Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MCH
Why some people insist on a literal interpretation of modern English words in the Bible, in this particular case the English word "day" in Genesis, is beyond me. Especially so when it defies reason and scientific evidence, and most importantly when the modern English text has undergone so many language & semantic translations from the original oral/written language over the centuries.

I'll be your huckleberry.

How about those of us who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient Hebrew words, which haven't changed in over 5,000 years? Want to explain why `ereb boqer 'echad yowm doesn't actually mean `ereb boqer 'echad yowm? For your reference, that's "...and the evening and the morning were the first day." in English.

Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?

26 posted on 12/22/2011 8:01:52 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Avalon Hussar

Because the earth was in darkness for many millions of years. It underwent quite a transformation from its original self.


31 posted on 12/22/2011 8:17:21 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Avalon Hussar

Science is a method and we understand it very well. Science deals with objective reality. The fact that we can launch a rocket and have it meet up with and orbit another planet, much less land a rover on the surface more or less where we want to is proof that we have a handle on the scientific method. It is silly to argue that the earth is only thousands of years old. That flies in the face of objective reality. There are so many contradictions in Genesis that it can not be taken literally unless there is no such thing as an objective reality or God is an irrational being who wants to confuse us and torment us. I can’t believe either.


32 posted on 12/22/2011 8:17:21 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Avalon Hussar
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!

EXACTLY CORRECT!

Believing in Billions of years doesn't make you a non Christian, it just makes you wrong. Many different denominations have varying beliefs. They are still Christians. We won't know for sure until we die, but the evidence for a young earth is in the bible and in science.

There are many Christian scientists (small “s”, not the denomination, but actual scientists). They dispute the secular scientist's views. Science first needs to be defined. What qualifies as science these days is a joke. I like double blind studies and actual FACTS, instead of “theories”. Much of so called science today is nothing but theory and computer models.

You might find this informative:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/introduction

38 posted on 12/22/2011 8:29:03 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Avalon Hussar
How about those of us who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient Hebrew words, which haven't changed in over 5,000 years? Want to explain why `ereb boqer 'echad yowm doesn't actually mean `ereb boqer 'echad yowm? For your reference, that's "...and the evening and the morning were the first day." in English.

Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?

Reference THIS SITE for the answer to this, as well as many additional sound arguments against young earth creationism - including a non-scientific, scripture-based-only refutation of the literal interpretation of a "day" as being 24 hours in Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours, as measured by our planet's rotation period.

46 posted on 12/22/2011 9:10:45 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson