Can you prove the Bible has fallacies?

[Tom]

Snakes can't talk.

 

[GoingUp]

The entire book is fiction.

 

[Trikat]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
The entire book is fiction.

 

[jEct2]

trainwreck thread

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
The result, the idea that "that the first three 'days' could not have been days of one axial rotation is ridiculous, and is exegetical nonsense" does not logically flow from the evidence.. not even from the evidence provided in the argument. I'll make it simple. What did the Earth rotate around if there was no sun? That's right, nothing. The Earth sat there. How do you measure a sidereal day (as defined by the author: "The rotation of the Earth can be measured relative to the stars (sidereal day)") when the Earth isn't rotating?

I'll let these two articles speak for me.

Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory (#81)
by Richard Niessen

Abstract
Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario. Atheists care little for the biblical account, except to ridicule its statements. Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario. Atheists care little for the biblical account, except to ridicule its statements. Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

The key term in this attempted harmony is the word day as it is used in Genesis 1. The Hebrew word for day is yom, and, we are reminded, it is used in a variety of ways: (1) the daylight period in the diurnal cycle as in Genesis 1:5, 14, 16, 18; (2) a normal 24-hour period; and (3) an indefinite time period as in Psalm 90:10.

A passage that is invariably appealed to is 2 Peter 3:8: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." Also, it is claimed that too much activity took place on the sixth day (Genesis 2) to fit into a normal day: Adam's naming of thousands of animals, his perception of his loneliness, and the subsequent creation of Eve.

The claim, then, is that the days of Genesis 1 are really long periods of time, which correspond to the major periods of evolutionary geological history.

A Refutation of the Day-Age Theory

Most Bible-believing creationists maintain the day-age theory is an unbiblical option for the following reasons:

(1) An improper interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8.

It is axiomatic in hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) that "a text without a context is a pretext." Just as a tape recording can be edited to make the speaker say whatever the editor desires, so the Scriptures can be juggled to suit a person's fancy or predisposition. For example, "And Jesus answered ... 'What is truth?' " (John 18:37 - 38). All the above words are straight from the Bible, but a closer examination discloses that it was actually Pilate who uttered the statement, and that the intervening words have been "edited" out.

2 Peter 3:3-10 is a unit. The context speaks of scoffers in the last days who will ridicule the second coming of Christ. Their rationale is uniformitarian in nature: Jesus promised to come quickly, He has not come yet, therefore He is not going to come at all. Peter refutes these uniformitarian assumptions with a reference to the Flood and the certainty of judgment for these scoffers. Then, responding to the charge that Christ has failed to fulfill His promise, Peter writes the words in question, and concludes by reaffirming the certainty of the second coming of Christ.

Verse 8 was never intended to be a mathematical formula of 1 = 1000 or 1000 = 1. The point is that God created time, as well as the universe, and therefore stands above it (cf. Heb. 1:2). While we mortals think 1000 years is a long time, God can scan 1000 years of history ? past and future ? as quickly as we can scan from one end of the horizon to the other. The verse could have equally been worded, "Five minutes is with the Lord as ten thousand years," and still have conveyed the same message. Note the use of the word as, describing similarity, is not the same as an equal sign. Conversely, God is able to do in one day what would normally require a thousand years to accomplish. A pertinent suggestion here, in light of the passage's reference to Creation and the Flood, is a possible allusion to the flood's rapid buildup of the sedimentary layers of the so-called geologic column. One day's flood activity could build up layers of sediments that would normally take a thousand years to form by uniformitarian (slowly acting) processes.

2 Peter 3:8 has nothing whatever to do with the length of the creation week. Genesis 1 needs to be interpreted in its own context and not by an irrelevant verse written 1500 years later.

(2) The inadequacy of a thousand-year day.

Let us grant, for the sake of discussion, the mathematical formula that the theistic evolutionists desire. In that case, day one is the first thousand years of earth's history, day two the second thousand years, etc. Consistency would logically dictate that each of the six periods be the same length, resulting in a 6000-year period of creation from nothing to Adam. But 6000 years is only a drop in the bucket compared to the time required to make the evolutionary system work. A lack of a vast time period is the death knell of the evolutionary process. So, let us try 1 day equals 10,000 years. No, 60,000 years is not enough time either. How about 1 day equals 100,000 years? 1 million years? 10 million years? 100 million years? 1 billion years? Ah, yes, that does it for the required time! But what does it do to language as a tool to communicate meaningful information? If words have this kind of infinite flexibility, then the art of communication is in deed a lost cause. These tactics would be laughed to scorn if they were attempted in any other field of study. We should certainly not tolerate them in the study of God's Word.

It appears that 2 Peter 3:8 is merely the wedge used to get the camel's head into the tent. The Hebrew word olam was available to communicate the idea of a long time period if Moses had intended to convey that idea. And the Hebrew word yom was available had he wanted to convey the idea of a 24-hour day.

(3) The demands of primary word usage.

Every language has certain words that are used, in different contexts, with different meanings. For example, Webster's Dictionary defines the noun ship as follows:

ship (n) 1: a large seagoing boat 2: airplane 3: a ship's officers and crew. If you were able to see the noun form of ship, in isolation and without a context, which of the three definitions would first come to mind? Obviously the definition listed as #1, or the primary definition of the word. If the context absolutely demanded it, #3 could be used, but it would certainly be an unusual usage of the word.

It is likewise in the biblical languages. The lexicons (Greek and Hebrew dictionaries) list the words and then the definitions in descending order of usage. The translation of Greek and Hebrew is not accomplished by the casting of lots, nor by the spin of a roulette wheel. The primary usage of any term is always given priority in any translation and secondary uses are tried only when the primary usage does not make sense in the context in which the term is set.

The Hebrew word yom is used more than 2000 times in the Old Testament. A cursory examination reveals that in over 1900 cases (95%) the word is clearly used of a 24-hour day, or of the daylight portion of a normal day. Many of the other 5% refer to expressions such as "the day of the Lord" (Joel 2:1) which may not be exceptions at all, since the second coming of Christ will occur on one particular day (1 Cor. 15:51-52), even though His reign extends over a longer period of time.1 Therefore, even without a context, an unbiased translator would normally understand the idea of "24-hour period" for the word yom.

(4) The demands of context.

Words generally do not hang in space and in isolation from other words. When they appear in writing, they are always surrounded by other words which serve as modifiers and/or clarifiers. Let us take the word ship used as an illustration in the last point. It is only necessary to add two words to not only differentiate between the noun and the verb forms, but to clarify which of the uses is intended within that form. For example: "The ship flew." The definite article identifies the form as a noun; the verb identifies the secondary usage of the word as an airplane rather than a boat.

We need not belabor the point by multiplying examples here. If I write: "I spaded the garden on my day off," it is clear from the surrounding words that this activity is confined to one particular day. So it is in Genesis 1: all the surrounding words convey, to the unbiased reader, the idea that each activity is confined to one of the particular 24-hour days of this creation week.

(5) The numerical qualifier demands a 24-hour day.

The word "day" appears over 200 times in the Old Testament with numbers (i.e., first day, second day, etc.). In every single case, without exception, it refers to a 24-hour day. Each of the six days of the creation week is so qualified and therefore the consistency of Old Testament usage requires a 24-hour day in Genesis 1 as well.

(6) The terms "evening and morning" require a 24-hour day.

The words evening (52 times) and morning (220 times) always refer to normal days where they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Jewish day began in the evening (sunset) and ended with the start of the evening the following day. Thus it is appropriate that the sequence is evening-morning (of a normal day) rather than morning-evening (= start and finish). The literal Hebrew is even more pronounced: "There was evening and there was morning, day one. . . . There was evening and there was morning, day two," etc.

(7) The words "day" and "night" are part of a normal 24-hour day.

In Genesis 1:5, 14-18, the words day and night are used nine times in such a manner that they can refer only to the light and dark periods of a normal, 24-hour day.

(8) Genesis 1:14 distinguishes between days, years, and seasons.

And God said, "Let there be light-makers in the expanse above to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years.

Clearly the word days here represents days, years represents years, seasons represents seasons. It is a red herring to claim that, if the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there could be no days and nights on the first three days. The Bible clearly says that there was a light source (apparently temporary in nature, Genesis 1:3), that there were periods of alternating light and darkness (1:4-5), and that there were evenings and mornings for those first three days (1:5, 8,13).

(9) Symbiosis requires a 24-hour day.

Symbiosis is a biological term describing a mutually beneficial relationship between two types of creatures. Of particular interest to us are the species of plants that cannot reproduce apart from the habits of certain insects or birds. For example, the yucca plant is dependent upon the yucca moth, and most flowers require bees or other insects for pollination and reproduction. The Calvaria tree, on the Mauritius Islands, was totally dependent upon the dodo bird to ingest its seeds, scarify its hard coating, and excrete the seeds before germination could take place. Since the dodo bird became extinct in 1681, no reproduction of this tree has taken place. In fact, the youngest trees are 300 years old! Many additional examples could be cited. According to Genesis 1, plants were created on the third day (vv. 9 - 13), birds on the fifth day (vv. 20 - 23), and insects on the sixth day (vv 24-25, 31). Plants could have survived for 48 or 72 hours without the birds and the bees, but could they have survived 2-3 billion years without each other according to the day-age scenario? Many birds eat only insects. Could they have survived a billion years while waiting for the insects to evolve?2 Hardly.

(10) The survival of the plants and animals requires a 24-hour day.

If each day were indeed a billion years, as theistic evolutionists require, then half of that day (500 million years) would have been dark. We are explicitly told in verse 5 that the light was called day and the darkness was called night, and that each day had one period of light-darkness. How then would the plants, insects, and animals have survived through each 500 million year stretch of darkness? Clearly a 24-hour day is called for.

(11) The testimony of the fourth Commandment.

It is a marvelous thing to observe the unity of the Scriptures and the orderliness with which God carries out His plans. Have you ever wondered why there were six days of creation, rather than some other number? In the light of the apparently instantaneous creation of the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21, and the instantaneous nature of the miracles of the New Testament, why is it that God takes as long as six days to create everything? And why is it that God rested on the seventh day? Was He tired after all this exertion? No, Psalm 33:6-9 state that "the heavens were made by the Word of the Lord . . . He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." There is no hint of exertion here. Genesis 2:2-3 merely means that He ceased working because the created order was completed, not because He was tired.

The commentary on these questions is found in Exodus 20:8-11, and it reads as follows:
verse 8 - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
verse 9 - Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
verse 10 - But the seventh day is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. In it you shall not do any work...
verse 11 - For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day...

Verses 8-10 speak of man working six days and ceasing from his work on the seventh. These are obviously not eons of time, but normal 24-hour days. A key word in verse 11 is for, because it introduces the rationale or foundation for the previous command. It continues by equating the time period of creation with the time period of man's work week (six days plus one day) and states that God Himself had set the example in Genesis 1. That indeed is the reason why the creation week was 7 days ? no more, no less. The passage becomes nonsense if it reads: "Work for six days and rest on the seventh, because God worked for six billion years and is now resting during the seventh billion-year period." If God is resting, who parted the waters of the Red Sea in Exodus 14? And what did Jesus mean in John 5:17 when He said, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working"?

Sometimes the claim is made by theistic evolutionists that we do not know how long the days were way back in Genesis 1. In the first place, Genesis 1 was not way back, but was only a few thousand years prior to the writing of Exodus. Since the earth is constantly slowing down in its rotation, the early earth would have been spinning faster and therefore the days would have been shorter, not longer.

But the day-age people have overlooked something even more obvious here: Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 were written by the same author ? Moses ? at about the same time (ca. 1500 B.C.). Therefore, the common authorship of both passages is evidence that he had the same time period in mind when he used the word day. Furthermore, we might note that the Fourth Commandment was actually written by the finger of God Himself on tablets of stone (Ex. 31:18; 32:16-19; 34:1, 28, 29; Deut. 10:4). If anyone should have known how long the days were, it should be the Creator Himself!

(12) The testimony of the rabbis.

The Talmudic literature contains commentaries on virtually every passage in the Old Testament. The liberties they take in interpreting some passages boggle the imagination and yet one thing is certain: they are unanimous in accepting a normal, 24-hour day for Genesis 1. If there were the slightest grammatical or contextual indicator within that chapter that would point to a longer period, you can be sure they would have spotted it and developed it at length. The fact that they do not is a strong testimony for interpreting the days as normal, 24-hour periods.

(13) The testimony of the church fathers.

It is sometimes claimed that the church fathers believed in long ages for the days in Genesis 1. That is a half truth. The only two who held to this view were Origen and Clement of Alexandria, and they were allegorizers who devised unusual interpretations for every part of Scripture. Their system of allegorizing led to the most unbelievable interpretations, which were bounded only by the limits of their fertile imaginations. Other early commentators on Genesis 1 include the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenacus, and Justin Martyr. Their remarks have frequently been misunderstood to mean that they believed in the day-age theory. That is not true. What they were doing was developing an eschatological framework which included a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth (the millennium). Their logic followed these lines:
a. God worked for six days and rested on the seventh.
b. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years (cf. 2 Peter 3:8).
c. The six days of creation and one day of rest therefore typify the six thousand years of human history that will be concluded by the one thousand-year millennium, followed by eternity. Creation took place on 4000 B.C. therefore the millennium should commence on A.D. 2000, terminate on A.D. 3000, and usher in the timeless period of eternity.

Whether or not we agree with their reasoning and the resulting prophetic framework, we conclude that these early church fathers were not denying the literal six-day creation, but were affirming their faith in it.

The view of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) is that of a six-day creation, of 24 hours apiece.

Thomas Scott's commentary of 1780 generally mentions varying interpretations where they exist, but says nothing about any possibility of the "days" being other than 24-hour periods.

It is only since the middle of the nineteenth century that commentators began talking about long periods of time within Genesis 1 itself. That is truly amazing! The Pentateuch was written by Moses in 1500 B.C. The day-age theory is not mentioned by any serious biblical scholar until the 1800's A.D. For 3300 years this supposed secret lay hidden awaiting the craftiness of nineteenth-century scholarship to unlock its mysteries and reveal them to a waiting world! Something is wrong here. Either God does not know how to express Himself very clearly, or three thousand years' worth of biblical scholars were blind for failing to see this obvious truth, or . . . the whole day-age theory is nothing more than a modern contrivance.

Is there some event in the mid 1800's that would tie in with this? Indeed, there is. It was at this time that Darwin's Origin of Species, Lyell's Principles of Geology, and other evolutionary treatises were flooding the marketplace, resulting in a widespread popular acceptance of the major tenets of evolution. Instead of holding their ground and insisting on the authenticity of God's account of origins, many theologians made the evolutionary theory the criterion of truth and practically fell over each other in their wild scramble to compromise the biblical account of origins with the speculations of nineteenth-century atheists and agnostics. Where it comes to a contest between the Bible and the theories of men, it seems that there are always those who will lean over backwards to make sure the Bible gets the short end of the stick.

(14) The theological problem of sin and death.

According to theistic evolutionists, plant and animal life flourished and died at least 500 million years before man evolved. Their deaths have been recorded as the fossil remains embedded in the sedimentary rocks of the so-called geologic column.

Romans 5:12, however, does not agree: `Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death passed to all men, because all have sinned."

The passage then goes on to identify Adam as the one man referred to in verse 12. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage; it means exactly what it says: Adam was the first man, and there was no death prior to the Garden of Eden incident recorded in Genesis 3. Either theistic evolution and its day-age theory are wrong, or Romans 5:12 is in error. There is no harmonizing or fence-straddling here; one must make a choice between holding to theistic evolution or believing the plain statements in the Bible.

There is yet another lesson to be learned from this New Testament passage. There is a tendency among neo-evangelicals today to make a false dichotomy between the Bible's statements of faith and practice and statements pertaining to science and history. The former, we are told, are accurate; the latter are riddled with errors of fact. This view is also known as the partial inspiration or limited inerrancy view of inspiration. Romans 5:12 shows that the above is untenable because the passage bases a theological doctrine (man's sin) upon a historical event (Adam's fall). Likewise 1 Cor. 15:45 bases the doctrine of the resurrection upon the historicity of Adam as the first man. Many other examples could be cited, but the lesson is clear: the theology ("faith and practice") of the Christian life is inseparably linked to and interwoven with the historicity and scientific validity of the narrative portions of Scripture. To deny one is to deny the other.

(15) The feasibility of the events of the sixth day.

One problem seems to be: how could Adam have named all the animals in one day? There are two factors to consider here.

First, only a limited number of animals are required. The purpose of parading this entourage of animals before Adam appears to have been to demonstrate to him that man was an entirely different order of creation than the animal kingdom and that none of them could ever serve as a physical and psychological companion to him. This obviously eliminates most of the organisms of the earth: insects, mice, lizards, and fish need not even apply for the position. Since God selected the animals here, He probably limited the number of candidates to those who would even conceivably be suitable. The text itself limits them to "all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field" (Genesis 2:20).

Second, Adam must have had an extremely high intelligence. Because Adam was capable of using 100 percent of his pre-Fall brain, he would probably have had an IQ of 1500 or better. Furthermore, Adam did not have to learn his vocabulary: God programmed it into his brain at the moment of his creation, and he was created as a fully functioning person. It was therefore with the utmost facility that Adam named the animals that were brought before him.

The second problem is due to a misreading of the biblical text where it says in Genesis 2:18 that "it is not good that the man should be alone." Being alone is not the same as being lonely. The latter requires some time; the former does not.

Unless one is predisposed, because of outside assumptions (evolution), to find fault with the passage, there is nothing inherently unreasonable about the events occurring on one normal 24-hour day, as indicated.

Conclusion

Much could be said about the scientific fallacies of the evolution model and the scientific superiority of the creation model3 but that is beyond the scope of this essay. The emphasis here has been on the professing Christian who is attempting to unequally yoke together two entirely opposing scenarios (creation and evolution) and who is using an unscriptural methodology (the day-age theory) to accomplish this unholy matrimony.

Ecclesiastes 4:12 speaks about a three-fold cord being not easily broken. This essay has woven together a fifteen-fold cord that is not easily broken. The day-age theory, according to the above evidence, is not permitted by Scripture and is therefore false. Elijah said, "How long will you waver between two opinions....(1 Kings 18:21). Each of us needs to decide where he stands on this vital issue.

References

1 There are very few, if any, of these "exceptions" that actually require the meaning of a period of time other than a solar day.
2 Note that the order of the Bible is not the order required by evolution. See the writer's article "Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evolution and the Bible." (Christian Heritage Courier, August, 1979). Also see John C. Whitcomb's book The Early Earth, (1972), and Henry M. Morris' book Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) - both available from CLP Publishers, P.O. Box 15666, San Diego, CA 92115.
3 See Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: CLP Publishers, 1974).

* Mr. Richard Niessen is Associate Professor of Apologetics at Christian Heritage College. El Cajon. California, and is a popular lecturer on Bible-science topics. He received his B.A., Th.B. (with honors) from the Northeastern Bible College. N.J.; his M.A. (cum laude) was earned at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois; and he is currently a Ph.D. candidate.

Source

The days of creation: A semantic approach

by James Stambaugh

The length of time represented by the ?days? of creation in Genesis has been a controversial subject among evangelicals for at least 150 years. During this time, ?eisegesis has been as common as exegesis.?1 Some have examined the history of the interpretation of the ?days? of Genesis 1;2,3 others have studied the variety of definitions for the Hebrew word yôm, translated ?day?.4,5 To avoid the trap of eisegesis, this study will present a semantic analysis of the word yôm in the Old Testament. However, before discussing the meaning of any single word, it is wise to understand the purpose behind the words which are used in the Bible, and specifically in Genesis 1.


I. The Bible and words

1. The Bible as communication

Why did the authors of the Bible write the specific words they did? The answer to this question reaches to the very nature and purpose of the Bible itself. Carl Henry, and most evangelicals, have observed that the purpose of the Bible is to communicate God?s message to mankind. This is accomplished by employing human language, comprised of words in a specific context, which is ?serviceable as a means of God?s revelation to man and of man?s communication with God; it can and does convey an informed interpretation of divine reality.?6 John Feinberg says that for any possibility of accurate communication to take place, words, as a component of language, must contain extra-linguistic referents.7 These referents operate by tying language, which is a description of the perceived or actual reality, and the physical (or the spiritual) world together into a unified whole. Feinberg illustrates his point:

?For example, if meaning is determined in terms of use and convention alone without also some definite ontological tie to the world, then it would seem that if I want to warn my friend that he is about to be bitten by a snake, I can do so just as easily by saying, "It?s a beautiful day for a walk in the park!" (or even "Glippity glop is glipping!") as I can by saying "Be careful! There is a snake near your foot!" However, this seems to leave open the possibility, ontologically speaking, that there actually might not be any snake nor any foot. My utterance might be nothing more than a reflection of what is going on in my mind, but not a reflection of what is happening in the world.?8

Another example of an extra-linguistic referent is the word ?sunny?. This word denotes the physical reality of light and warmth coming from the sun; however, it can be used figuratively for an emotional light or warmth which exists in one?s personality (e.g. ?You have a sunny disposition.?). When used in this context, however, it assumes knowledge of the physical reality of sunshine. It is this extra-linguistic factor which provides a means for checking whether the verbal statements are understood in the same manner in which the author intended.9 When God spoke, through the human author, He intended that the words used in the biblical text were meant to communicate something about the entire reality which surrounds us. The result is that mankind, created in His image, is able to comprehend what His words were meant to communicate. When approaching the Bible, the reader must comprehend the extra-linguistic referents so he can be reasonably certain that his understanding of God?s message is correct.


2. The Bible and semantics

The extra-linguistic component of language is but one means of ensuring the correct understanding of the biblical text. Another means of ensuring that the message of Scripture is understood is by the use of lexical semantics. The application of semantics to biblical studies is a recent discipline, yet it plays an important part in the accurate exegesis of the text. Moises Silva defines lexical semantics as ?the branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of individual words.?10 Lexical semantics is an examination of words and is ultimately based on likelihoods, that is, which word, or combination of words, an author is more likely to have used to communicate a particular meaning. This becomes clearer as some of the important concepts in semantics are defined.

Context is the first concept of semantics to be defined. It is said that context determines the meaning of words. J. Vendryes states:

?Among the diverse meanings a word possesses, the only one that will emerge into consciousness is the one determined by the context. All others are abolished, extinguished, or non-existent. This is true even of words whose significance appears to be firmly established.?11

There are, of course, a variety of specific contexts used in the Bible. One can, for example, examine the immediate sentence, paragraph, or the entire book in determining the intended meaning of a single word. However, it is also necessary to keep in mind that even the genres (history, poetry, and prophecy) of the Bible are often contexts all unto themselves. As such, a word, or combination of words, could, at least in theory, have a different meaning from genre to genre. In studying semantics, four words must be defined: ?range?, ?field?, ?syntagmatic?, and ?paradigmatic?. Range is simply a dictionary approach to determining the limits of the application of any one word. Field is the related meaning of various words around one idea. So then, range and field are concerned with the conceptual relationship of single words. One might consider the English word ?day? as an example. The range of the word would be the definitions contained in the dictionary, and the field would be all the synonyms and antonyms that might be found in a thesaurus.

A syntagmatic relation ?is a linear relationship with other words or units with which it is chained together.?12 A paradigmatic relation is ?the relation between a word and another word which is not present in the actual utterance, but which might have been chosen in its place.?13 These two concepts, syntagmatic and paradigmatic, are concerned with the spatial and contextual relationships of words. An example might be seen in the phrase; ?the house is large?. Here, ?house? is in a syntagmatic relation with ?is? and ?large?, and is in a paradigmatic relationship to ?building?, ?barn? or ?shed?. Choice is the last concept of semantics which must be noted. This concept illustrates the value of the words when used in a specific context. ?The value of a word is first known when we mark it off against the value of neighboring [syntagmatic] and opposing [paradigmatic] words. Only as part of the whole does the word have sense.?14,15 So the interpreter must consider the words the author chose in the specific context, and then mark them off against the other possibilities which could have been chosen. Once this is done the author?s intended meaning should be clear.


II. Syntagmatic relationships of yôm

The meaning of ?day? in Genesis 1, begins with a study of the Hebrew word yôm. The following are observations regarding the semantic range of this word, and the general word combinations, patterns and the meaning denoted by them. Such a study must also take into account the paradigmatic relationships to other words that might be used to signify a long period of time in the place of yôm.


1. The semantic range of yôm

The range of yôm is well known. The word has five meanings:

i. a period of light in a day/night cycle;

ii. a period of 24 hours;

iii. a general or vague concept of time;

iv. a specific point of time; and

v. a period of a year.16

By contrast, the English word ?day? has fourteen different definitions.17 There are many biblical occurrences of yôm: it appears a total of 2291 times with 1446 being in the singular (a slight majority, 729, appear with a preposition), and 845 in the plural (only 213 appear in a prepositional phrase).18


2. Syntagmatic relationships of yôm

The word yôm, in general, has a wide variety of possible combinations. As these combinations are carefully observed, some initial conclusions can be made regarding the syntagmatic relationships between yôm and numbers, morning, evening, light, night, and darkness.19


a. Yôm and numbers

The word yôm, either singular or plural, is used with a number 359 times outside of Genesis 1. There are four prominent ways in which yôm could be combined with a number to bring forth a certain significance. First, when the plural noun-form is used with a cardinal number (e.g. one, two, three, etc.) it denotes a specific duration of time (exceptions which contain a singular form of yôm do occur, but are infrequent); this construction occurs 189 times. An example of this can be seen in Genesis 30:36, ?Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob.? The second uses the prepositions ?on? or ?for? (Hebrew: be, le) to show that an action is to take place on a specific yôm. The number used in this construction is generally an ordinal (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) with yôm in the singular, and occurs 162 times. This can be illustrated by Exodus 24:16, ?For six days the glory covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud.? Although the construction in Genesis 1 does not precisely fit this pattern, it does appear that the phrase ?and it was evening, and it was morning? functions in a manner similar to the preposition (that is, on the xth day - comprised of an evening and morning), bringing out the semantic significance of a solar day. DeVries alludes to the same kind of function:

?After all has been said, the fact that surprises us the most is that bayyôm hahû is used as often as it is in an epitome, i.e., a summarizing characterization concerning a particular day in which Israel?s God was in some way seen to be active in crucial confrontation with his people.?20

Although there is no hint of a confrontation in Genesis 1, it should be noted that the waye phrases (translated ?and it was?) function to summarize the activities of the previous yôm. So it seems reasonable to place the concluding phrases in Genesis I in this category. The last two types are few in number, but use prepositions to signify a certain yôm as a starting point or a terminal point of an action, and occur a total of 7 times; here too the word yôm is singular, and is associated with an ordinal number. An example of the starting point is in Ezra 3:6, ?On the first day of the seventh month, they began to offer burnt offerings to the Lord.? The terminal point is seen in Leviticus 19:6, ?. . . anything left over until the third day must be burned up.? Terence Fretheim observes, ?When the word "day" is used with a specific number, it always has reference to a normal day.?21

There is another point which should be brought out when discussing the syntagmatic relationships of yôm and numbers as they are used in a series. Fretheim observes that the use of yôm in a numbered series such as is found in Genesis 1, Numbers 7 and 29 ?always has reference to a normal "day".22 So, as Fretheim suggests, when the interpreter sees the word yôm, used with a number, occurring several times in succession and in a specific context, this construction serves to denote a solar day.

This also is in keeping with the use of numbers in human languages, for numbers point to things which can be properly enumerated - not something abstract, but something that is concrete. This can be seen in some of the things which the Hebrew language enumerated: people, places, objects relating to the tabernacle (rings, candlesticks, curtains), parts of the human body, building materials, etc. It would seem that the Hebrew language uses numbers to modify those things which are well known by human experience. Newman admits the view that yôm in Genesis 1 signifying a normal day ?has the advantage that no clear counter-example [of yôm with an ordinal number] can be cited with yôm meaning a long period of time.?23 So when the word yôm is combined with a number it would appear that it is meant to communicate a twenty-four hour day.


b. Yôm and other words

There are other words which are often syntagmatically related with yôm: ?morning?, ?evening?, ?night?, light?, and ?darkness?. These words, along with the use of numbers, will aid in establishing a particular pattern of use. This, in turn, will aid in an accurate interpretation of yôm in Genesis 1.

The two words, ?morning? and ?evening?, are combined with yôm 19 times each outside of Genesis 1 (three times these words share the same reference cf. Numbers 9:15, Deuteronomy 16:4 and Daniel 8:26), and with each occurrence a twenty-four day is signified. This is true no matter what the literary genre or context might be. It should be further observed that when ?morning? and ?evening? occur together without yôm (this happens 38 times outside of Genesis 1, 25 of the 38 occur in historical narrative), it always, without exception, designates a literal solar day. So any combination of the words ?morning?, ?evening?, and yôm use their extra-linguistic referential value to its fullest extent; pointing to the length of time which is normally associated with these words. Saebo says that yôm is:

?the fundamental word/or the division of time according to the fixed natural alternation of day and night, on which are based all the other units of time (as well as the calendar).?24

The word ?night? is similarly associated with yôm. These words are combined 53 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1. The majority (26 times) appear in the historical sections; of the remainder, 16 are in the poetic sections and 11 in the prophetic. The meaning communicated by these combinations is also a solar day. Here too, the extra-linguistic factor (a literal cycle of light followed by a cycle of night, e.g. day and night) points to a reality outside of the word itself. It is thought that this use of yôm as the opposite of night represents its semantic core.25

Something slightly different is encountered when one examines the use of the words ?light? and ?darkness? with yôm. ?Light? appears with yôm 15 times outside of Genesis 1, and in most of the cases it refers to the cycle of time, with three observable exceptions: Isaiah 5:30, Amos 5:18, 20. The context makes it clear that the figurative language used in these verses refers to some future time when God will demonstrate His power to man. ?Darkness? is used in conjunction with yôm 11 times beyond Genesis 1, and most of these (seven of them) are figurative. These references are: Ecclesiastes 11:8, Isaiah 29:18, Joel 2:2, 31, Amos 5:18, 20, and Zephaniah 1:15. The Ecclesiastes passage uses ?darkness? as a time of trouble; the prophetic passages use eschatological language to denote some future time. It must also be noted that there are very few uses of ?light? or ?darkness? with yôm in the historical sections (?light? has three and ?darkness? has one). The majority occur in the prophetic genre where often these words have a symbolic meaning of blessing or judgment. However, when these words are used in historical narrative, they employ their referential value referring to that which is known by human experience.


3. Plural yôm and long periods of time

It appears that yôm was part of a variety of formulae, some of which could denote a long time. The plural use of yôm is the communicator of long time. This does not contradict the previous sections, because, in the illustrations that follow, yôm stands in a syntagmatic relationship that is different from the ones already discussed. The singular use tends to denote a short time. Once this is examined, the interpreter should be able to define contexts in which yôm would clearly communicate longer lengths of time.

It would appear, from the historical genre used in the Old Testament, that yôm in the plural tends to be part of a formula communicating a specific length of time. Gershon Brin observes that yôm is used for ?naming eras in biblical times?.26 This kind of formula has a personal name or title attached to the era; examples of this can be seen in Genesis 5 and 10, ?days of x [name of patriarch]?. The names within the genealogies could be used to designate the era in which that person lived. This is also frequently observed in the book of Judges, where we read of the ?days of x [name of a king or judge]?, and the author states how long it lasted. This formula can also be found in the prophetic genre following the same pattern, with one observable exception. Micah 7:15 is the exception where, instead of a name, this phrase is used, ?when you came out of Egypt?. The reference points to the future when God will show His power to the Gentile nations, so the reference to ?the days of? signifies the period of the exodus from Egypt. The use of yôm in the plural signifies a set length of time, and the syntagmatic relationships within the context determines how long it is.

There are occurrences of yôm in the plural that appear to cover a period of thousands of years by using two Hebrew words for a great length of time. They are ?of old? (Hebrew: qedem) and ?everlasting? (Hebrew: ?ôlam). Isaiah 51:9 illustrates the first word as it says, ?. . . awake, as in the days gone by, as in the generations of old.? The context is a metaphorical reference to God?s work of creation, and this is the same kind of work which will be undertaken for His people. These same words also appear in Jeremiah 46:26, Micah 7:20 and Psalm 44:1 to illustrate that humans had inhabited the earth for a long time (by then a period of some 3,000 years according to Genesis 5 and 10). The second Hebrew word is often used of ?eternal?; it, too, designates a long time period when combined with the plural yôm. These can be observed in Isaiah 63:11 and Amos 9:11. The Isaiah passage refers to the time of Moses, ?Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people?. The prophet Amos points back to the days of David, ?In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old?.

So the interpreter should conclude that the use of yôm in the plural may signify a long period of time (when specified by the context). This can also be demonstrated by the use of two Hebrew words for a long time translated ?of old? and ?everlasting?. It should be noted, however, that the context is one of history, and when the writers used these words for a long time, they did so with an eye to human history that began in Genesis 1:26. The observation can be made, from the plural use of yôm, that the time covered is of the order of a few thousand years, not orders of magnitude larger. Therefore, it does not appear that the context of Genesis will allow the interpreter to fit what could possibly be billions of years into the singularyôm in the events of creation, as is alleged by some.


4. Singular yôm and short periods of time

The significance of yôm in the singular, denoting a short time, should also be observed. This use, too, functions as a formula statement. As noted above, the singular is used 1446 times and most of these are used of a solar day. However, yôm has two other functions within Hebrew historiography which illustrate a time shorter than twelve hours.

The first use of yôm is a specific point in time. This can be observed when either a name or title is combined with yôm. Brin notes that the ?phrase in the singular indicates a "moment" in history?.27 When the context indicates a battle, this phrase, ?the day of x [name of battle]?, refers to the height of the battle with the victory or defeat having occurred (cf. Psalm 137:7, Hosea 2:1-2, Isaiah 9:3). So the word yôm can indeed be used in reference to a specific point in history.

The syntagmatic relationships of yôm throughout the Old Testament have been examined. It appears that the Genesis 1 use of yôm was intended to refer to a solar day made tip of a day/night cycle. This is the most natural interpretation for two reasons. First, the word-use pattern of yôm with numbers, ?morning?, ?evening?, ?night? and even ?light? and ?darkness? each suggest a solar day. Second, the extra-linguistic referential significance suggests that that which is communicated has its basis in physical reality and can be clearly observed by the reader. If something other than a literal day was intended by the use of yôm in Genesis 1, then the words of the text and reality have nothing in common. It seems clear, from the syntagmatic evidence, that the word, designated as a ?day? by Genesis 1, is a reference to a literal day of twenty-four hours.


III. Paradigmatic relationships of yôm

The paradigmatic analysis focuses on the choice of specific words used by the author, and seeks to answer the following question: ?What choices of "time" words did Moses have available to use in Genesis 1?? Once this question is answered, the interpreter should have a clear understanding of the meaning of the words used in Genesis 1, and what they were intended to communicate to the original audience.


1. Stock of ?time? words

The vocabulary stock of biblical Hebrew words indicating ?time? is substantial. There are a total of 13 words which could have been chosen, and 11 of these words refer to a long period of time. At this point it will be sufficient to mention the words which make up the stock, and then select examples from that stock. The words that denote along time are: ?et, which means ?time? in general; ?ad is the word ?forever?, and when it is used it occurs with prepositions; qedem sometimes is translated ?of old?; nesah denotes ?always?, ?forever?; tamîd means ?continually? or ?forever?; ôlam is often translated as ?perpetual?, ?of old? or ?forever?; dôr signifies ?generation?; ?orek when used with yôm is translated ?length of days?; zeman denotes a ?season? or ?time?; and mô?ed, which is also used for a ?season?. There are also words in the vocabulary stock which denote a short period of time. One such word, which is used in biblical Hebrew, is rega?. This word is translated by the English words ?instantly? or ?moment?. The other word, although not used in biblical Hebrew, is the word for ?hour?. It seems likely that the classical Hebrew language had this word within its vocabulary stock, and it could have been used if desired.28 Together these words make up the semantic field for yôm. One can conclude that the Hebrew language had a good supply of words for ?time? of either a long or short duration.


2. Event in long time past

The first aspect of time which could have been portrayed was one in which the author was in the present, and it reflects or describes events that took place a long time in the past. The simplest way of constructing this thought would have been to use the plural ?days? (Hebrew: yamîm) alone or with ?morning? and ?evening?. A possible reading could be ?and it was days of morning and evening?. This construction can be well documented throughout Hebrew historiography (for example, 664 out of 910 occurrences of yamîm can be found in the historical sections). If Moses had used these words, together, it would have communicated at least two days with at least the possibility of a vast age. The second way that an ancient earth could have been portrayed would have been by using the word ?of old? (Hebrew: ?ôlam) with ?days?.29 This could be constructed, ?and it was from days of old?. There is a similar word for ?of old? (Hebrew: qedem) that might have been used by itself or with ?days?.30 So if God, through Moses, had desired to communicate an ancient creation there were ways of doing it, but He chose not to do so.


3. Continuing event from the long time past

The second type of ?time? designation which could have been signified was a creation starting in the past, but continuing on into the future. This would clearly support the concept of a protracted creative process like theistic evolution, or Robert Newman?s version of the ?days? of creation.31 There are four words which could portray this kind of meaning. The first is ?perpetual? (Hebrew: ?ôlam modified by the preposition le) used with ?days? or ?morning? and ?evening?.32 Second, would have been to have used the word ?generation? (Hebrew: dôr) by itself or in combination with ?days?, ?days? and ?nights?, or ?morning? and ?evening?.33 One could illustrate this reading as, ?and it was generations of days and nights?. The third word illustrating an on-going creation would have been ?continual? (Hebrew: tamîd) combined with ?day?, ?days? and ?nights?, or ?morning? and ?evening?.34 This could read, ?and it was the continuation of days?. These last two usages are frequently seen in the historical sections portraying something that is ongoing, especially of God?s statutes. The fourth word that could have been used to signify a continuing event is ?forever? (Hebrew: ?ad). This word could appear by itself or in conjunction with ?ôlam.35 It could function in the summary statement, ?and it was forever?. If God wanted us to acknowledge that He used a protracted creative process, He had the perfect means of communicating it to us, but chose not to do so.


4. Ambiguous time

There are, within the vocabulary stock of biblical Hebrew, three ways of communicating an ambiguous view of time. If this was the intended meaning, it would stress the fact that God accomplished the acts of creation in the past while giving no real time indication stating how long this process took to complete. The examples that follow are discussed simply for the sake of argument because they do not occur in Hebrew historiography. The first would be yôm combined with ?light? and ?darkness?, and could be read ?and it was a day of light and darkness?. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of ?light? and ?darkness? elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially in the context of the ?day of the Lord? (this is exactly where one finds yôm, ?light? and ?darkness?). It should be noted that ?day?, ?light? and ?darkness? are figurative descriptions of an eschatological time called ?The day of the Lord?. This construction could be strenuously debated, so that no dogmatic statement can be made. The second would be to combine ?time? (Hebrew: ?et) with ?day? and ?night? (this occurs three times: Nehemiah 4:22, Jeremiah 33:20, Zechariah 14:7). The first verse is not ambiguous, as it refers to the day/night cycle. The other verses are cast into an eschatological context, so ambiguity would be expected. The third is similar in that it combines the same Hebrew word (?et) with ?light? and ?darkness? (this is a theoretical construction, so it has no biblical examples). If any of these had been used the length of the ?days? of creation would be widely open for debate, but instead God chose to use the word yôm.


5. Event in a moment of time

The previous examples have all dealt with the possibility of a long or ambiguous time in Genesis 1, yet there was a possible construction for signifying a short period of time. The word is ?moment? or ?instant? (Hebrew: rega?), and it could be combined with ?time? or ?day?. There are four examples of this when it refers to the activity of God: Exodus 33:5, Numbers 16:21, 16:45 and Ezra 9:8. One could read Genesis 1 with this thought in mind: ?and it was a moment of time?. When this word is used of God, it is associated with something God has done, or is about to do. All the historical uses of this word portray the acts of God as being completed in a moment of time. So again, if God wanted to communicate that the activities of a certain creation ?day? were accomplished in an ?instant? He had that option available to Him, but chose not to use it.

As one examines the paradigmatic evidence, the impression is given that there were many possible choices available to Moses. In fact, he had eleven ways of communicating four very different thoughts. However, he chose the specific construction of yôm modified by a number and associated with ?morning? and ?evening?. The choice Moses made can now be marked off against the other available possibilities. The only reasonable choice which remains is that Moses meant to communicate that God created in a series of six consecutive twenty-four hour days,


IV. Objections to a literal day

This paper has focused on presenting positive evidence that demonstrates the ?days? of Genesis 1 were solar days. This view, however, has been objected to for a variety of reasons, and for the sake of completeness a few of these objections need to be answered. Some have objected because of the semantic range of yôm; they argue that it is used figuratively in Genesis 1. Others have stated that yôm with a number can also be figurative, so that the length of the ?days? are defined by God. The final objection to be considered is that the first three days could not have been solar days, because the sun was not created until day four. These objections need to be examined in two ways: first, how do they handle the entire canon of Scripture, and second, how do they affect the ability of the Bible to communicate God?s word to us?


1. Semantic range of yôm

It is often declared that the meaning of yôm in the singular can denote a long time. Wilson observed that:

"Day" is also put forth for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens, whether it be prosperous and joyful, or adverse and calamitous; which day is denominated either from the Lord who appoints it, or from those who suffer in it.?36

From this quote, Fischer37 argues along similar lines: since the ?days? of creation are extraordinary, therefore they must be figurative in meaning. Excluding Genesis 1 from consideration, it appears that there are 60 references using yôm, in the singular and apart from any other ?long time? word (for example, ?ôlam or qedem), that may refer to some form of figurative time. It is interesting that of those 60 references, 55 occur in the prophetic writings and five within poetic (three are used in Job and two in the Psalms). Those located in the prophetic genre, which use yôm figuratively, designate this as the ?day of the Lord?. These ?days? are filled with all kinds of extraordinary events, as Wilson correctly observed. It should be admitted that yôm can connote a ?long time? in certain passages, but these connotations must be derived clearly from the context, not from the semantic range of yôm itself.38 Another point which should be considered is that many times the prophets used a ?time? word in a figurative sense, for example, ?darkness?, ?light? and ?day?. So it should not come as a surprise to find the majority of the figurative uses of yôm occurring in the prophetic genre; further noting that none of those 60 references use ?morning?, ?evening? or a number to modify it. If one were to believe that the ?days? of creation lasted along time, then he would have to prove his case from the context of Genesis 1, not simply citing the semantic range of yôm.


2. Yôm with a number

Zechariah 14:7 has often been used as an exception to the general use pattern (yôm with a number), and so with one exception many have stated that the ?days? of Genesis are ?eras?. The general axiom of biblical interpretation is: ?if the plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense?. If we teach that the ?days? of Genesis 1 were eras, using Zechariah 14:7 as our basis, then we could be guilty of eisegesis, because the whole of Scripture must be searched to prove or disprove it. Second, the interpreter should seek to determine the contextual meaning of ?one day? in this verse. It would appear that verses 1-11 of Zechariah 14 are expressed as a chiastic structure with verses 6 and 7 being the turning point. These verses are expressed in a figurative style, and hence there is wide variety of opinion regarding what this ?day? might be. It could very well be that the prophet wanted the passage to remain somewhat ambiguous,39 for this is the only place where ?time?, ?light?, ?night?, ?evening?, and ?day? occur in the same verse. The passage makes good sense as a normal period of time leading into a long period of time, so the translation should be ?unique day? (following the NIV). This is by no means an exception to any of the normal use patterns. The result is that no dogmatic statement should be made either way.


3. Creation week as yôm

The second reference that is often put forward as ?proof? that the ?days? of Genesis 1 are eras is Genesis 2:4.40 It would appear that the use of yôm in this passage is a reference to all of the events of creation. However, before one believes he has found proof, two things regarding this passage need to be observed. First, there are no other ?time? words (for example, ?morning?, ?evening?, ?night?, etc.) used with yôm, nor is there a modifying number. Second, it is typical Hebrew usage to translate ?in the day? as ?when?.41 So using this verse as an exception is like comparing apples to oranges; both are fruit, but not really comparable, and comparing the ?days? of Genesis 1 with this day? of Genesis 2:4 is equally inappropriate.


4. Days 1-3 could not be solar days

This objection observes that the sun was not created until the fourth day, and therefore the first three days could not have been the kind of days we are familiar with today.42 It seems that those who make this objection are not aware that the sun is not necessary to determine a ?day?; all that is needed is some point of light. A ?day? can be defined as follows:

?The time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis; by extension, the rotation period of any planet. The rotation of the Earth can be measured relative to the stars (sidereal day) or the sun (solar day).?43

The thing the stars and sun have in common is light. The text states that light was created before a ?day? is defined as ?morning? and ?evening? in Genesis 1:5a. Therefore the summary of verse 5c could be a sidereal day of 24 hours. LaSor notes, ?So to conclude, as some do, that the first three "days" could not have been days of one axial rotation is ridiculous, and is exegetical nonsense.?44


5. God defined days

This objection has two different expressions, yet the thing they have in common is that they question the ability of God to communicate accurately. It has been argued that the ?days? are to be defined from God?s perspective, and so are called ?God-divided days?.45 If this is correct, and such ?days? are of unknown duration in human terms, then arriving at a correct interpretation of Genesis 1, or for that matter any biblical passage, is utterly hopeless.

The other form of this objection, which states that the ?days? of Genesis are actually ages of unknown length, is argued by Oliver J. Buswell, Jr:

?It may be true that this is the only case in which the word ?day? is used figuratively when preceded by any numeral, but the reason is that this is the only case in Scripture in which any indefin

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
God could have made a 'day' as long or as short as he chose. The Earth's rotational speed is not constant. It changes with changes in the earth. For instance, after the earthquake that caused the big tsunami on December 26th, 2004, the Earth's rotation is a bit faster because the density of the Earth increased a bit when the plates shifted.

Read this.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

/me stabs thread repeatedly, screaming "WHY *stab* DON'T *stab* YOU *stab* DIE!" *stabstabstabstabstab*

 

[BlacKJesuS]

JESUS WAS BLACK

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: joshsquall
You see where I'm going? You can't prove that evolution can't fit into creation...

We know that evolution supposedly occures over a long period of time, particularly millions of years. Evolution is a slow process. Now those that try to say that evolution was used by God in his creation say that the term "day" in Genesis 1 referrs to "ages" rather than "one twenty-four hour period."

Here are some articles proving that "day" in that passage means "one twenty-four hour period."

Text

Text 2

Text 3

How do you measure a day before the Sun existed? He didn't create the Sun until the 4th day.

So what? The length of a day was already known by God before he created the sun. The sun only gives us a physical means by which to define it.

And this is backed up by?

This is your classic "Oh no you don't have evidence" so what you said is not credible. If you can't even refute his statements whether with evidence or not, then maybe you are the one with the issue.

In LD debate, we don't pull out evidence cards like in Policy debate. Direct evidence is not always necessary.

Let's break this down because this is simple logic that you would learn in a philosophy course.

I'm not Christian and I do not believe in creationism. However, let's believe the theory/idea is true.

You can view this in two ways.

First:

So if the Sun was not created until the 4th day, this implies the conception of a DAY was already there. Thus, God has to know the definition of a DAY in order to choose the 4th day to create the sun.

God creates the sun so we have a notion of time. We create clocks, but does this mean time doesnt exist till we create a clock? The second, the minute, the hour does not exist until we make a clock? Wrong. These ideas must exist beforehand. Ok, sorry I guess I'm speaking like a rationalist in philosophy.

Second:

Maybe the length of day really wasn't known and it was a plain coincidence that God created the sun after t = 0. This coincidentally is the 4th day when we look back at it using the measurement of time that God creates after creating the sun.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Remark to start with: Those who want it to be true will believe it anyway, and will make up any excuse needed in order to disregard errors.

Using the New International Version from http://www.biblegateway.com as example here.

Compare these two:

Genesis 22:14

14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

Exodus 6:1-3

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country." 2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, [a] but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

Abraham did not know him as 'LORD', yet he named a mountain such... Guess he was talking about a different 'LORD' then (Maybe Lordi? )

It is also clearly written by a loving, forgiving god, just like many Christians claim their god to be:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations?the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

And some common knowledge:

Leviticus 11:6

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

...

Incest is not wrong according to the Bible:

Genesis 19:30-36

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

And for those who prefer the NT.


Compare these two versions of John 5

King James Version:

2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

New International Version:

2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie?the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

Note that John 5:4 has been removed in more recent versions, simply because the passage was being criticised by Muslims in the 19th century and there was no proof of it ever having happened in the first place.

And on Jesus:

What would a 'son of God' do when hungry?

Mark 11:12-14
12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

So a tree which did not have fruits because it was not the season for it was cursed by Jesus for no other reason than not having fruits? Sounds really reasonable... Or was Jesus possessed by the Devil at that time or something?

'Embracing Jesus' is enough to be saved, right?

Matthew 17:14-22
14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him." 17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment. 19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?" 20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.

He, where did 21 go? Oh right, it also was removed after discussions with Muslims:

21 But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

Guess Jesus' own words didn't agree with the Bible according to Christians either. According to Jesus 'embracing him' wasn't enough, you needed to pray to God as well as fast.

After Jesus no one will come anymore until he himself returns!

John 16:7-14
7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[a] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Unless he has a serious case of a split personality he is clearly saying someone else still will come (the 'Counselor'). After all, how can Jesus send himself , or how can Jesus bring glory to himself?

The OT is not valid anymore since the arrival of Jesus, so you cannot use the errors in that to invalidate the Bible!

Matthew 5:17-18
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Jesus claims to have come to fullfill the old laws instead of abolishing them, yet the majority of Christians ignores many of the rules from the OT. Is the Bible wrong, or all those Christians? Oh wait... The old laws of course turned into anything Christians want them to be the moment Jesus arrived, so they can do whatever they want now!


There is a lot more still, but those who make up excuses to disregard these will not accept those either.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Even the Bible doesn't make that claim.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DAGTA
How does the Bible contradicting itself disprove God's existance? I've never heard God claim the Bible is perfect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RapidSnail

1 Peter 1:23 (King James Version)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Proverbs 30:5 (King James Version)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.


in·cor·rupt·i·ble (nk-rpt-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being morally corrupted.
2. Not subject to corruption or decay.

pure (pyr)
adj. pur·er, pur·est

1. Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2. Free from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3. Free of dirt, defilement, or pollution: ?A memory without blot or contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment? (Charlotte Brontë).
4. Free of foreign elements.
5. Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary style.
6. Complete; utter: pure folly.
7. Having no faults; sinless: ?I felt pure and sweet as a new baby? (Sylvia Plath).
8. Chaste; virgin.
9. Of unmixed blood or ancestry.
10. Genetics. Produced by self-fertilization or continual inbreeding; homozygous: a pure line.
11. Music. Free from discordant qualities: pure tones.
12. Linguistics. Articulated with a single unchanging speech sound; monophthongal: a pure vowel.
13. Theoretical: pure science.
14. Philosophy. Free of empirical elements: pure reason.

I agree with the point by RapidSnail, also there is a disclaimer in the last words of the bible that says some very very un-nice things will happen to the persons who change the meaning of the bible.

Those words pertain to the Book of Revelation and not the Bible. What is known as the Christian Bible had yet to be compiled, so this claim is false.

 

[DougK62]

I love how Bible thumpers actually believe that this is a legit question. hahahahahah

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RCN
Anyway.....I'm curious as to why you equate divinity with a virgin birth?

Also does the divinity of Jesus really matter. Could he not be 'the way' without being divine? Could not the God that is capable of all things which is the basis for you bashing eilute not simply work throug Jesus?

I'm not saying that virgin birth is a requirement or prerequisite for divinity, but if mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived, the only way she could have become pregnant was through divine intervention.

If Christ wasn't divine, his death on the cross couldn't absolve sins and the Bible repeatedly saying that Christ was divine would be a complete lie. Does it really matter? Of course it matters. Christ's divinity is the crux of the gospel. If Christ wasn't divine, show me supporting passages from the Bible that says so. If Jesus was just "some guy" that God chose to work through, again, show me supporting passages. I don't really care if a handful of "scholars" believe something other than what it says between the covers of the Bible. I want supporting documentation for any claims, ya know?

These are all doctrinal explanations and not what the Bible says. The difference is subtle, but huge. It's akin to the Bible saying "do not work on the Sabbath" and Religious people mandating that the Bible says "Don't walk more than X cubits"

"Immaculate conception" is neither what the Bible states, nor is it a "simple concept". It is the idea that a Woman just spontaneously gets pregnant FFS, I've never heard of such a thing outside these particular stories, have you?

You keep going on as if the Bible is a being, it is not. It is a book containing the stories of various people, what they said, and what they did. The Bible makes no claims to anything, the people written about in the Bible make all sorts of claims and declarations.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DaShen
:roll: how old are you RapidSnail? I am just wondering. I believe it is time to give it up and let this subject die. As a whole the universe follow the laws of Thermodynamics. Entropy will always eventually win out in the long run.

Evolution and Religion are not mutually exclusive and can be both true without one disproving the other. Both affect each other because they are different ideas about what is true, but neither have to be wrong. It is a person's perspective about evidence that could be wrong. Who knows Evolution may be debunked later on, but there is no doubt that it is science while religious beliefs like Creationism is not. Sure you can use science to back up belief (both are a search for what is true and in fact the early Catholic church sponsorsed many scientists), but religion is not science. Any warranting that religion is science is delusional in my opinion, or at least a protrayal of stubbornness (and hence immaturity). Evolution doesn't debunk the Genesis story at all, it just changes the perspective of the Genesis story, the Genesis story doesn't say how G-d created everything. The Genesis story rather just has to be taken on faith.

/thread

Evolution and religion cannot coexist if the specific religion disagrees with or disqualifies evolution as an option. In this case, the Bible is what I believe in, and it tells me that evolution did not occur because "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Nobody knows for sure whether evolution or creation was the origin of our universe. Who was there at the beginning? It is impossible for there to be recorded evidence of either case, unless their was some sort of Divine intervention. The Biblical account of our origin claims that God created the universe and everything in it, while evolutionists/Darwinists claim that we evolved from primative forms into what we are today. Obviously, we cannot directly prove either one because, as I said earlier, noone was there in the beginning. What we can do is come to a conclusion using the tools we have available. Science is used as the basis for disproving either theory, and from what I've read, I've concluded that the Biblical account of creation is perfectly in line with science, while evolution is merely unscientific speculation. Disagree with me if you will, but we both have the right to believe what we want, and I respect that.

BTW, I don't want to make any enemies because of a strong ideological disagreement, and I hope you feel the same way .

You are using the Bible as a False God.

 

[Eeezee]

Read Genesis 1 and 2 and observe that these accounts both have conflicting aspects. They differ in what order the universe was created and how satisfied God was.

/thread

 

[SampSon]

Everyone is ignoring the basis of logic.
It is up to the party who makes positive claims about the bible to prove them, not the other way around.

Using the material in question to prove the positive assertions isn't logical.

 

[Eeezee]

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Is Jesus one with his father or is his father greater than he is?

Did God make men and then beasts or beasts and then men?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.



LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Insects don't have 4 feet

Also, how did Judas die again?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)



There, now take your nonsensical science-bashing and DIAF. I hope you never require an antibiotic, for it is the very same science that gives you this medicine that you have slandered for your narrow-minded absolutist point of view.

 

[TheArabian]

Why is the day of worship on Sunday for christians?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheArabian
Why is the day of worship on Sunday for christians?

That's the day Jesus was Resurrected. That said, even after that event Paul tried to emphasize that all days were Holy and not just 1 day a week. Habits are hard to break though and over time Sunday was adopted.

 

[CHOPPER GOD]

ATTN T H R E A D S T A R T E R .........

You are entering into a vain argument with non-believers.
Salvation as you (should know) is a gift....
these people aren't Non-beleivers because of a word here and there and the Sun was created on the 4th day and the mountain was named 'Lord' or not or the telephone game theroy we hear so much of..blah blah blah.and what appears as incocnsistancies....

Don't forget Our Lord never had to or tried to 'Convince' people..
You are called or not called by the Holy Spirit...thats it.....so that no man May boast

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: CHOPPER GOD
ATTN T H R E A D S T A R T E R .........

You are entering into a vain argument with non-believers.
Salvation as you (should know) is a gift....
these people aren't Non-beleivers because of a word here and there and the Sun was created on the 4th day and the mountain was named 'Lord' or not or the telephone game theroy we hear so much of..blah blah blah.and what appears as incocnsistancies....

Don't forget Our Lord never had to or tried to 'Convince' people..
You are called or not called by the Holy Spirit...thats it.....so that no man May boast

Or you are desperate for 'something higher' and grab on to the first straw offered, and refuse to actually question your believe.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

The Bible has fallacies because it was written by Man.

Though it doesnt bear any weight on my point in either way, I am Catholic.

/thread

 

[IAteYourMother]

this thread is still alive?

 

[James3shin]

here's what i don't get...If killiing people is going against god's will/words, then why the fvck does God kill so many people in the bible?! I've read the arguments but it doesn't sit well, b/c god supposedly forgives all if they follow him right? Man this God fellow is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I'm just playing, please don't take any of the above seriously. I'm in a playful mood tonight.