Morphing Flight: Beyond Irreducible Complexity

Thanks for the ping.

Philosophy is not my thing and some of what you and The_Reader_David have been discussing has gone right over my head. However, I think a-g and bb would find this intriguing.

The only thing about about the literal 6 day creation that I have the most difficulty with is when creationists claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. I know someone who is fluent in Hebrew and he told me once, decades ago, that in the Hebrew, there is a change of tense between the first and second verses of Genesis one, indicating that an unknown amount of time passed between creation being spoken and God working on the earth to make it habitable.

I don’t have a problem with God creating the universe in 6 days with the appearance of age. I know the typical arguments that the evos use accusing God of deception for doing that, but what they fail to recognize is that creating with the appearance of age can be for sheer usefulness. Adam was created with the appearance of age, not to deceive, but as a practical matter. He had to in order for man to procreate. There’s simply no way of having a human grow from fertilized egg to adult without somewhere for that egg to grow.

I think that the forensic evidence found in the fossil record supports special creation. There are simply too many breaks and jumps in evolution with an appalling lack of intermediate forms to support the ToE as evos put it forth.

There is an interesting take on reconciling the apparent age of the universe with the literal six day creation and it has to do with time dilation. I find it intriguing and I do not think it at all compromises the integrity of Scripture.

The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

[[I know someone who is fluent in Hebrew and he told me once, decades ago, that in the Hebrew, there is a change of tense between the first and second verses of Genesis one,]]

That’s what that link i posted talekd about- there is a change (actually between verse 5 and verse 6 I beleive)

Basically, what the article was statign was that Yeah, there is the change, but there is a reason for the change (which is backed up by numerous other ‘lists’ throughout the bible) and htere is no reason to believe that the words “First day’ and “Day” meant anythign other than a literal 24 hour days becasue when describing lsits, it is common for hte writers to use a cardinal form to begin the list to establish that the list will be talking about, in this case, a literal 24 hour period, and then the following ordinals used will establish clearly that the cardinal word was speakign about 24 hours

Essentially there were two forms of the word used- the first was suppose4dly, accordign to long earth advocates, a a more ‘casual’ use of Day was used for the “First Day” whiel the following words for day were concise- in other words, since the first use didn’t coem otu and state a literal 24 hour period, a whole unbiblical hypothesis has arisen (in which whoel sectiosn of God’s word need to be ‘reinterpreted in order to fir a theistic evoltuionary scenario) which is inconsistant with hte scriptures- soem of hte reasosn beign the whole ‘Death and sin’ BEFORE the fall of man issue I brought up- (aNd once again, in order to accomodate the unbiblical hypothesis of long ages, Theistic evolutionists once again change God’s word to mean that there was physical death before the fall, but that God was onlty talkign about spiritual death if Adam ate the fruit- This too is inconsistant with God’s word)

The link I provided has the work Steven Boyd who also puts an end to the claim that Genesis is nothign but peotry- He did an exhastive reasearch into the matter and has proven that it is prose, not poetry- which is a claim often thrown at young earth creationists- again- just another attempt to deconstruct God’s word

As well, a definitive stuidy of the Hebrew doen by one Andrew Steinmann shows that there is no question the ‘First Day’ is meant ot convey a literal day, and Hebrew Scholars do not question the matter because htere is no basis for questioning it- the Article just goes on to show why htere is no reason to question that-

Basically, the conclusio n is that whenever there are lists of ordinal numbers (in which it is clearly speakign about 24 hour days) the cardinakl form of hte word is to be used IN THE BEGINNING of the list (that is important, because it establishes that the following words will describe what the FIRST use of the word means- thsi is proven out many times throuhgout scripture and is consistant with the Hebrew language)

His final conclusiosn o nthe matter are the following fro mthe l ink I gave previously:

“It has been my experience that those who question the normal historical narrative reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 tend to be my fellow evangelicals. Theological liberals recognize the text as saying that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. They see evangelicals who adopt alternative readings of the text as engaged in a form of suspect apologetics. I believe the liberal critique to be accurate. Where I differ from them, however, is that I believe the text is correct in what it is teaching. A more effective apologetic therefore lies in simply admitting what the text proclaims and showing that it has far more explanatory power than many people think. In that light, I am excited by the kind of research being conducted by CMI and likeminded creation science organizations. God means what He says and He did it just as Genesis says he did”

The premise of Kalomiros's essay (43 pages is not a book) is the Orthodox phronema, and with it the Orthodox approach to the Scriptures, which starts with Christ, and not the mere text.

I cited two Greek (St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa) and one Latin Father of the Church (Blessed Augustine), all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally -- though St. Basil after the remark I quoted early in his Hexameron comments throughout the rest of the book as if 'day' were literally a 'day' -- with no pressure for the modern secular world or Darwinism to doubt a literal reading. The tradition of the Kingdom of God as the "eighth and eternal day" and with it the idea that all of history lies within the seventh day, on which God rested from His work of creation, is very old, very well established in the Church's consciousness, was so for centuries before Charles Darwin's great-grandfather was born, and quite frankly opposed to a literal reading of "day" as a twenty-four hour period in the early chapters of Genesis.

The real problem with literal readings is that they don't exist: all words, all turns of phrase, are always subject to interpretation, and interpretations are colored by the cultural milieu of the reader. This is one reason we Orthodox make a point of reading Scripture in light of what the Church has thought and taught about its meaning down the centuries, with particular emphasis on the early Fathers who were closer in time and in external cultural milieu to Our Lord during His earthly ministry and His Holy Apostles. (The other is that the Church was the instrument of the Holy Spirit in completing the editorial process of selecting the canon of Scripture, and thus the Scriptures are the Church's books -- they were selected because the Church knew them to be true, when read as the Church read and reads them.)

Reading Genesis through the eyes of post-'Enlightenment' (note the scorn quotes, that name for the historical period is a demonic deception) rationalism, rather than the eyes of the Church, leads to misreading. (See my earlier comment about "literally true" meaning "communicating truth when read as if written by and for post-'Enlightenment' rationalists".) And it seems to be such a reading you are clinging to. Even Orthodox Christians like Fr. Seraphim Rose, who favor a more literal reading, the Church's use of the seventh and eighth days as non-literal days notwithstanding, read the text very differently than protestant six-day-literalists.

just another quick comment in anticipation of htose who claim there was death before the fall, and who point iot hingsl iek cell death, plant life death, bacterai death- These low life form deaths were not a part of the curse of the fall- the death spoken abotu by God was nephesh chayyah - death of vertebrates basically

and onem orep oint that long age creationists like to ignore is the fact that when the word yom is used to denote long periods of time, the context always backs that concept up- yet we do NOT see that in Geesis 1:5- 24- what we see is the context backign up the concept of a short period of time, and specifically a period that is described as literally day and night- Again- it is common i nthe Hebrew language to preface ordinals with a Cardinal- The Cardinal beign described by the ordinals that follow-

It is akin to stating “On the day I began life, it became clear to my folks that the second 24 hour day, the thrid day which included both night and day, and the fourth day which saw light and darkeness (as is common to a literal day), was goign to be a sheer joy for my Folks”

Note that I did NOT say “On the very first FIRST 24 HOUR DAY that my life began”, I simpyl said “ON THE DAY”- but the following descritions go on to describe what I meant by my first use of the word DAY- there is no reason to assume I was talking about anything other than 1 literal day- especially when hte followign context make it clear that I was describign the very next day and the days which followed- to interpret it any other way woudl be to pervert the original intent and one woudl have to force the rest of the sentence into a convoluted twisted explanation for why those days were different than the first day mentioned

Conclusion is that when the Hebrews Described DAY- then went on to follow it up with a dfescription of what DAY meant by describign what the successive DAYS stood for, the first use of hte word means the same- when the Hebrews used the word day without follwoign it up with descriptors, or followed with descriptors which made it clear IN CONTEXT that the Hebrews meant LONG PERIOD- then we can rightfully assume they meant LONG PERIODS OF TIME and htere is no reason to assume they meant anythign other than what they meant- However, the fellow I listed in previous post has foudn that the creation record does not follow the patterns used by the Hebrews when discussing long periods of time- isn’t even close to using hte same context- and no languages Scholar woudl think otherwise- only those tryign to fit millions.billions of years into the cvreation story woudl think so

[[all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally]]

I don’t care what their credentials were- the Greeks were scholars as well, as were the muslims back when- and many of them got the their scripture itnerpetatiosn all screwed up too-

[[is very old, very well established in the Church’s consciousness,]]

Now we are appealing to age as a reason to trust? Mithra is an ancient religion as well- a pagan religion- a pagan religion which influenced many peopel even up to the point of the desciples and the townspeople of that tiem who tried to infuse their ‘ancient pagan traditions’ in with Christianity- Paul had to chastise the Christians for trying to reconcile the two-

[[is very old, very well established in the Church’s consciousness,]]

You’ve still given no good reason to doubt that it meaqnt anythign other than a literal day whereas I’ve pointed to literature and writings that show why it needs to be read in the context in which it is written-

[[he real problem with literal readings is that they don’t exist: all words, all turns of phrase, are always subject to interpretation,]]

I see, so God’s word is not really the same ‘today, yesterday, and in the future- it’s open to itnerpretations? Well, with so many different itnerpretations, what is a person supposed to do? You keep appealing to ‘popularitry, and to ‘age’ as criteria for trusting soemone elses itnerpretations- yet I can cite hundreds of ancient itnerpretations and scholars whjo were also off their mark-

[[and interpretations are colored by the cultural milieu of the reader.]]

that is true- which is why Andrew Steinmann did his exhaustive study of the Hebrew i nregards to the creation record and came to the conclusion he did-

[[This is one reason we Orthodox make a point of reading Scripture in light of what the Church has thought and taught about its meaning down the centuries]]

That’sw swell- thjere still has been no explanation for why the first word for day shoudl be anythign other than a literal day- All you’ve basically implied thus far was that because soem folks in ancient church thought it meant long periods of time, it must have meant that’ without givign any evidence to back their belief up- (Perhaps Christ whispered that to them or to their fathers, or grandfathers and simpyl kept it secret from the public?)

[[And it seems to be such a reading you are clinging to.]]

Pssst- You’ve still provided no evidence for your claim- WhY woudl I possibly doubt that Gods meant anythign other than a literal 6 days especially when we learn that the Hebrews often wrote the cardinal and then the ordinal lsits when describign lists, and wrote them 1000’s of years before the church (see, I can appeal to age too)? Now the church and you come along and many 1000’s of yeasrs later and claim that using hte cardinal first to establish the importance of the precedence followed by the description of the precedence means somethign compeltelty different and claim that becauser it’s the church is ancient and because gthere wwere3 scholars who BELIEVED but who havent’ shown, that the cardinal must always pertain to long ages?

I’ll ask again- what is your evidence that the cardinal must mean long ages? Where is your evidence that there was death and sin before the fall of man? Insultign someoen because they ‘cling to’ somethign, which in your apparent opinion, is ‘old fashioned, unenlightened ignorant beleifs’ doeswn’t constitute evidence supporting your claim- appealing to age and credentials also isn’t evidence- ui’;ve provided links ot evidence showign why there is no reason to doubt that the cardinal use meant anythign other than 1 literal day, and all you provide is that soem i nthe early church BELIEVED that it must have meant long ages DESPITE evivdnece that refutes such a beleif-

Again- Did God, or Did God not staste that all of creation was cursed when man sinned and that death was to follow the curse? Did God not state that from Adam’s Rib He formed Eve? Where is the evidence that the cardinal MUST mean long ages when in reference to day i nthe creation record?

If you wish to thuink of me as an ignornat clinger with blinders on, then it shoudl be simpel enopugh for you to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt- so far all we’ve seen are appeals to age and credentials- I too can cite many impressive beleif systems based o nage and credentials- And I can cite cases of church Schisms where doctrines tore churches apart fro no good reason- If the churche’s and scholarse appealing to have evidence supportign their case, let’s present it here- but really, this conversation can go no further until we establish whether or not God was just kiddign when He said that Man woudl surely die and when He said all of creation was placed under the curse AFTER the fall- IF no death occured before the fall, then we will have to establish that species KINDs evovled for billiosn of years WITHOUT (not yelling- my cps are simpyl meant to stress key words) dying, as death was as we know from God’s word (unless there’s soem secret biblical knowledge I’m not aware of) that death was a result of sin and that man’s sin affected ALL of creation at that point

If we can’t establish that- then there’s no reason to say that the creation week was anythign other than a literal week- The only reason one coudl have to deconstruct God’s word, and to throw out passages of His word, and to twist other passages woudl be to support an beleif in theistic evoltuion- The only other reason apart from theistic evoltuion woudl be simpyl because oen beleives that thigns on earth that ‘look old’ are actually old- If you bleeive in special creation, but htink the earth is still old, then that is a whiole nother discussion- one i n which htere is plenty of scientific evidence and theory and hypotrhesis to refute beyond a reasonable doubt-

However, I’f you’re goign to try to convicne everyoen that God took ‘a long time’ to create the world (before creatign man and animals etc)- that a long time passed between day one and the daty man and animals and light etc were all created- or if you are goign to try to convince everyone that God began macroevoltuion ‘A long time before’ man arrived o nthe scene thanks to macroevolution- then you are goign to have to answer soem very basic points regardign God’s word

you’ve not psecifically stated what you bleeive, so it’s kind of hard tryign to guess where you might stand on the issue in iorder to answer appropriately- Sop let’s get this otu of hte way first:

Do you bleeive man evolved and that God ‘began the process of macroevolution’ and stepped back fro mthe process while life evolved? Do you simply bleeive the ‘earth is old’ (and that God later created all thje KINDS we see today) and therefore the first day mentioend in the creation account must mean a ‘long period of time’?

If either of these two scenrios applies, then pelase provide soem evidence other than ‘appeals to’ so that we can discuss the evidnece isntead of some likely error that was beleived ‘long ago’ and taught long ago- As I pointed out- I too can appeal to many scholars, many folks who all pushed an ideology that did not jive with scriptuires- I can also point ot many schisms within ‘the church’ which all BELIEVED (or at least felt strongly and who pushed their feelings on) but who’s beleifs or feelings and doctrines were not consistant with God’s word- Appealing to such folks and beleifs and relgiioons does not constitutte evidence thaqt contradicts a literal reading of God’s word i nregards to the creation record

[[I cited two Greek (St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa) and one Latin Father of the Church (Blessed Augustine), all of whom lived in a culture and intellectual environment far closer to the Holy Apostles than we do, all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally]]

And I’m sure you are aware that key parts of their ideologies/doctrines have been refuted over the years? Martin Luther, also a scholar, and also livign closer to the apostles than today’s teachers, vehemently dissagreed with the Doctrines of the day- and he showed scriptural reasons why he oppsoed thsoe doctrines, and really, to date, there hasn’t been any scriptural responses to hisd objections to thsoe doctrines- onloy ideological objectiosn to his scripture based objectiosn of the doctrines-

Again- I appreciate that you beleive the early pioneers of the Catholic faith- However, if you are goign to support their ideologies, then you ar goign to need to provide more than ‘They said so’ as that kind of response is not specific enough to address bliblically The type ‘discussion’ we’re having now jjust really only amouinjts to one religion havign an ax to grind against another relgion without anythign to back up the claims being made-

You said “all of whom were dubious about taking the narrative of Genesis literally”

That’s swell- nowp lease explain why- I’ve explaiend with evidence why a literal reading shoudl be done- and why there is no good reason why anythign but a literal reading should be done- Because it contradicts God’s word- and I’ve shown why it contradicts it-

yopu are attemtpting to deconstruct Genesis 1:5-24- and to do so, You’ll need to decosntruct/explain away, other passges throughout His word which support a definition ofa 24 hour period of time i nregards to the creation week days— Again, impltying that we are nothign but ignorant neanderthal, superstition beleiving, bible clingers who stick their greasy grimy unkempt fingers in our ears whenever we hear that ‘scholars who l lived closer to’ The apostles formed an ideology (albeit an inconsistant with scriptures ideology) that “God must have meant a ‘long period of time’ when talking abotu hte creation week record”, isn’t a valid refutation of the evidneces agaisnt your claims

[[have no right to appeal to them against the Church.]]

wow- ok-

[[Heretics like Luther]]

Again, wow-

[[have not refuted the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, but presented specious (usually rationalistic) arguments against them]]

Oh ,that’s right, they appealed to Go’ds word- excuse me, the ‘books’ for their arguments-

[[Christianity is not an ideology founded on a text, but a way of Life founded on a Person. Again, if you won’t read an essay that begins with that as its starting point, it is you who are impoverished.]]

so let me see if I udnerstand htis right- If I chose to bleeive that the word of God is the word of God as described by God Hismelf, and that He gave His word through the writers of the bible by divine inspiration directly from Him, and IF I choose to ignore the word of man, ie: Certain folsk in church history who apparently eschewed the word of God- then I’m impoverished?

[[Now this is a strange thing: you are willing to read and engage, for or against, all manner of argumentation that is not “Biblical” when supporting ID, ]]

I am? Funny thing indeed- becasue I’ve given scripture which supports the idea of ID, and referred to biblical records which refute macroevoltuion- not sure where you’re comign uop with htis stuff? And quite frankly there is no rule agaisnt usign science along with God’s word to support What God’s word states- not sure where you get the idea it must be ‘all or nothing’ so to speak? God CLEARLY states in His word that He has given enough proof all around us that He exists and that things are just as He states so that noone iwll have the excuse that there wasn’t proof-

[[but won’t read an essay of Scriptural exegesis that starts from something other than your own preconception of how the Scriptures should be read]]

you’ve given absolutely no reason to- I’ve asked you several times now whether there was sin and death BEFORE the fall of man or not- You’ve thus far refused to address thsi issue- IF trhere was no sin and death before the fall of man- then the precepts laid out by the paper you’re pushign are simply not biblical- period- Why woudl I wish to take man’s word over God’s word ESPECIALLY WHEN mans’ word contradicts God’s word and won’t even answer basic important questions that are detrimental to their word?

My loss? I think not sir-

You can "wow" all you want. The Scriptures must be interpreted. We Orthodox pray regularly that our bishops, "rightly divide the word of truth", harking back to when the first step in interpreting was getting the word and sentence breaks right. You (like Luther before you) seem to fancy that they don't, that you can just read them and get their meaning right.

It is very, very strange, you will research Kolmorgorov complexity, look up various folks' views on the relationship of mathematics and science, but won't read a commentary on the Scriptures unless you are assured in advance that it fits your pre-conceived notion of how they are to be interpreted. Why? What are you afraid of? That you might realize Christ's promise that the Spirit would lead His followers into all truth applied to the Fathers of the Church, and they got the interpretation right on some point, while you had heretofore gotten it wrong on that point?

Here is a little extract from page 19 of Kalomiros's essay:

All of creation fell into corruptibility and death in the person of one man, the first Adam. The same creation in its entirety rose up to eternal life and incorruptibility in the person of the second Adam, Christ.

I am curious, though in talking about death and days. How do you read the divine commandment Adam and Eve transgressed, "In the day you eat of it you will surely die," in light of the fact that after breaking the commandment Adam lived some portion of the 130 years before the birth of Seth and another 800 years after that?

Which word or words are meant in some non-obvious non-literal sense here: day? die? years? If "day", why is "day" to be taken literally earlier? If "die", why the fascination with whether death (of say grasshoppers and mice) existed before Adam's transgression? If "years", again, if one time-span can be meant non-literally, why are the "days" of creation literal? None of this poses a problem for the way Fathers of the Church (and in these latter days Kalomiros) approach the account, but it certainly seems to pose a challenge to your favored hermeneutic method.

And now, I am curious: do you believe the Eucharist to be in truth the Body and Blood of Christ? If so, why the "wow" at the accusation that Luther was a heretic? if not, why is "this is my body" and "this is my blood" not to be read literally, while "there was evening and there was morning [fill in "one" or an ordinal from second to sixth here] day" to be taken literally?

[[God’s Word is Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are the books His Church reads. I am increasingly of the view of Tertullian that those outside the Church (by which I, like all Orthodox Christian, mean what is now commonly called the Eastern Orthodox Church) have no right to appeal to them against the Church.]]

Thank you for finally statign your position- it’s clear that our conversation about religious matters can go no further- you’ve made it [pretty clear that we ignant bible readers and clingers are just too stupid to grasp the ‘new knowledge’ and we just don’t udnerstand that millions of years coudl have gone by without any death or sin whiel species evolved untril eventaully Adam sinned

I’ve asked several times for an explanation, and it’s very apparent by now that oen is not forthcoming- I’ve explained how the Hebrews often used the cardinal before using hte ordinals in regards to lsits, and received no reply o nthat issue and it seems that your only itnention now is to infomr Christians that we have no right appealing to God’s word when defendign Scriptures- and that we apparently are ignorant for not takign the word of man over the word of God-

Sicne you won’t answer basic questions, nor comment about explanations that refute claism you make- one can only conclude that you are only itnerested in making unsubstantiated unbiblical claims and are not interested in backign them up- that isn’t a discussion- that is a sermon-

[[but won’t read an essay of Scriptural exegesis that starts from something other than your own preconception of how the Scriptures should be read.]]

And just for the record, I’ve heard all the arguments before, read all the common claism before- and have coem to the same logical conclusiosn then as I do now - and further more, it isn’t just ‘my’ preconceptions, it is also the beleif of many scholars and students of God’s word and millions of Christians throughout the ages- all who have come to hte same logical conclusions- We bitter bible clingers have asked the questions abotu sin and death long ago and we received the same answers back then as I’m receivign here today i nthsi thread- Zilch- Zero- Nada- I’ve presented the Yom and echad and I’ve even presented the definition of nephesh chayyah which speaks abotu vertebrate eath AFTER the fall long ago here on FR and received back then what I’m receivign here- Crickets chirping in background-

and just for the record- it’s funny how a ‘mere book’ coudl have prpphesided so many prophesies and been so correct in all of them- Not bad for a bunch of sheepherders and unlearned men-

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 NKJ
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 PETER 1:20-21 NIV
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 PETER 1:21 NEB
21 For it was not through any human whim that men prophesied of old; men they were, but, impelled by the Holy Spirit, they spoke the words of God.

Woopsie- Forgot us heritics aint sposed to appeal to God’s word to show that His word was His Holy Word spoken htrough inspiration to those He chose to record His word-

[[I am curious, though in talking about death and days. How do you read the divine commandment Adam and Eve transgressed, “In the day you eat of it you will surely die,”]]

Don’t know why I’m answerign anythign for you as you refuse to answer my quesitons- but is that word day followed by a list? No? Then IN THAT CONTEXT Day can mean a period of time- it was all explaiend i nthel ink I gave previously

[[but won’t read a commentary on the Scriptures unless you are assured in advance that it fits your pre-conceived notion of how they are to be interpreted]]

I’ll read anythign worth reading- Yuo havenm’t convinced me that it’s even worth reading- It is contrary to God’s word- it ignores basic questions which are devestatign to the concept,

[[What are you afraid of?]]

Nothing- just awaiting your answerr to the questiosn I asked-

[[why the fascination with whether death (of say grasshoppers and mice) existed before Adam’s transgression]]

It was explained in thel ink I gave- and in my last post and in my post to metmom

[[why are the “days” of creation literal? ]]

Why do you keep askign questions I’ve already answered?

[[None of this poses a problem for the way Fathers of the Church (and in these latter days Kalomiros) approach the account, ]]

It absoltuely DOES pose a problem- the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that fact doesn’t make it any less a fact- it poses a seriosu problem- and again- I’m not really interested in reading somethign that ignores such serious problems and pretends they don’t present a problem for the idfeology beign presented-

[[And now, I am curious: do you believe the Eucharist to be in truth the Body and Blood of Christ?]]

I’m not catholic- so not sure what your catholic terminology means. you keep askign questions but igfnoring a coupel of simpel questions I’ve put to you-

[[if not, why is “this is my body” and “this is my blood” not to be read literally, while “there was evening and there was morning [fill in “one” or an ordinal from second to sixth here] day” to be taken literally?]]

It was already explained why the Hebrews meant it as literal when speakign of the creation week and cocnenring literal days- Are you not even rading my posts? If you don’t care to read my psots- then at least study Hebrew extensively enouygh to understand WHY it must be read as literal 24 hour days- You appealed to the Hebrew several posts ago (apparently unaware that the Hebrew didn’t infact support your claim)- and now you are ignoring the Hebrew when it doesn’t back up your claim-

Address my questions, then address the Hebrew explanations I’ve psoted several tiems now, and we can continue discussing htis if you like- but if You’re simply goign to keep assertign soemthign without providing ANY evidence to back it up other than ‘Certain church leaders said so’ and if you’re goign to insist God’s word isn’t His actual word to man through man inspired by God’s Holy spirit- then really I’m not itnerested in continuing hte discussion because what you’re claiming isn’t biblical— nor does science support species KINDS livign for billiosn of years and not dying whiel awaiting the evoltuion of man so man coudl fall and species KINDS coudkl finally begin dying-

You have admitted that in one place in the Scriptures, “day” does not need to be (and should not be) taken literally, while insisting that in others it must. In doing this, you have admitted to applying a hermeneutic tradition to the interpretation of the Bible which allows you to distinguish in which places in the text a word must be taken at face value, and in which it has a non-obvious meaning.

You have your hermeneutic tradition which dates back to the 16th century when Luther began fancying that the Scriptures could be correctly understood without consideration of the views of the Church (not entirely unreasonable given the corruption into which the Latin church had fallen since it schism from the Church, what with selling indulgences to get folks out of the non-existent Purgatory, nonsense about the Bishop of Rome being the Vicar of Christ, and all). I have mine, or rather I have the hermeneutic tradition of the Orthodox Church, which dates back to the 1st century and people who know Christ and His Holy Apostles when the Scriptures of the New Covenant were being written. You insist that my interpretations are based on the “traditions of men”, and I insist that yours are.

We are at an impasse. If you ever want to understand where I’m coming from, read Kalomiros’s essay. If not, let it go.

Our discussion of Scriptural exegesis is at an end, as we will simply talk past each other unless you figure out where I’m coming from.

If you want to resume our discussion of matters in the philosophy of science as they bear on ID and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, after a few days break, I would be happy to continue discussing that. If you’d like to do that, scroll back to my last post in which such matters were prominent, and post a reply dealing only with them. If not, may God be with you until we meet again (virtually) on another thread.

[[You have admitted that in one place in the Scriptures, “day” does not need to be (and should not be) taken literally, while insisting that in others it must.]]

David, now you are just being facetious and silly- I said no such thing- I pointed to studies by scholars explaining perfectly clealry why-

If you’re not goign to present an itnellectually honest argument- I really don’t care to continue hte discussion- I’ve asked you several times to answer key issues0- you refuse, I’ve presented links ot explanations that refute your claim, you ignore htem- There is no sense continuing a discussion with someoen who avoids the evidence and avoids addressign hte problems with their unbiblical hypothesis-

[[If you want to resume our discussion of matters in the philosophy of science as they bear on ID and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, after a few days break, I would be happy to continue discussing that.]]

If that discussion continues alogn htel ine of these issues I’ve been ATTEMPTING to discuss with you- no- Not really itnerested- I stated right at the beginnign that it was important ot lay the groundworks based o nthe quesitons I asked you before the discussion coudl move on to the opther issues- since you refuse to answer, and refuse to acknowledge gthe language experts and dishonestly claim I am simply applying definitions to words for no apparent reason- I really don’t care to discuss hte matter further- there’s no sense to do so- no matter what evidence I coudl brign to the table it will simpyl be ignored and I suspect I’ll continue to be accused of things I never claimed myself- I simpyl pointed to experts o nthe issue-

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.