Hey, Bill Maher! Why won't you debate evolution?

[dmp]

Oh pooh!

How long is a day in Genesis? It's an undefined term.

Who cares? Why get lost in the minutia about how long a 'Yom' is? It's besides the point, really.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Who cares? Why get lost in the minutia about how long a 'Yom' is? It's besides the point, really.

I kind of care, actually.

 

[-Cp]

Oh pooh!

And the Biblical story isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's an allegory. The method by which creation was accomplished is not explained.

How long is a day in Genesis? It's an undefined term. It simply says "In the beginning....." and goes on from there. None of it obviates the science and the Creator is far more complex, IMO, anyway.

How old do you believe the world is?

Isn't it just sad when cousins marry?

Here we have another person not payin' attention and acting as if they've read the Bible...

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Sounds like a normal 24-hour period to me.... not sure how you can NOT see the implication there is a 24-hour day...


We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the earth. Thus we can deduce that the earth was already rotating in space relative to the light-source.

God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Revelation 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.

The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author of Genesis could not have had any other intent—particularly when the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used from the first day.

On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the earth’s light-bearers were made, so the temporary light source from the first day was no longer needed.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How old is the earth?

 

[jillian]

Isn't it just sad when cousins marry?

Here we have another person not payin' attention and acting as if they've read the Bible...

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Sounds like a normal 24-hour period to me.... not sure how you can NOT see the implication there is a 24-hour day...


We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the earth. Thus we can deduce that the earth was already rotating in space relative to the light-source.

God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Revelation 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.

The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author of Genesis could not have had any other intent—particularly when the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used from the first day.

On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the earth’s light-bearers were made, so the temporary light source from the first day was no longer needed.

First off... I don't insult people for their religious beliefs and I don't expect to be insulted for not believing the Bible is a literal work. Fair enough?

Second, I'm curious as to what resources you rely on to say that "even liberal Hebrew scholars" (as if orthodox Jews are 'liberal' when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible. My understanding is that discussions as to the meaning of the Bible, particulary in Judaism, have been largely socratic in method and you would be hard pressed to find two schools of Jewish thought which agree upon the meaning of the Bible, much less have somehow accepted that the "biblical" day is the same as our 24 hour day.

Belief is wonderful. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try to say that it's science, as well. Isn't the concept great enough on it's own?

 

[jillian]

Who cares? Why get lost in the minutia about how long a 'Yom' is? It's besides the point, really.

Minutia? Seems to me that not acknowledging the lenght of time the earth has been proven to exist is a fairly good argument against literal interpretation.

 

[-Cp]

First off... I don't insult people for their religious beliefs and I don't expect to be insulted for not believing the Bible is a literal work. Fair enough?

Second, I'm curious as to what resources you rely on to say that "even liberal Hebrew scholars" (as if orthodox Jews are 'liberal' when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible. My understanding is that discussions as to the meaning of the Bible, particulary in Judaism, have been largely socratic in method and you would be hard pressed to find two schools of Jewish thought which agree upon the meaning of the Bible, much less have somehow accepted that the "biblical" day is the same as our 24 hour day.

Belief is wonderful. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try to say that it's science, as well. Isn't the concept great enough on it's own?

And why would you believe anything the Jews say about the Bible? They're still waiting for Christ to come..... Good Lord...

 

[5stringJeff]

Are you sure you believe that Jeff? - the Big Bang - really?

Yes.

 

[jillian]

And why would you believe anything the Jews say about the Bible? They're still waiting for Christ to come..... Good Lord...

You're the one who raised the issue. Not I. And Jews aren't waiting for Christ. They are waiting for the Messiah which, in Judaism, is a messainic king of the line of David. A bit different from the Christian view of the Christ. And let's not forget, Muslims believe Mohammed was the paraclete, not Jesus.

Now...about your proof that Jewish scholars believe the biblical day was 24 hours long since you cited that

 

[jillian]

I'm still kind of waiting for the answer to the question Clay and I keep asking which is: how old do you believe the Earth is if you believe in creationism?

 

[Nienna]

I kind of care, actually.

Here you go then... In Genesis 1 & 2, a yom is a 24-hour day.

 

[jillian]

Here you go then... In Genesis 1 & 2, a yom is a 24-hour day.

How so?

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm still kind of waiting for the answer to the question Clay and I keep asking which is: how old do you believe the Earth is if you believe in creationism?

Creationists will answer this differently. Young Earth creationists believe the earth - and the universe - is roughly 8,000 years old. Most other creationists believe that the universe is as old as scientists think - i.e. roughly 14 billion years old.

 

[Nienna]

Minutia? Seems to me that not acknowledging the lenght of time the earth has been proven to exist is a fairly good argument against literal interpretation.

There's actually a lot of evidence against an old earth, including polystrate fossils, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, the recession rate of the moon from the earth, and the amount of salt in the sea.

 

[jillian]

Creationists will answer this differently. Young Earth creationists believe the earth - and the universe - is roughly 8,000 years old. Most other creationists believe that the universe is as old as scientists think - i.e. roughly 14 billion years old.

Thank you for the answer. While the Bible isn't science, it is not inecessarily inconsistent with science.

What I find interesting, given the votility of this issue, is that even among Christians, there is disagreement on this subject.

 

[jillian]

There's actually a lot of evidence against an old earth, including polystrate fossils, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, the recession rate of the moon from the earth, and the amount of salt in the sea.

There is no such "evidence" that is scientific in nature.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There's actually a lot of evidence against an old earth, including polystrate fossils, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field, the recession rate of the moon from the earth, and the amount of salt in the sea.

Where?

 

[Nienna]

How so?

Uhhh... because "yom" means "day" in Hebrew. Also, in Hebrew, the word yom, when coupled with a number ALWAYS means a 24-hour day. If that isn't enough, after each description of the day's activity, "there was evening, and there was morning, the ____ day." There is nothing within the context of the Biblical text that indicates that yom means anything other than a 24-hour day. The idea that it could mean something else comes when we try to squeeze outside ideas into the Biblical text, such as the "evidence" that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[Nienna]

There is no such "evidence" that is scientific in nature.

I just listed 4 things.

 

[Nienna]

Where?

Where, what?