Why not deep time?

[Truthseeker]

More than once Jorge argued that millions or billions of years would imply much "pain, suffering, and death." God would not create the cosmos like that.

1) That is argument from personal outrage. Also ad hominem, in that it stirs up the listener's feelings. To be sure, perhaps Jorge didn't mean to, but it does tend to have that effect anyway.

2) Why might there be any pain, suffering and death before Adam and Eve bit into the apple, never mind how many years, anyway? After all, God didn't have to create the cosmos like it is now, but he did. Genesis 3:8 may actually contain a hint of suffering. "Then they heard YHWH walking in the garden during the cool of the day." That was indeed before they bit into the apple, but it does suggest the habit of walking in the garden when it was cool had became established before the apple bit.

[Truthseeker]

Mr. Black, the author of the following post in another thread, is a YEC:

Roughly speaking, 6,000 years ago, yes. And yes, I'm sure the YEC paradigm is correct, as OEC, if held to consistently, would destroy foundational biblical doctrines (like the New Heavens and the New Earth, and ultimately the Gospel itself).



I agree that context is key. I would (respectfully) argue that the context does not allow for creation days longer than 24 hours.

Another hint: "Yom One" "Yom Two" "Yom Three" . . . "Yom Six" should be translated "Part One" etc. Or maybe even "Act One." etc.

On what basis do you make this claim?

This website http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html This webpage introduces a summary piece http://www.creationingenesis.com/Booklet.html

The beginning of this thread, if you are curious, is linked here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post80796

[klaus54]

Mr. Black, the author of the following post in another thread, is a YEC:


This website http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html This webpage introduces a summary piece http://www.creationingenesis.com/Booklet.html

The beginning of this thread, if you are curious, is linked here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post80796

Well, if Herr Black is correct, then a huge chunk of modern Christendom (e.g. Roman Catholics, United Methodists, PCUSAers) are content with "... destroy(ing) foundational biblical doctrines (like the New Heavens and the New Earth, and ultimately the Gospel itself). "

I'm sure they'd find that droll, especially "the Gospel" crack.

Mr. Black better let those guys know they need to repent and read "The Genesis Flood" three times through from cover to cover.

Before it's too late!!!

K54

[Mr. Black]

Mr. Black, the author of the following post in another thread, is a YEC:





This website http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html This webpage introduces a summary piece http://www.creationingenesis.com/Booklet.html

The beginning of this thread, if you are curious, is linked here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post80796

Ok, is this the reply you were talking about, Truthseeker?

I went to the website and went through the PDF. The author relied pretty heavily on a proposed distinction between bara and asah, which is dealt with here in a (thankfully) short article)...

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis...-in-genesis-1/

At any rate, ancient Jews understood the "evening and morning" term to signify the passing of one literal 24-hour day. I would imagine they knew more about Hebrew than most of us.

My concern runs a bit deeper though, as rejecting the young earth view undermines foundational doctrines of Christianity. I think I mentioned some of them to you a couple weeks ago. Do you remember?

[Mr. Black]

Well, if Herr Black is correct, then a huge chunk of modern Christendom (e.g. Roman Catholics, United Methodists, PCUSAers) are content with "... destroy(ing) foundational biblical doctrines (like the New Heavens and the New Earth, and ultimately the Gospel itself). "

I'm sure they'd find that droll, especially "the Gospel" crack.

Mr. Black better let those guys know they need to repent and read "The Genesis Flood" three times through from cover to cover.

I've never read The Genesis Flood. How's about I simply suggest they read the Bible?

[klaus54]

I've never read The Genesis Flood. How's about I simply suggest they read the Bible?

"They" have read the Bible in the original languages and understand the ANE culture. Combine that with overwhelming consilient scientific knowledge of Earth and Cosmos, and you've got an armada that sinks the toy boats and rubber duckies of modern (post G.M. Price, 1920s) YECism.

Perhaps you and your Sunday School class should learn some history and science?

Oh, and read the Bible yourself keeping in mind the culture of the ANE and what the Genesis stories are telling us moderns.

K54

[Truthseeker]

Ok, is this the reply you were talking about, Truthseeker?

Yes.

I went to the website and went through the PDF. The author relied pretty heavily on a proposed distinction between bara and asah, which is dealt with here in a (thankfully) short article)...

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis...-in-genesis-1/

To be frank, I think you only skimmed through. Maybe you even skipped. Page 19 of the booklet discusses the distinction between bara and asah that is evident in Genesis 2:3. There asah is in an infinitive form, so should be translated "for making" or "to make." Please read the whole page, no skipping. On second thought, maybe you should start with page 18 and continue to the end of page 19.

At any rate, ancient Jews understood the "evening and morning" term to signify the passing of one literal 24-hour day.

That is true for holy days such as Yom Kippur. However, for ordinary . . . um, what word should I use? Anyway, do you have any evidence at all to support that assertion?

I would imagine they knew more about Hebrew than most of us.

Yes. So, you think you know better than the author of the booklet what the ancient Jews thought. Why should I think so?

My concern runs a bit deeper though, as rejecting the young earth view undermines foundational doctrines of Christianity. I think I mentioned some of them to you a couple weeks ago. Do you remember?

Well, this is off topic for this thread. If you want to start a new thread in apologetics, be my guest.

[klaus54]

I've never read The Genesis Flood. How's about I simply suggest they read the Bible?

Herr Schwarz,

Do you think the Genesis creation stories can be read straight-up and unambiguously?

You know, with obvious, plain, clear, straightforward, direct mapping to the physical world?

Yes or no?

Thanks!

K54

[Truthseeker]

Herr Schwarz,

Do you think the Genesis creation stories can be read straight-up and unambiguously?

You know, with obvious, plain, clear, straightforward, direct mapping to the physical world?

Yes or no?

Thanks!

K54

What's the point of using German here? And as for the flood account, that's not only off topic, but I think there's at least one thread that discusses it already.

[Mr. Black]

"They" have read the Bible in the original languages and understand the ANE culture.

So did the ancient Jewish scholars who held to the YEC view. :)

Combine that with overwhelming consilient scientific knowledge of Earth and Cosmos,

What knowledge might that be? We can surely make observations about how the natural world operates now, in the present. But the conclusions of some scientists (those who hold to millions of years) have to do with what they have not observed (the distant past). That's a historical question, not a scientific one.

and you've got an armada that sinks the toy boats and rubber duckies of modern (post G.M. Price, 1920s) YECism.

Perhaps you and your Sunday School class should learn some history and science?

It seems humility is not your strong point. I love you anyway though.

Oh, and read the Bible yourself keeping in mind the culture of the ANE and what the Genesis stories are telling us moderns.

That's funny. That's what I was gonna say to you. ;)
Really though, if you and I are gonna have a decent convo, you're gonna have to do better than condescending rhetoric, question begging epithets, and psychological warfare.

[Mr. Black]

Herr Schwarz,

Do you think the Genesis creation stories can be read straight-up and unambiguously?

You know, with obvious, plain, clear, straightforward, direct mapping to the physical world?

Yes or no?

Are you asking if I believe Genesis 1-11 should be read in a straightforward, natural way, or are you asking if I hold to a silly, wooden literal view?
ALso, do you think the Genesis creation account canNOT be read in a straightforward, natural way?

Thanks!

Why do I get the feeling that this "Thanks!" is disingenuous?

[Mr. Black]

Page 19 of the booklet discusses the distinction between bara and asah that is evident in Genesis 2:3. There asah is in an infinitive form, so should be translated "for making" or "to make."

Notice that bara is also in that verse. God often used both words interchangably.

Please read the whole page, no skipping. On second thought, maybe you should start with page 18 and continue to the end of page 19.

Sounds like a plan, but with respect, I don't believe you've read the entire article I sent you, nor the article I sent you about a week ago in the other thread. Nor have you dealt with the doctrinal issues entangled in this subject. To be fair, I ask that you read the link I sent you yesterday (it's not very long) as well as the link I sent you about a week back. Sound fair?

That is true for holy days such as Yom Kippur.

It was used for non-holy days as well.

However, for ordinary . . . um, what word should I use?

Day?

Anyway, do you have any evidence at all to support that assertion?

I provided quotes for you in the other thread the first time we talked about it a week or so ago, but received no further response from you...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-claims/page5

Yes. So, you think you know better than the author of the booklet what the ancient Jews thought.

Is this the general tone I'm to expect in our conversation? If so, please tell me now. As the season progresses I'll be busier and busier with work, and I won't spend my time on this sort of thing. This is what's called a straw man fallacy. I didn't say I know better than the author---you said that, perhaps to cast my character in a bad light. I said that ancient Jewish scholars used the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" to denote the passing of one literal, 24-hour day, and that they would know Hebrew better (and they would) than any of us, including the modern folks who claim that that phrase does not denote the passing of one literal 24-hour day.
If I were feeling uncharitable I could just just as easily miscast your character by engaging in rhetoric such as, "So, you think you know Hebrew better than the ancient Jews did. Why should I think so?" That does nothing to glorify God.

Well, this is off topic for this thread. If you want to start a new thread in apologetics, be my guest.

No, it's actually not off-topic at all. Any time you defend the Bible's truth from well-intentioned, but misguided Christians, you're doing apologetics, even if there's overlap with other general areas.
Since the major doctrines of Christinity have historical bases, and thus those major doctrines are tied to, and affected by, one's view of the length of history, yes, if one's view of history precludes a major doctrine that's clearly taught in Scripture, it calls for immediate dismissal of that flawed view of history. If one presents a view of history that seems to preclude a major doctrine, then that person---if they actually want their interlocutor to consider adopting their proposed view---has some explaining to do.

[klaus54]

Are you asking if I believe Genesis 1-11 should be read in a straightforward, natural way, or are you asking if I hold to a silly, wooden literal view?
ALso, do you think the Genesis creation account canNOT be read in a straightforward, natural way?



Why do I get the feeling that this "Thanks!" is disingenuous?

"Natural" way --- that's a new adjective to add to plain, straightforward, direct, literal, simple-even-to-a-child, ... Any more?

The difference between YEC Bible scholars and historical-critical Bible scholars is that the latter's ANE interpretation is doesn't conflict with the consilience of evidence from Creation itself. The former make a mockery of truth.

Do you want an interpretation that makes a mockery of truth?

Now, let's get started with an unambiguous natural interpretation of the Genesis stories.

Shall we?

What does "Elohim said, 'Let there be light.'" mean? Literally, direct, straightforward, unambiguously...

C'mom have it.

K54

[klaus54]

The is a runner-up in Monty Python's Killer Joke contest.

Klaus: (paraphrased) "What about all those Old Testament scholars who use historical-criticism to interpret the Genesis stories keeping in mind the culture and knowledge of the ANE Hebrew? Those scholars have no issue with deep time."

Schwarz: (direct quote) "How's about I simply suggest they read the Bible?"

~~~ Cue Rimshot ~~~

Zinggg!!!

K54

P.S. Fundies say the darndest things.

[Truthseeker]

Notice that bara is also in that verse. God often used both words interchangably.

I believe your answer fails to refute Whitefield's (the author) demonstration that in at least one verse a distinction is indeed made between bara and asah.

Sounds like a plan, but with respect, I don't believe you've read the entire article I sent you

I think you mean the Mortenson article on the interchangeability of bara and asah. I did read that. I still prefer Whitefield's research.

, nor the article I sent you about a week ago in the other thread.

Me? I don't recall. Maybe you try again, I'm sorry.

It was used for non-holy days as well.

I'm not sure you have strong evidence of that in the Bible. It doesn't matter anyway, if Whitefield's research is essentially correct.

I provided quotes for you in the other thread the first time we talked about it a week or so ago, but received no further response from you...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...e-claims/page5

I did see the post to which the link points to. Actually that is a post made by Maxvel that has a long quote from one of your posts. Is that what you mean?

Is this the general tone I'm to expect in our conversation? If so, please tell me now. As the season progresses I'll be busier and busier with work, and I won't spend my time on this sort of thing.

I'll try to better keep myself in check. As for Klaus, well, maybe you can just ignore him?

This is what's called a straw man fallacy. I didn't say I know better than the author---you said that, perhaps to cast my character in a bad light. I said that ancient Jewish scholars used the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" to denote the passing of one literal, 24-hour day, and that they would know Hebrew better (and they would) than any of us, including the modern folks who claim that that phrase does not denote the passing of one literal 24-hour day.

But you clearly have hardly studied Whitefield's arguments.

If I were feeling uncharitable I could just just as easily miscast your character by engaging in rhetoric such as, "So, you think you know Hebrew better than the ancient Jews did. Why should I think so?" That does nothing to glorify God.

Somehow I have a feeling you tried to sneak in a strawman in.

No, it's actually not off-topic at all. Any time you defend the Bible's truth from well-intentioned, but misguided Christians, you're doing apologetics, even if there's overlap with other general areas.
Since the major doctrines of Christinity have historical bases, and thus those major doctrines are tied to, and affected by, one's view of the length of history, yes, if one's view of history precludes a major doctrine that's clearly taught in Scripture, it calls for immediate dismissal of that flawed view of history. If one presents a view of history that seems to preclude a major doctrine, then that person---if they actually want their interlocutor to consider adopting their proposed view---has some explaining to do.

An issue I'm concerned with is that people are misinterpreting the Bible especially Genesis. To be frank with you I am dismayed by your lukewarm (or cool) responses.