Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: astratt7
There is also just as much science to prove the young earth theory

Really? Such as? Love to see it.

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.

7 posted on 12/22/2011 7:02:34 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


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.

God says he will preserve his words forever...Do you believe him???

25 posted on 12/22/2011 8:01:14 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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 ]

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