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

[-Cp]

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

I never said Jewish scholars...

 

[jillian]

Uhhh... because "yom" means "day" in Hebrew.

Most Jews believe the bible is allegorical. The word "yom" is the same as "day". It's the underlying "meaning" as to whether or not the term day is literal or figurative that gives rise to this discussion.

Also, in Hebrew, the word yom, when coupled with a number ALWAYS means a 24-hour day.

In current usage. Not in reference to the bible.

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.

Again, assuming that a "day" was 24 hours long does nothing to say that it is a literal 24 hour period, particularly when the people who first adhered to the Old Testament do not necessarily accept that as the meaning.

Rejecting science to try to squeeze literal meaning out of the Bible does not negate the science, nor does it make the Bible science.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Where, what?

Where do I find that evidence, other than your post?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Most Jews believe the bible is allegorical. The word "yom" is the same as "day". It's the underlying "meaning" as to whether or not the term day is literal or figurative that gives rise to this discussion.



In current usage. Not in reference to the bible.



Again, assuming that a "day" was 24 hours long does nothing to say that it is a literal 24 hour period, particularly when the people who first adhered to the Old Testament do not necessarily accept that as the meaning.

Rejecting science to try to squeeze literal meaning out of the Bible does not negate the science, nor does it make the Bible science.

Back in my day, the golden days, we just called a day a day, and that was it, back in that day and age. I miss those days.

 

[Nienna]

Most Jews believe the bible is allegorical. The word "yom" is the same as "day". It's the underlying "meaning" as to whether or not the term day is literal or figurative that gives rise to this discussion.



In current usage. Not in reference to the bible.



Again, assuming that a "day" was 24 hours long does nothing to say that it is a literal 24 hour period, particularly when the people who first adhered to the Old Testament do not necessarily accept that as the meaning.

Rejecting science to try to squeeze literal meaning out of the Bible does not negate the science, nor does it make the Bible science.

The people who did the various translations of the Bible translated them from Hebrew texts. These people were fluent in both Hebrew and the language into which they were translating. In NO translation have I ever seen yom rendered as anything except "day." Where did you get the idea that "the people who first adhered to the Old Testament" do not accept the word yom to mean "day"?

 

[jillian]

Back in my day, the golden days, we just called a day a day, and that was it, back in that day and age. I miss those days.

 

[Nienna]

Where do I find that evidence, other than your post?

SHEESH, CLay! You want me to provide actual LINKS & references & stuff? Picky, picky!



I'll do some digging for ya, dear.

 

[jillian]

The people who did the various translations of the Bible translated them from Hebrew texts. These people were fluent in both Hebrew and the language into which they were translating. In NO translation have I ever seen yom rendered as anything except "day." Where did you get the idea that "the people who first adhered to the Old Testament" do not accept the word yom to mean "day"?

Translation is an art....not a science. I already went through that on another thread as regards Moses speaking with the burning bush. The phrase spoken is generally translated as "I am that I am". Yet, there is no first person singular conjugation of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. It would have been translated more accurately as "I will be what I will be". This changes the meaning of the sentence and has been open to interpretation for as long as scholars have discussed these things.

So, too, the word paraclete has different meanings depending on which translation of the bible you are reading or which religion is using the term.

As for day... I never said "yom" doesn't mean "day". I said that it isn't necessarily a 24-hour day. Big difference.

 

[Nienna]

Back in my day, the golden days, we just called a day a day, and that was it, back in that day and age. I miss those days.

Exactly why yom in Genesis 1 & 2 is surrounded by so many qualifiers. It's almost like they FORESAW the "day-age" argument or something.

 

[Nienna]

Translation is an art....not a science. I already went through that on another thread as regards Moses speaking with the burning bush. The phrase spoken is generally translated as "I am that I am". Yet, there is no first person singular conjugation of the verb "to be" in Hebrew. It would have been translated more accurately as "I will be what I will be". This changes the meaning of the sentence and has been open to interpretation for as long as scholars have discussed these things.

So, too, the word paraclete has different meanings depending on which translation of the bible you are reading or which religion is using the term.

As for day... I never said "yom" doesn't mean "day". I said that it isn't necessarily a 24-hour day. Big difference.

If it doesn't mean 24-hour day, then why does it say "there was evening and there was morning, the___ day"? Centuries and eons don't have evenings or mornings.

 

[Dr Grump]

I see creationism as a belief system whereas science can be proved outright in some cases...

 

[Diuretic]

Creationism has no room for doubt. Everything must be a certainty because to do otherwise is to challenge belief and belief is at the heart of creationism. That's why creationists deny science. They dress themselves up in the language of science in order to denigrate science. This thread is littered with examples. I have no problem with anyone believing in creationism, in a literal translation of The Bible. The idea is repugnant to me personally but anyone is free to hold those views, despite the evidence against those views. But when people try to parade beliefs as objective facts that's when I have a problem. I also have a problem when science is attacked using those tactics. You can believe whatever you wish. You can believe the moon is made of cheese if you wish. But if you try to prove your beliefs, if you try to prove the mood is made of cheese then play by the logical rules.

This thread started out with a challenge by an author and adherent to creationism challenging a television host to a debate about science. I will be impressed when Mr Comfort challenges a scientist to a debate about science, I will be even more impressed if he won - a result arrived at by independent observation - the debate. Until then he's merely flapping his gums.

 

[liberalogic]

What we forget in the midst of this debate is that science is a never-ending process. Claiming creationist beliefs leaves little room for scientific discovery in the future.

The question still remains though: How did God create everything? Is it really biologically possible to take a rib out of Adam and create Eve? If God cited a chemical formula or something, maybe that would work. But creationism is telling us what happened and not HOW it happened. While the big bang may not be complete and while evolution may have its flaws, it is an attempt to explain how we got here today. These theories fit evidence into a scientific, rational mould; creationists take the same evidence and extrapolate to the phenomena of religion.

 

[Diuretic]

But if The Bible is, in parts, allegorical - could the Adam's rib story be some sort of allusion to creation of life using human dna? Because I am ignorant of much science (I have references if required) I'm not at all sure if my ground is solid but my understanding is that it is theoretically, if not practically, possible to clone humans from human dna. Given that story is a couple of thousand years old I wonder if it's telling us something by allegory that we are only now just able to understand as potential fact.

Now I'm stepping right outside my bounds of knowledge, hand me a flashlight, not a flame.

 

[liberalogic]

But if The Bible is, in parts, allegorical - could the Adam's rib story be some sort of allusion to creation of life using human dna? Because I am ignorant of much science (I have references if required) I'm not at all sure if my ground is solid but my understanding is that it is theoretically, if not practically, possible to clone humans from human dna. Given that story is a couple of thousand years old I wonder if it's telling us something by allegory that we are only now just able to understand as potential fact.

Now I'm stepping right outside my bounds of knowledge, hand me a flashlight, not a flame.

Personally, I interpret the Bible allegorically. With that said, though, if we are going to use it as a source of science, it would have to be interpreted literally. Scientists don't read novels to make their conclusions; they use evidence. There is NO possible way to determine if there is cloning in the Bible-- we only have words to tell us that it happened, rather than how it happened. It's basically a dead end. This entire argument is a dead end. It's simply a maneuver to transform a belief into fact in order to rectify the existence of God. It's an extrapolation well beyond the limits of reason.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Evolution isn't a creation theory. It's a what-happened-after-creation theory.

One can believe in God as the creator and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[-Cp]

One can believe in God as the creator and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree:

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways"....

 

[liberalogic]

I disagree:

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways"....

There's no double-mindedness though...it's just not the traditional belief of creationism as stated in the Bible.

 

[ErikViking]

I am living in a christian country, have had a christian raising and in my point of view the old testament is almost discardable. Reading the bible I see a clear shift in the the testaments, both in "style" and in actual historic relevance. The old testament's description of the creation of earth I see merley as an ancient attempt to seek the origin of being here.

Why is this such an issue anyway? If we don't believe in the creation as described in the old testament, does that make us lesser christians? The messege in the bible isn't about physics, politics, crime or sex, It is a message of endless love.

This, ofcourse being my beleif...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I disagree:

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways"....

What's double minded? You do understand that evolution is not an explanation for creation, right?