What's in a Day?

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Jester

If the word day is inconsistant, then it gives rise to the notion that the rest of the creation record is possibly false.

If each day for instance is 60 million years, then it would be consistant and we'd see consistant evidence to support that. But we dont see that in the evolutionary philosophy. What we do see is life in the past tense and the proof of that past life is that we live today, we see catastrophic destruction, and we see life surviving.

For lack of other evidence I believe the Genesis record. I do not belive in any notion of evoulition except for the observable science of survivability innate to animals and mankind.

You cannot possibly say that there is a lack of evidence to contradict both the literal interpretation of Genesis and the Creationist concept of the universe being less than seven thousand years old. Like it or not, that evidence exists and, if you want your theory to be believed, you have to explain it.

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

You cannot possibly say that there is a lack of evidence to contradict both the literal interpretation of Genesis and the Creationist concept of the universe being less than seven thousand years old. Like it or not, that evidence exists and, if you want your theory to be believed, you have to explain it.

Well, yes I can in fact I did. And I honestly dont care if anyone believes me or not.

I wasnt saying both lacked evidence, I was saying that since I cannot prove that the first three days are longer or shorter then the others, then I fall back on a consistant 24 hour day for all 7 days as it is today.

but I'll address the question.

Evolution is a supposition based on claimed evidence, very little of it proveable, since it cannot be observed, it is taken by belief. My opinon is that man wants to deny God's existance and claim over him so he uses deniability as the basis in which to release his soul from Gods authority (but thats a whole nother thread altogether.)

Creation's only evidence is what we see in the current world and the bible, again a document mostly of faith and of course we cannot go back in time to see God ceate the world.

The scientific evidence supports one or the other. I think there is more catastrophic evidence for an immediate beginning, rather than a slow change as in the evolution supposition. (see my example of the grand canyon from earlier posts)

Evolution in my opinion is just more unbelievable than creation. My main thought on this is that God has designed such intricate order that man can only hope to duplicate with the most minor ability, we can design items this is true, but once desinged we often cannot fully control them. besides all that in my observable life, I see the world degrading, not improving, evolution assumes a model of improvement, why then are we not improving?

back to the 'day' issue:

I have said before that I struggle with the idea that the days are literal 24 hour days. I said that It could possibly be that the first three days could be longer than 24 hours, but I also said for lack of evidence of that both in the history of the word and language and interpretation of the word that i must rap my brain on the fact that the world is approximately 7000 years old.

In this thread I specifically gave the reason why, and that the bible record would be inconsistant if all the days are not literal 24 hour days. And my claim is that the earth and all there is was created by Gods spoken word in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Originally Posted by Accountable

So let it give rise. The truth will out. I gave 3 reasonable definitions of "day" (modern English word; I couldn't be arsed to find out the original), any one of which could be used consistently in the context. Notions don't matter when it comes to how the universe was created. Neither does faith, belief, or theories. I think we can all agree it exists. The knowing doesn't (or wouldn't) change the details of how it happened.

Sorry, I don't see the importance.

The same word has to mean the same thing. The importanc to me is in the interpretation and further application.

Ted already claims the whole thing is just a story, so in that case I guess your right, what difference does it make.

If you can change the meaning of the word here, and have it mean two things, then you leave it up to personal interpretation:

"my day is 60 million years... so I can believe a hybrid of evolution and creation".

That denys the truth.

Or 'Day is Day, 24 hours, and its a miracle that defies all human understanding', ans we see the majesty of the Most high God.





My experince with men, is that if you give one itoa, they take more.

I fall back to one interpretation only."

[Ted]

I decided to look this issue up in the "New Dictionary of Theology" ed. Ferguson, Weight and Packer.

"The words used for 'created' and 'made' in Gn. 1 cannot be pressed. Bara, which is used in vv. 1, 21, 27, is also used for instance in Ps. 104:30 and other places for a 'natural' or historical process. Indeed there is no distinction in the Bible between creation by a process and creation without process. There is, therefore, in principle no conflict between the truth of God's sovereign creation and idea that that may include the sort of process we could describe in science. Both are equally God's sovereign action."

Here again the ancient definition is most important. Going to a modern dictionary is of little value.

Shalom
Ted

Originally Posted by Ted

jester

That he is into hydraulic engineering hardly qualifies his to make comments on evolution or theology unless they have been part of his education.

In science there are no ultimate proofs. All theories are theories. That being said theoretical physicist Paul Davis has been engaged in religious topics for years and in fact accepts the reality of God. His comment on evolution is that there is enough evidence to push it beyond just a theory to a reality.

Any one scientist can make all kinds of comments. The real question is are they submitted for peer review and given some credence by fellow scientists not just in a small group but generally.

Creationists submit their work amongst themselves and their work does not pass with the general scientific community.

Creationists used to say there were no transitional fossils. They hung their whole thesis on that. Now they have found transitional fossils so they have to resort to rather unethical ways to continue their drive to prove what has no proof. In fact I know for a fact that some has taken the work of biologists out of context to make them say what the author never intended. Such "honesty" hardly brings any sort of confidence with it. Many of these men and women are simply wannabe scientists who start with the conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit. This is not bona fide science.

Shalom
Ted

Lets see, water cut the grand canyon, and you disagree that an hydraulacist is scientific enough to study the affects of water?

The creation scientists I read about have degrees form all sorts of secular scientific schools.

And Henry Morris, without a degree is more than qualified to pick up a strongs concordance and interperate any passage of scripture, as is anyone who can read above a 5th grade elementary school level.

Thats exactly why the common man does not attempt to read the bible, because so called scholars have created a enire false set of possible interpretations, and mindboggling confusion on what it says!

KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid.

Ted I have no degrees, I have some minor college technical courses, I have 4 U.S. patents, I have three more in research and two prototypes in production testing for more. I'm writing a book (novel about a hero western character loosly based on my grandfathers life). Im a welder, wood carver, metal smith, expert in weapons, explosives, and detonators, tactical military operations, and contact combat. Ive designed and built machines, tools, clothing, cabins, electrical systems, motorcycle cars, cement tip up buildings, tents, hazardous material container systems not to mention I consult for work flow and production in factories. Im not listing this stuff to brag but to prove a point, you dont need a dergee to figure stuff out, some cool clear observation, some creative angle thinking and nine times out of ten you can figure stuff out. In short, it dont take no GED.

Originally Posted by Ted

I decided to look this issue up in the "New Dictionary of Theology" ed. Ferguson, Weight and Packer.

"The words used for 'created' and 'made' in Gn. 1 cannot be pressed. Bara, which is used in vv. 1, 21, 27, is also used for instance in Ps. 104:30 and other places for a 'natural' or historical process. Indeed there is no distinction in the Bible between creation by a process and creation without process. There is, therefore, in principle no conflict between the truth of God's sovereign creation and idea that that may include the sort of process we could describe in science. Both are equally God's sovereign action."

Here again the ancient definition is most important. Going to a modern dictionary is of little value.

Shalom
Ted

Bara', means to make, to fashion.

The context says that 'In the beginning God 'created' (made and fashioned) every thing that he lists after that... on day one its the light (of undetermined source) and the night.

The word for 'made' is Asah', meaning: to do, accomplish, make.

The process he used is there in the scritpure as well, and it wasn't by a natural process, it specifies it...

'and God said'[let there be light] (that is how he did it,) in His power, by His spoken word.

the result of his spoken word in the next phrase... 'and there was light'

That is not a natrual process, you can't select out one word and say that Ted, context matters, surely you know that?

I'll use one 'KILL', do you have any idea what I want to kill? or coud lti be who was to KILL? or maybe I did NOT want to KILL. You cant know what Im refering to unless we know the context.

[Ted]

jester

An hydraulic engineer is not qualified to interpret geology. That is a whole other profession requiring a much different line of study. He is not a geologist.

A quote from Louis Ginsberg's "Legends of the Bible" pg xxxviii "All of this multitude of tales is preserved in the legends of the Bible, and offers a striking example of how folklore, fable and myths were reminted in the workshop of schoolmen. [These being the compilers and writers of the Bible]

As far as some creationists being holders of degrees goes it is still necessary for their work to be subjected to peer review. So far not one of them has passed in the general community of scientists.

Shalom
Ted

[Ted]

jester

You are trying to use a modern definition which is totally inappropriate. The word that is in my Hebrew Torah is "Bara". I have clearly given the ancient meaning. But here again you are trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say not what it does say. Now I really have no problem with that as far to many play the same game with Leviticus. It is called picking and choosing.

Shalom
Ted

[Omni_Skittles]

Originally Posted by BHughesNC

I'm having a difficult time debating with my granchildren about creationism, I think it is because all they teach in school is evolution.

This is a pretty good article on the meaning of " a day"
The Meaning of "Day"

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5).

Read Article

Bobby

Honestly i don't think it literally meant days... as in 24 hours. Honestly, can you you judge days when there was no days to begin with?

Originally Posted by Ted

jester

You are trying to use a modern definition which is totally inappropriate. The word that is in my Hebrew Torah is "Bara". I have clearly given the ancient meaning. But here again you are trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say not what it does say. Now I really have no problem with that as far to many play the same game with Leviticus. It is called picking and choosing.

Shalom
Ted

Ted thats stright out of Strongs, do you want to refute his work?

I showed you bara, and your definition is different, I also showed you 'made' (asah) which is not what you said it was either.

Im sure you will pass Mr Strong off as a product of the reformation.

My interpretation is both exact and sound.