Creation vs. Evolution

[Uncle Pug]

do you believe the Bible states that God created the world in six days, meaning six periods of 24 hours each?

Yes, I think that is the correct exegesis though not all agree. While the Hebrew word yôm can simply mean a period of time, even an eon... it is best defined by how it is used.

Almost invariably when it is used with the ordinals (first, second, third, ect.) it means a *day* not an *age*. The use of *evening and morning* further indicates that a 24 hour day is meant.

 

[Rick Murchison]

do you believe the Bible states that God created the world in six days, meaning six periods of 24 hours each?

ok... the question i'm trying to ask is "is each day of the creation story a 24-hour earth day?"

(in your view, of course)

Time is part of creation. The use of "days" is the writers' best attempt at using language to convert the spiritual awareness of God's hand in the creation of the world/universe, a concept that defies accurate description in the temporal confines of human thought. In other places in the Bible this temporal disconnect is alluded to with descriptions of the Lord's "time" where moments are described as ages (or a thousand years) and vice-versa. Folks who get wrapped around the axle of "6 (literal) days" - on both sides of the argument - are, in my opinion, missing the point entirely.
Rick

 

[H2Andy]

Yes, I think that is the correct exegesis though not all agree. While the Hebrew word yôm can simply mean a period of time, even an eon... it is best defined by how it is used.

Almost invariably when it is used with the ordinals (first, second, third, ect.) it means a *day* not an *age*. The use of *evening and morning* further indicates that a 24 hour day is meant.

ok, thanks

so, in this case, the Bible is accurately describing nature, though as you said, it's not interested in doing that but in worshiping God.

Folks who get wrapped around the axle of "6 (literal) days" - on both sides of the argument - are, in my opinion, missing the point entirely.
Rick

i am simply trying to understand Pug's beliefs. i did not know what he believed about this, so i asked.

Pug believes in a literal, 6-day creation. I do not. i was just trying to save ourselves a lot of time.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I just cannot beleive you Christians stood by and watched Thall and Lamont and Soggy pistol whip the poor Aussie.
... What, is the science crowd the *new* zealots? ...

Hmmm... missed the pistol whippin' - I just sorta dropped back in. As for the "new zealots" - sure seems that way sometimes.
Rick

 

[Uncle Pug]

so, in this case, the Bible is accurately describing nature, though as you said, it's not interested in doing that but in worshiping God.

We can learn about nature by using our brains and studying what we see. The scientific process is definitely a boon in this regard.

The truth about God, on the other hand is not something that we can obtain through the scientific process though it is clearly seen in nature around us. There is a spiritual blindness that keeps us from perceiving the obvious.

The Bible is not about describing nature so that we can understand nature. It is about describing God so that we can understand God.

Hope this helps.

 

[Soggy]

The Bible is not about describing nature so that we can understand nature. It is about describing God so that we can understand God.

Why choose the bible when there are so many other texts? What makes the bible authoritative and another religion's texts incorrect? Why is it that you believe that "the Bible" is the word of god and not just a book of stories? What gives it credibility?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Pug believes in a literal, 6-day creation. I do not. i was just trying to save ourselves a lot of time.

And a precise reading of what I wrote would result in "Pug believes that the word *day* in Genesis means a literal 24 hour day."

That said, I do in fact believe that it is not only correct but significant theologically.

 

[Soggy]

And a precise reading of what I wrote would result in "Pug believes that the word *day* in Genesis means a literal 24 hour day."

That said, I do in fact believe that it is not only correct but significant theologically.

How do you rectify that belief with the observable world? Or don't you care that all of science proves that the earth is orders of magnitude older than you believe?

Why would an atemporal, omniscience, omnipotent being need 24 hrs to do anything?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Why choose the bible when there are so many other texts? What makes the bible authoritative and another religion's texts incorrect? Why is it that you believe that "the Bible" is the word of god and not just a book of stories? What gives it credibility?

Well, I would be happy to give an expanded and detailed explanation if I thought for one minute the you were seriously interested in the answer.

But I can sum it up in this: the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Everything else hinges on that.

 

[Uncle Pug]

How do you rectify that belief with the observable world? Or don't you care that all of science proves that the earth is orders of magnitude older than you believe?

Why would an atemporal, omniscience, omnipotent being need 24 hrs to do anything?

Why indeed. But why not? Perhaps there is a reason rather than a need.

I didn't state an age for the earth so orders of magnitude older is meaningless.

Rectifying what I believe with what I observe isn't a problem for me... though others observing the same world have come to different conclusions.