Posted on 02/05/2014 2:43:22 AM PST by Olog-hai
Or Star Belly Sneetches vs Sneetches with no stars upon thars.
Sorry, I think we may be talking at cross purposes. My original post was to point out that some people seem to think that the answer ‘I don’t know’ to a question is unsatisfactory. I take a polar opposite point of view. If one doesn’t know, it’s the only mature and honest answer to give.
I don’t believe that there is a limit to knowledge per se. Only a limit to our knowledge at this moment in time and it is this lack that drives our curiosity.
Think about your certainty of that statement. Compare to Genesis, where it says "The evening and the morning were the FIRST day." Genesis then repeats the sequence 5 more times, evening and morning are the second day, and so forth.
The writer specifically called out one solar day, evening and morning, and then uses a specific count, of first day, second day, and so forth. Unless the earth's rotation has dramatically sped up, there is no reason to suppose the day was longer than our 24 hours. There is also no room for any other days prior to this, since on the FIRST day God made the heavens, the earth, and light.
Now, if you prefer to not believe it was 24 hours, and perhaps XXX years, that's your prerogative. However, you are the one at odds with recorded scripture, and are trying to force a compromise to fit with the required evolutionary time frames.
If you would assert that a day was really a thousand years, then the plain reading of scripture, of an evening and a morning were the third day would reuqire plant life to be in the dark for 500 years. Seems a little absurd, but again, believe what you want.
Then again,think of all the science “fiction” that is fact today!
Obligatory note: “the lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night” come in on “a fourth day”. It’s not at easy as it sounds.
I fully agree. What I found fascinating about the article I linked to was how Jewish sages of old understood the original language of the creation account as pointing clearly towards big bang cosmology. Subsequent translators did not recognize the nuances of the original texts and therefore failed to carry over significant amounts of information.
Kind of makes me wonder what else was lost in translation through the ages?
Light was created before the sun, evening and morning were before the sun, and there is no difference in the treatment of evening/morning or day counting after the sun.
There is no doubt creation was easy for God, impossibly complicated for us. Nevertheless, if he could create everything in 14 Billion years using evolution, he could do it in 6 days. It's all miraculous, why doubt His record of it? What possible benefit does one gain compromising scripture with the "science" of macro evolution. Perhaps to convince the skeptic? The thinking skeptic, who may consider Christianity may notice the supposed inconsistency in interpretive uncertainty of Genesis, but the "certainty" that Jesus is the only way.
Either the Bible is the Word, or it's not. Once we start the slippery slope of "The Bible CONTAINS the word of God", and we have to determine what is inspired, and what is not... That's exactly how we get homosexual ministers! Satan always mixes a little error with truth, and gets us to doubt God's word. Consider his question to Eve, "Did God really say...", and then Eve started adding to the Word "...and we can't touch it". This whole discussion is exactly the same, if you think about it.
The answer "I don't know" can sometimes be honest, sometimes dishonest. The admission alone is insufficient--it sounds too much like Wolf Blitzer "all we give are the facts." What we want to know is why we don't know and whether our subsequent action is justified.
The point is, how to speak about “solar days” if there’s no sun yet? There was light called day, darkness called night, evening, and morning, day one. But there was no sun. ¿What was a day, then? ¿What we call “a day”, the setting and rise of sun? ¿Which sun? It makes no conflict, then, to assume “day” can mean something different here. It could be that we are wrong on thinking that our current definition of day is the best and most complete one.
I’m not too worried about your assertions regarding what Scripture actually says.
You might check out this link from post #11, before you insist:
>http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html<
Not exactly. That would require the definition of begat/begot to strictly mean "the father of" when a more accurate translation of the original would be "an ancestor of."
One of the best illustrations I've read to explain this:
Matthew’s Genealogy
Perhaps the best place to see the use of the word father is in the Genealogy of Jesus given by Matthew in Chapter 1. The following is the important verses from that larger genealogy that spans Abraham to Joseph.Matthew 1:8 8 Asa begat Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram; Jehoram begat Uzziah
This is in fact not how it happened.
The Old Testament gives a precise account of the Judean Kings. It covers the spiritual highlights of each reign and as an aside gives the details of the family tree. The actual genealogy went like this:
- Jehoshaphat father of Joram1
- Joram father of Ahaziah2
- Ahaziah father of Joash3
- Joash father of Amaziah4
- Amaziah father of Uzziah5
Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are three Judean kings missing from Matthew’s account of the same genealogy.
At this point critics of the Bible text often object that the Bible is itself inconsistent. These two lists are not inconsistent. The proper meaning of the word father must be assigned to what Matthew is saying.
The word Matthew is using only means ancestor nothing more. Matthew’s account easily reconciles with Second Kings.
> OK, I’ll bite. Whose version of creation is correct? The
> Jew’s, Hindi, or Erich von Däniken’s.
Jesus Christ’s version.
As written in His Word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGmcvuymhW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Yes. Sadly for some Princess Leah is now reality... in France of all things.
I am going to take from your statement that you are an ignoramus when it comes to US history, especially of the 19th Century. What you are spewing has nothing to do with anything stated. As for Marxism being a product of Darwinism is so stupid to be laughable. The concept of survival of the fittest is alien to Marxist ideology. Fascists have used the concept to justify the conquest of other people, example Mussolini on Ethiopia, but Marxists reject Social Darwinism completely. Marxists are about class warfare and reject Nationalism. Fascists used the concept in 20th Century for their purposes, while proponents of a rigorous American capitalism used it in the 19th Century. They had nothing to do with each other. The proponents of Social Darwinism during the Gilded Age were small government men. If you ever took any courses in college in US history, you would remember Leftist professors attacking the great industrialists because they were Social Darwinists, in the context of the late 19th century US.
You can even 3D print a model of your baby in the womb before its born.
Read the article. have a couple of problems with it, and also have some agreement. Granted, I am not a Hebrew scholar, but Nahmanides was no Christian, and rejected his own messiah, testified to in the Torah, Psalms and prophets. Nevertheless:
First, the article states:
"consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts ― 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?'
I highlighted the "and" because when he quotes the scripture, it ain't there, and when I checked 19(!) other translation into English, and the don't have that non-contrasting conjunction either. Interpreting scripture on words it does not contain is isogesis.
Second, I don't buy into Kabbalah, and the four levels of interpretation of all scripture. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or, and a good biblical hermeneutic rule states: If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. Occam's razor.
Third, if his assertion at the end of the piece is correct, and dino's in the dirt are billions of years old, then the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Dinosaurs lived and died, and ate each other, prior to Adam's arrival
2. God created plant life, and it existed untold numbers of years before the sun arrived to fuel photosynthesis
3. God created animals with the intent purpose of them eating each other
4. God observed this and called it good. Death, suffering, disease, predation, all of it, "good"
5. God formed man, the king predator, and called it all very good.
6. God finally decided to give all animals something to eat, green plants, every seed bearing plant and fruit bearing tree, at the end of day 6. Guess that explains that explains point 4 above.
7. Obviously, beacause of the above, death far pre-existed Adam's consumption of the fruit.
The Bible plainly teaches Death came because of the sin of one man, Adam, (Romans 5:12) and that all creation is under a curse because of Adam (Genesis 3:17, Romans 8:20). Both of these refute the ideas set forth in the article, especially as they relate to items 3 & 4 above.
Believe what you want, but be careful about assering things that directly contradict the Bible, both OT & NT.
Oh, and Madonna is a Kabbalist, good company.
How is it the you have the privilege of agreeing with part, but not all, then insist I must buy the whole lot.
I also disagree with the conclusions you draw.
The death you cite, refers to Adam, and not all other living things.
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.