mark 10:6, i.e. “ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς” are Jesus’ justification for “a literal 24-hour per day, 6-day creation interpretation and understanding of Genesis 1”?
- Keep in mind that the Greek words mean: “From the creation’s/foundation’s/institution’s beginning, male and female He made them” What does that mean? To me it means the roots of the issue that the Pharisees put to Jesus “to test him” go way back to the first male and female.
- The context of Jesus’ response was the Pharisee’s question about divorce, not how many hours and days God spent in creating everything.
- The Pharisees asked Jesus: “Is divorce lawful?”
- Jesus asked: “What did Moses say?”
- The Pharisees answered: “Moses permitted it.”
- Jesus responded: "Moses permitted it because of the hardness of your hearts**. But "*from the beginning, the roots of marriage have been in the fact that males and females aren’t born joined and married: they started out as separate individuals, and the male leaves “Mommy” and “Daddy”, and commits his life and future to his wife; and they cement that bond by becoming “one flesh”.
- So tell me where do you see a 6 24-hour day creation in that exchange be tween Jesus and the Pharisees? 'Cause I sure can’t see it.
- And if you can’t tell me without playing fast and loose with Mark 10:6, I have to ask: “What’s your point in citing Mark 10:6? You wouldn’t be suggesting that Jesus was justifying a “6 24-hour day” interpretation of Genesis 1, would you?” Because if you are, stand back because I’ll stamp the dust off my sandals before leaving this thread.
3 Likes
This can’t be stressed strongly enough. When YECs quote verses such as Mark 10:6 to try and argue for a young earth, they are taking those verses egregiously out of context.
But then again, you need to remember the two fundamental rules of YEC exegesis:
- Any verse of Scripture that makes any allusion to any part of Genesis, no matter how tenuous or what the context, is, by definition, an insistence on a young earth, a single planet-wide Flood as the source of the fossil record, dinosaurs on the Ark, non-evolution, and Adam and Eve having been the only two humans in existence at the beginning.
- Any verse of Scripture that calls into question the ultimate necessity of a young earth, a single planet-wide Flood as the source of the fossil record, dinosaurs on the Ark, non-evolution, and Adam and Eve having been the only two humans in existence at the beginning, is, by definition, taken out of context.
5 Likes
Ya know? I think your #1 and #2 just about sums up Young Earth Creationism.
2 Likes
I feel elated that this person realizes that God’s Word should be the ultimate authority. Even if it is referring to something that the Bible is not specifically written.
Since God has told us that “ALL SCRIPTURE” is His, and from Him, we have good reason to consider that if God gives us information, that it will be the truth.
And since the Creation week, is not only mentioned in the book of Genesis, but also in other books of the Old Testament and also the New Testamen, with Christ especially speaking as though the Creation story was historically accurate, we have reason to reject any one, even scientists, that contradict what God says.
And this is especially true, since there are other sources that also support the recent creation.
1 Like
Which precise ones are you thinking of? I can think of a few possibilities.
3 Likes
How so? Here is your Hosea interpretation, using “small interval of time” in place of “yom”.
After two SMALL INTERVALS OF TIME he will make us alive; on (not “during”) the third SMALL INTERVAL OF TIME he will raise us up that we may live in his sight.
Why TWO small intervals of time? What happens between the two? In what way are the two small intervals distinct from each other? And for God’s sake, why are they DEAD so that God will have to make them alive again after these intervals? What was this third small interval of time on which they not only started living again, but were RAISED UP to life?
I assert that there is NO instance in the entire Bible where a numerical value and/or evening/morning is used to modify “day”, and it results in “day” meaning something other than a literal 12 or 24 hour day.
You have offered ONE SINGLE instance from Hosea as the ONE and ONLY exception to that norm in the entire Bible. I have countered your interpretation with a prominent commentator (there are others) who sees the Hosea statement as an obvious prophetic reference to the death and resurrection of Christ…
“After two days will He revive us (or quicken us, give us life,) in the third day He will raise us up - The Resurrection of Christ, and our resurrection in Him and in His Resurrection, could not be more plainly foretold. The prophet expressly mentions ‘two days,’ after which life should be given, and a ‘third day, on’ which the resurrection should take place. What else can this be than the two days in which the Body of Christ lay in the tomb, and the third day, on which He rose again?” - Barnes
Now you INSIST that it MUST refer to something in Hosea’s time on earth. But you do it with the sole intention of claiming that, therefore, the six days of creation (which, unlike Hosea’s statement included evening/morning along with the numbers and were explicitly EQUATED to six literal days by God Himself) could also be “six small intervals of time”. Is that the plan?
I offer you (and everyone else here) a quick test…
- Joshua 6:2-15… Then Yahweh said to Joshua… March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days… On the seventh day, march around the city seven times…
Is there any scriptural reason to suspect that God is not talking to Joshua about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
- Exodus 20:9-10… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work…
Is there any scriptural reason to suspect that God is not talking to Moses and the Israelites about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
- Exodus 20:11… For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Is there any scriptural reason to suspect that God is not talking to Moses and the Israelites about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
If anyone answers “No” to any of the questions, please present that scriptural reason and why it would apply to one and not also the others. Thanks.
Okay… so you saw a large deposit of sediment that was laid down rapidly by water - in which was a bunch of dead marine organisms. And you’ve been TOLD that some of these dead things signify a particular time period, right? Have “index fossils” ever been found outside of their assigned epochs before? And what percentage of the earth do you estimate has been rigorously scoured by paleontologists, or geologists in general? Maybe 0.00000000000000000000000006%?
Para, you’re not making the groundbreaking argument that you think you are. I can’t even believe your latter statement about mollusks. We’ve experienced many floods and hurricanes, and I can’t remember ever reading about the poor mollusks that were dashed to pieces as a result of having sediment dumped on top of them.
What you describe is EXACTLY what I’d expect from a huge worldwide flood. Billions of dead things buried within MILES (not just meters) of sediments that were laid down very rapidly by water all over the world.
How could you possibly know such a thing?
Also, how have you personally been able to measure any particular rate of decay and determine a “half life”? I’m interested in a brief explanation of the tools and processes you used. Thanks.
I realize that the description of our world that God gave to Moses is the theme of all ancient cosmology… just like most ancient cultures have an account of the worldwide flood. What has John Walton determined? Give me the gist.
Do they support the unquestionable moral rightness of the Heresy of Peor?
Who decides the parameters of the error bars?
All I truly need is the Bible - and the knowledge of the UNDENIABLE FACT that there isn’t one single piece of actual empirical scientific evidence in the history of the world for which the ONLY possible explanation is big bang/deep time uniformitarianism/evolution. Every single thing we know and can verify scientifically aligns with the Bible. There are no exceptions.
Jammy, I’ve argued against your objections for years… using the same scientific data that your side uses.
I witnessed Mary Schweitzer announce the discovery of soft tissue. I saw through her microscope as she stretched this still pliable tissue. I watched how academia viciously attacked her, saying she must have contaminated her own samples, and many other things to discredit her. I noticed how everyone with a bone in their museum drawer started breaking and cutting them, looking for, and finding this same still pliable tissue. I pondered on the fact that nobody had ever thought to look for it before Schweitzer’s accidental discovery. Why not? We all knew why not, Jammy. Then I watched as academia, backed into a corner, had no option but to admit that which they had just vehemently tried to deny. I watched in horror as Mary herself was tasked with being the one who discovered that - lo and behold - iron acts as a formaldehyde that can preserve soft tissue for millions and even billions of years. I suspected that this was the price Mary had to pay for breaking academia. And I suspect that she was given a “silver or lead” choice to make. And then I watched as “dinosaur soft tissue” became as if it had always been a normal expectation, and that nobody should even be surprised by it. And finally, I watched as it went from “dinosaur soft tissue” to “extant REMNANTS of soft tissue” that really isn’t “soft tissue” after all.
I know how the game is played, Jammy. I’ve Googled “millions of years earlier than thought” countless times to find the next new “scientific discovery that sheds new and important light on” this, that, or the other. I spent YEARS having these discussions. And I became bored with them because your side cannot possibly lose, Jammy. Why? Because your side MAKES the rules, and can CHANGE them anytime my side scores a single point.
“What? You’ve found a Cenozoic index fossil in a layer determined to be Cambrian? No problem. We’ll just write an article about how this species is now known to have existed ‘millions of years earlier than thought’ to take care of it.”
It never ends, dude.
Those discussions all end up with your side saying, “Dinosaurs! 65 million years ago! Proven by radiometric dating that can’t be wrong because of error bars! No real scientist disagrees!”
Well guess what? The Bible disagrees. And that’s what I came here to discuss - encouraged by BioLogos’ Pete Enns article about the firmament. So let’s get back to you showing me how six days in the Bible aligns with 13.7 billion years of Scientism.
That’s an anachronism.
Your arguments boil down to “My understanding of the Bible is correct and yours is not.” That is equivalent to your saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” and “Yes I am” and “No you’re not.” But you haven’t shown yourself capable of answering what is the matter with the understandings shown in multiple fairly simple examples above.
Again, try and tell us what is wrong with this argument (you never even made a stab at it that I can see):
3 Likes
NO. The small interval of time is the three days. This is a prediction of what will happen to Israel if they fail to repent. Try actually reading the text.
Well you have moved the goal posts. The YEC rule is “a ordinal with yom always refers to a 24 hour day.”
The context is certainly clear that this is Hosea speaking to the Israelites so the initial meaning has to “refer to something in Hosea’s time on earth”. And if you want to argue what the words mean it is that initial meaning you must address.
I notice you failed to mention the everlasting seventh day of creation, which is certainly not a 24 hour day.
And the reason for the sabbath as given in Deuteronomy 5:14 (no mention of the creation week)
1 Like
What are you talking about? We’ve been teaching the comically flawed idea (not scientific theory) of evolution to grade school children for decades. How much biology and genetics education have they had?
Gen 1 says God created Adam from “the dust of the earth” - and the non-biologist Israelites were able to believe it - even if they didn’t understand that mankind really is comprised of the elements of the earth. God also distinguished the flesh body from “the breath of life” - letting us know that “life” is completely different than the elemental body in which something lives, right? After all, if you put a frog in a blender, all the same physical stuff is there - but life is gone. Oh… and it won’t spring up again via abiogenesis either.
You skipped right over my point that God didn’t have to get into the specifics in order to tell the TRUTH to His children. But let me tweak Gen 1 for you. Instead of man being made from the dust of the earth…
Then God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures.” And it was so. Then God said, “Let the living creatures of the waters produce creatures that creep on the earth.” And it was so. Then God said, “Let the creatures that creep on the earth produce creatures that move along the ground on all fours, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. Then God said, “Let the wild animals produce creatures that walk on two legs.” And it was so. And then God said, “Let the creatures that walk on two legs produce Man, both male and female.” And it was so.
Not so hard, bness.
Okay. But before you go, just present for me that one piece of scientific evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for our world and the living things in it REQUIRES big bang, deep time uniformitarianism, and common descent evolution. Thanks.
Not quite. I believe by faith that Jesus existed as the Son of God sent down from heaven. I believe by Jesus that scripture cannot be broken. Therefore I also believe by faith that the Bible is the written word of God, much of it directly inspired by God, and some of it even spoken by God through His prophets and other servants.
As for the reason I came to this site… I already said I was encouraged to come here by the honesty of Pete Enns - who doesn’t believe in a solid firmament, but is honest enough to acknowledge that this is in fact what the Bible teaches. I guess I hoped to find others like him here.
But to paraphrase Jesus… Don’t think I came here to bring peace. No, but a sword… a division between those who are honest enough to say, “The Bible is just plain wrong on this subject” and those who pretend that the Bible can somehow be ALIGNED with the stories of Scientism.
I hope to encourage those in the former group that the Bible ISN’T wrong, and there’s nothing within the realm of science that actually suggests it is. And to encourage the latter group to give this “alignment” idea their very best shot, and see if their arguments stand up to scrutiny.
Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. How do you explain that?
3 Likes
Remember the first Vatican council, aka Vatican I? The pope declared that he (and future popes) were infallible in matters of faith! It’s pretty hard to argue with that. Simply declare oneself infallible…
1 Like
How can a C6th BCE political foundation myth be wrong?
1 Like
Because the young earth organisations themselves admitted it. The calculations were done by none other than Dr Andrew A Snelling, PhD, the Director of Research for Answers in Genesis. They were published in the RATE project technical report – the conclusions of a $1.25 million, eight year project run by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society that was supposed to be the ultimate research project that would debunk radiometric dating once and for all.
Here is the link to where he did the calculations:
What do you mean “who decides the parameters of the error bars?” Nobody decides any parameters when calculating error bars. The only parameters used in calculating error bars are the actual measurements that are taken: nothing more, nothing less. You plug them into a formula called the sample standard deviation, which tells you how much they are spread out. It is a standard formula that is exactly the same in every area of science, it doesn’t make any assumptions whatsoever, it only has one interpretation, and there is nothing “uniformitarian” or “evolutionist” or “secularist” whatsoever about it.
For what it’s worth, it looks like this:
\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i - \bar{x})^2}{n-1} }
If only it were that simple. There is a very good reason why you need to understand science properly before you can challenge a scientific theory. You must challenge what scientists actually do and teach in reality, and not an inaccurate cartoon caricature of it. You also need to make sure that any evidence that you cite in support of your challenge is reported accurately and interpreted honestly.
People who believe that “all they truly need is the Bible” in discussions about science and faith tend to be the kind of people who describe evolution as “a cat turning into a dog.” Or who claim that “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils.” Or that the Bible’s own demands for accurate and honest weights and measures can be fobbed off as “out of context” just because they don’t involve buying and selling – an argument that is tantamount to demanding the right to flat-out lie.
That’s simply because “extant REMNANTS of soft tissue” is a more accurate description, in layman’s terms, of what Mary Schweitzer actually found, and originally reported as having found in the first place. And no, she didn’t change her story on this one. The only people who touted her findings as “dinosaur soft tissue” in that kind of way were (a) tabloid journalists writing clickbait headlines trying to titillate us into reading articles that might just suggest that Jurassic Park might one day become a reality, and (b) YECs quote mining said clickbait headlines to try and support their conspiracy theory that millions of scientists worldwide had been systematically throwing out and fabricating evidence on an industrial scale for nearly two hundred years.
As for iron – that wasn’t a case of being “given a ‘silver or lead’ choice to make” nor was it anything to do with “paying the price for breaking academia.” She simply went into her lab and did some experiments. To portray that as if it were some sort of “rescuing device” or being “given a ‘silver or lead’ choice to make” or “paying the price for breaking academia” is at best ignorance and misunderstanding, and at worst dishonest.
It’s called measurement, Mike. Measurement. And the Bible doesn’t disagree with measurement at all. On the contrary, it says this:
“¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.” (Deuteronomy 25:13-16)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any interpretation of Genesis 1, any creation model, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution must obey these verses. If you don’t understand what error bars are, if you think that they involve “parameters” that someone arbitrarily “decides,” you are not going to be able to identify what obeys those verses and what doesn’t.
Mike, can I please give you a bit of advice – speaking as a brother in Christ – you’re in way over your head. You quite clearly have numerous misconceptions and misunderstandings about what science is, how it works, why it works the way it does, and more importantly what you need to do if you want to challenge it. The result is that you just come across as if you’re shouting and trying to weaponise the Bible to bully and intimidate other Christians into going along with you. And that just makes you – and the Bible itself – look bad. And that benefits nobody.
7 Likes