User Tag List

Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 1825262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 504

Thread: Scientists Question Darwinism

  1. #406
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    No morning and evening.
    God said "evening and morning, the first day." Sorry, scripture trumps your modern interpretation.

    The days, as the earliest Christian theologians taught, were pretty standard.

    He also said "six days" and "the whole Earth," but we know you reject those as well.

    I see a pattern emerging here.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 24th, 2019),Right Divider (March 25th, 2019),way 2 go (March 24th, 2019),Yorzhik (March 24th, 2019)

  3. #407
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    God said "evening and morning, the first day." Sorry, scripture trumps your modern interpretation.

    The days, as the earliest Christian theologians taught, were pretty standard.
    Nope. In fact, when St. Augustine showed that they could not be literal time periods, no one argued with him.

    He also said "six days"
    Which as you learned, is a parable for the categories of creation, as the early Christians knew.

    and "the whole Earth,"
    No, that's your insertion into scripture. Wherever you disagree with it, you edit it to make it more acceptable to you.

    I see a pattern emerging here.
    This message is hidden because ...

  4. #408
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,055
    Thanks
    34,082
    Thanked 8,592 Times in 5,509 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Nope. In fact, when St. Augustine showed that they could not be literal time periods, no one argued with him.



    Which as you learned, is a parable for the categories of creation, as the early Christians knew.



    No, that's your insertion into scripture. Wherever you disagree with it, you edit it to make it more acceptable to you.

    I see a pattern emerging here.
    Barbarian, might I recommend you read another thread where I'm currently discussing Genesis 1 with Jerry?

    I think it might shed some light on why your position is incorrect.

    If you don't, it's no big deal, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, if you could. And if you could reply here, that would also help, instead of clogging up that thread with this discussion on augustine and "modern interpretations".

    https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5327968

  5. #409
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Nope.
    You can "nope" all you like, but:

    God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. So the evening and the morning were the third day. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
    Genesis 1:5, ‬8, ‬13, ‬19, ‬23, ‬31 NKJV

    The Bible trumps your modern interpretation.

    When St. Augustine showed that they could not be literal time periods, no one argued with him.


    How about you show that they cannot be normal days. We'll argue with you.

    Darwinists love the appeal to authority. They think they can share someone's opinion and not be challenged.

    Which, as you should learn, is a logical fallacy, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows.

    That's your insertion into scripture. Wherever you disagree with it, you edit it to make it more acceptable to you.

    I see a pattern emerging here.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 26th, 2019),Right Divider (March 26th, 2019),way 2 go (March 26th, 2019),Yorzhik (March 29th, 2019)

  7. #410
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,101
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 924 Times in 634 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246940
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Even if you "fully allegorize" Genesis, it wouldn't support an eternal Earth. In fact, it would deny an eternal Earth. It's not clear what you mean by "fully allegorized", since allegories are meant to be factual, in figurative language.



    Nope. Since it says it had a beginning, that's not a possible interpretation.
    Depends on how you allegorize it. You seem to underestimate the imaginations of men.

    The creation story has no genealogies.
    That's why it says, "[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Just like it says at the beginning of all the genealogies:
    [Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
    [Gen 6:9 KJV] These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
    [Gen 10:1 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
    [Gen 11:10 KJV] These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
    [Gen 11:27 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
    [Gen 25:12 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
    [Gen 25:19 KJV] And these [are] the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac:
    [Gen 36:1 KJV] Now these [are] the generations of Esau, who [is] Edom.
    [Gen 36:9 KJV] And these [are] the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:
    [Gen 37:2 KJV] These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.

    But even without that, the part of creation that most applies to man is the part that introduces Adam, in chapter 1. His genealogy? He was from God. Eve was from Adam. The story continues by revealing that Adam and Eve had two sons, only one of which survived to procreate. Then it says they had other sons and daughters. Some of those are named, and have some of their descendants named. The time between birth of one generation and the succeeding generation is given. How much more genealogy could there be?

    Are you instead saying the creation story can't be taken literally, nor any times derived from it, because it doesn't tell from whom Adam descended???????? Such a position was foreign to Augustine. You do him a great disservice by claiming to agree with him.


    Forcing a literal interpretation of Genesis produces logical absurdities like mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.
    Why so? Do you not know it is morning even before the sun rises? Do you not know it is evening even though you can't see the sun? The light may be coming from the sun, but you couldn't tell that was the case if you didn't already know about the sun.

    You seem to want to hang onto this particular idea--that light comes only from the sun--despite myself and others, including all scientific theories, telling you that such is NOT the case. Surely you can admit of a fault in your logic here producing perceived absurdities?


    The evidence available to him did not rule out an Earth no greater than 10,000 years old. However, as you know, he acknowledged that where scripture is not explicit, we should be willing to change our interpretations if new evidence so indicates.



    See above. He studied Genesis for a long time and realized that it was not a literal history. The "days" of Genesis are figurative. His finding, that creation was done in an instant, from which all things developed in time, is remarkably consistent with the evidence we see in the world.
    You must be reading a different Augustine. The one I read said that the six days, including the creation of the sun, moon, stars, plants, fish, birds, animals, and man, were done in an instant. That is DEFINITELY NOT consistent with the evidence we see in the world, and DEFINITELY NOT consistent with current scientific theories about how the world came into being.

    Think about it. How long after the creation of the universe do you think the first plant or animal appeared?

    But you have finally answered a question I've asked in several ways--the reason you want to change the meaning of the words in Genesis is because you don't think they fit with current scientific theories about the age of the earth. And you acknowledged here that in Augustine's day, they didn't have any other evidence. And NOT having evidence to the contrary, Augustine didn't have any problem with saying that the earth is less than 6000 years old. I wonder whether he would feel the same today. But there were theories in his day that the earth was more than 6000 years old. Some said it was eternal. He wasn't swayed by that, BECAUSE he read the words of the bible and considered that they were true--that they said the earth was no more than 6000 years old.

    Augustine was a young earth creationist.
    The age of the Earth has nothing to do with Christian orthodoxy. If you deny the fact of an Earth many millions of years old, it doesn't mean you aren't an orthodox Christian. God doesn't care if you approve or not; it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of YE, and demand that all Christians must believe it.
    Is that what I'm doing? Is that what other YE creationists are doing?



    As you have seen, I am asking you to believe it as written, without the alterations of YE doctrine.
    Can you point out where they've altered the bible?


    As you have seen, St. Augustine simply let the text interpret itself, and realized it was figurative, not literal history.
    "Less than 6000 years old" is not a figurative reading of the text. Augustine allowed for different interpretations in sections where the text was hard to understand, and he used other scripture, as best he could, to help interpret it. He wasn't using scientific theories from his day to interpret the age of the earth.

    When I note that literal mornings and evenings without a sun are logically absurd, I base my understanding on the meaning of words. I will admit that if the meaning of words is not consistent, then my basis is shaky. But your basis is shaky by the nature of your human made-YE sources.
    I think you're saying here that because you don't agree with the group I tend to align myself with, my basis is shaky. I'm I reading that correctly?

    So people could understand them. If the details of the way He made the universe and life, and all other things was critical to His message to us, He might have been more explicit about those things. But it's not what Genesis is about. It's about God and man, and our relationship.
    Then God must have missed His goal, as people understand them in different ways. I would venture that such is possible with any part of scripture--that people can come to different understandings--including the gospel message. But if there are wrong understandings of the gospel, that no doubt God wanted people to understand correctly, then it seems to be more of a function of the readers willingness to accept what is provided as truth, rather than whether truth was provided. This is eternally fatal to some people, if I understand the gospel correctly.

    While the creation story might not carry the same eternal consequences, it was inspired by the same Deity. And it seems strange to me that He would give people something that required a lot of outside knowledge (not provided in the text) to understand. Maybe to appreciate fully, but not to understand.



    Since the allegorical nature of Genesis was noted over a thousand years ago, a literal interpretation is the "different" one; a modern version, only as old as 20th century. YE creationists were unhappy with Genesis as it is, and came up with a re-interpretation that seemed better to them.
    If precedence is set by when the interpretation was first noted, "over a thousand years ago" is hardly worth mentioning, even if the world is only 6000 years old, but especially so if it is much older. And if people more than 2000 years ago and those only a hundred years ago are coming to similar conclusions, why is it that the intervening conclusions, even if you happened to portray them correctly, are more valid? It MUST be that you feel science has invalidated the modern and the ancient YE's story, right?

    Why? The only thing I can think of is that they felt that their own desires were a more trustworthy source of truth--that the history of the earth from a YE perspective is more trustworthy to them than the words God gave them in Genesis, so they imagine that the words should mean something else--something more in keeping with what they personally preferred.
    From all I can see, and I've studied this quite a bit, they really feel like they are adhering, rather than departing, from the words God gave them in Genesis.


    Moses didn't do it. God did it, and Moses took it down. God did it that way so that Moses would understand. Remember, God wasn't trying to get Moses a degree in cosmology or biology; He was explaining what He did and what it means to man.
    Is it possible that God's wisdom, as revealed by His words, are more valuable than a degree in cosmology or biology?



    We all do. The point is, that is the message He's giving us. Not the details of the way He created things. He only wants us to know that He did create all things, while the precise way He did it, is not important to salvation in the least.
    Then the YE version is just as valid as the Augustine version. You have no reason to argue for one over the other. Your argument, if I understand it, is that the modern old earth position (which is probably less nailed down than the YE position, and certainly doesn't follow Augustine's position) is more conducive to attracting unbelievers to the gospel. My position is that it destroys the gospel by making the words of God malleable enough to say anything you want them to say.


    The critical thing is to get from it, what He intended us to get. But yes, knowing more about the way He made things, is indeed a very good thing. Francis Collins has a very good book out about the way that his investigations into genetics enriched and deepened his faith in God. It's worth finding out.
    But unless He tells us what He intends us to get from it, you've just shifted the focus of the argument.

    He had no evidence for the age of the Earth, but pointed out that it could not be eternal. Having no evidence to the contrary, he considered it to be a few thousand years old. But as you know, he acknowledged that such conclusions were subject to future knowledge.
    Then how did he come up with the estimation of less than 6000 years? He HAD evidence. He USED that evidence. He calculated that the earth was not yet 6000 years old. Why do you keep ignoring that and say that he somehow agreed with the old earth position?


    When scripture mentions "science (so-called)", it's not what you seem to think it is. Might be worth investigating.
    I can see why you might think that, since you like to pour different meanings into peoples' words. God's, Augustine's, and now mine.

    As you see, scripture uses "day" in more than one way. I'm merely pointing out that if it was a physical death God was speaking of, Adam would not have lived on for many years thereafter. Again, assuming it meant a physical death leads to logical absurdities.

    Rather, I'm objecting to the YE redefinition, to fit their preferences.
    If it's a redefinition, it's only a redefinition back to how the words were originally defined.


    It doesn't seem "wooden" to point out that if God meant a physical death, Adam wouldn't have lived on for many years thereafter.
    ...
    But not the day he did it, as God promised. If God is trustworthy, then it was not a physical death.
    The "wooden" part is that you somehow decided here that "day" meant 24 hours--and can mean nothing else--whereas elsewhere you can't stomach the idea of "day" meaning 24 hours, despite plenty of evidence that it could mean so. (Evidence, I might point out, that they are willing to explain in detail to those willing to listen. Evidence from studying the text to try to figure out what the words mean and how they are used.)

    And then you claim to be logically consistent??:

    As you see, I'm logically consistent. If you abandon that, then any interpretation, even YE creationism, is equally likely.
    So you've shown me. Even your interpretation, yes? As you can see, I disagree that you are logically consistent. thus, you pointing out that I see that you are logically consistent is an illogical response to my pointing out that you are logically inconsistent.

    Thus, you seem to have abandoned logic even in this conversation, much more so in your search to justify a re-interpretation of the 6 days of Genesis.



    However, that book is not the book of Genesis, so YE creationists have that going for them. Fact is, He doesn't care what you think of the way He created things.
    That's funny. I could have sworn that He derives glory from how we view His creativity, as well as how well we accept His testimony:

    [Psa 19:1 KJV] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
    [Psa 19:2 KJV] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
    [Psa 19:7 KJV] The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.
    [Psa 19:8 KJV] The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes.
    [Psa 19:14 KJV] Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

  8. #411
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    13,796
    Thanks
    29,596
    Thanked 22,272 Times in 12,161 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147728
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Does it taste like chicken?
    Yum!
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  9. #412
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Depends on how you allegorize it. You seem to underestimate the imaginations of men.
    I'm quite aware of the imaginative reworking YE creationists have given Genesis.

    Barbarian observes:
    The creation story has no genealogies.

    That's why it says, "[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"[/quote]

    No genealogies though. And that's what I told you.

    (but there are geneaologies after the creation story)

    Yep.


    Are you instead saying the creation story can't be taken literally, nor any times derived from it, because it doesn't tell from whom Adam descended????????
    Don't know where you got that idea. Such a position was foreign to Augustine. You do him a great disservice by claiming to agree with him.

    Why so? Do you not know it is morning even before the sun rises?
    morning noun
    mornĚ​ing | \ ˈmȯr-niŋ
    \
    Definition of morning

    1a : dawn tossed and turned all night until morning finally came
    b : the time from sunrise to noon She liked to get things done early in the morning.
    c : the time from midnight to noon It was ten o'clock in the morning.
    2 : a period of first development : beginning The war started in the morning of his reign.


    the six days, including the creation of the sun, moon, stars, plants, fish, birds, animals, and man, were done in an instant. That is DEFINITELY NOT consistent with the evidence we see in the world, and DEFINITELY NOT consistent with current scientific theories about how the world came into being.
    According to Augustine, creation was in an instant, after which all thing appeared from that initial creation.

    Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.
    St. Augustine, De genesi ad litteram

    Think about it. How long after the creation of the universe do you think the first plant or animal appeared?

    But you've pretty much shown your objective --the reason you want to change the meaning of the words in Genesis is because you don't think they fit with Young Earth doctrines about the meaning of Genesis. And NOT having evidence to the contrary, Augustine didn't have any problem with saying that the earth is less than 6000 years old.[/quote]

    As you know, he admitted that in such cases, where it is not specifically stated, we should be willing to change our views with new evidence.

    He wasn't swayed by that, BECAUSE he read the words of the bible and considered that they were true--that they said the earth was no more than 6000 years old.
    That isn't in scripture of course. It was man's reasoning.

    Augustine was a young earth creationist.
    You think YE creationists think the "days" of creation weren't periods of time? Seriously?

    Can you point out where they've altered the bible?
    Just did. There is no mention of 6000 years in scripture for the age of the Earth. That is man's insertion into God's word.

    "Less than 6000 years old" is not a (edit)literal reading of the text. Augustine allowed for different interpretations in sections where the text was hard to understand, and he used other scripture, as best he could, to help interpret it. He wasn't using scientific theories from his day to interpret the age of the earth.

    I think you're saying here that because you don't agree with the group I tend to align myself with,
    I'm saying here, that because we don't see 6000 years in the text, it's wrong to insert it.

    my basis is shaky.
    Well, I wrote "figurative" when I meant "literal" so that's probably why you got confused. Sorry.

    Then God must have missed His goal, as people understand them in different ways. I would venture that such is possible with any part of scripture--that people can come to different understandings--including the gospel message. But if there are wrong understandings of the gospel, that no doubt God wanted people to understand correctly, then it seems to be more of a function of the readers willingness to accept what is provided as truth, rather than whether truth was provided. This is eternally fatal to some people, if I understand the gospel correctly.
    What YE creationists are doing, is focusing on things like the age of the Earth, instead of listening to what God wants them to learn from the creation story.

    While the creation story might not carry the same eternal consequences,
    It doesn't, in the sense that God doesn't care how you look at (for example) the age of the Earth.

    The real damage YE creationism does, is mentioned by Augustine:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].
    St. Augustine, ibid

    it was inspired by the same Deity. And it seems strange to me that He would give people something that required a lot of outside knowledge (not provided in the text) to understand.
    That's where you keep failing. How old the Earth is, or how he produced rabbits, is not the message. Focus on that, and you won't stray.
    This message is hidden because ...

  10. #413
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,101
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 924 Times in 634 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246940
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I'm quite aware of the imaginative reworking YE creationists have given Genesis.

    Barbarian observes:
    The creation story has no genealogies.

    That's why it says, "[Gen 2:4 KJV] These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

    No genealogies though. And that's what I told you.

    (but there are geneaologies after the creation story)

    Yep.
    That include the man in the creation story, and include his age when his offspring was born.


    Don't know where you got that idea. Such a position was foreign to Augustine. You do him a great disservice by claiming to agree with him.
    Asking a question about how you view the genealogies is not taking a position. And I've already said I don't agree with everything Augustine said on this topic. But I can see why others have a hard time conversing with you.

    morning noun
    mornĚ​ing | \ ˈmȯr-niŋ
    \
    Definition of morning

    1a : dawn tossed and turned all night until morning finally came
    b : the time from sunrise to noon She liked to get things done early in the morning.
    c : the time from midnight to noon It was ten o'clock in the morning.
    2 : a period of first development : beginning The war started in the morning of his reign.
    The little piece of punctuation in "1a" helps tremendously. I'll repeat it here exactly as Merriam-Webster has it:
    DAWN
    //tossed and turned all night until morning finally came

    And continuing with M-W:
    dawn
    1 : to begin to grow light as the sun rises

    Which is what I was saying--"dawn", which M-W confirms is the same thing as "morning", is the time when light starts to appear, which happens before the sun appears. There may be various ways to understand how the light could precede the sun in Gen 1, but to say that it is ridiculous to have light without the sun is a gross and easily disproved error. If you don't agree, then I'm curious when you go to bed during winter months, and what kind of light-less monitor you use when reading and writing posts here.

    To assume that God can't have made light and cause morning without the sun leads one to dismiss the veracity of the passage, and require an allegorical meaning. But it isn't necessary.



    According to Augustine, creation was in an instant, after which all thing appeared from that initial creation.
    ...

    Think about it. How long after the creation of the universe do you think the first plant or animal appeared?
    By "universe", I'll assume you mean the same thing as "heavens and the earth". And time can be a funny thing. So when you say "how long?", I'd ask "by what timescale?" The one thing that seems pretty clear, from what God told us, is that there were plants by the sixth day of creation week, since God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil prior to when Eve was created, and both were created on the sixth day. I'm open to discussions of how long those days were. I think some YE creationists err when they claim they were "24 hour" days. But being a circular definition, it isn't that much of an error, just a confusion. The best we can get from the scriptures is that they were "evening and morning" days.

    Augustine may have determined through logic that all was created in an instant, but it was not what he had read in scripture--it was what he determined to be in his own mind: he inserted it. You can claim he was right or wrong, but you have no evidence that he was right, and I have evidence that he was wrong.

    As you know, he admitted that in such cases, where it is not specifically stated, we should be willing to change our views with new evidence.
    And yet you gave an instance where it WAS specifically stated, and he decided to believe something else instead.



    That isn't in scripture of course. It was man's reasoning.
    only if adding numbers is man's reasoning, in which case, I think you're saying that man's reasoning requires 2+2 to equal 4, and it not being in scriptures casts doubt on it. Am I getting your drift?


    You think YE creationists think the "days" of creation weren't periods of time? Seriously?
    I don't think all YE creationists believe the exact same things. But Augustine thought the earth was less than 6000 years old. That qualifies as "young", it's talking about the "earth", and it refers to how long ago it was created. Voila, all the ingredients necessary for a young earth creationist.



    Just did. There is no mention of 6000 years in scripture for the age of the Earth. That is man's insertion into God's word.



    I'm saying here, that because we don't see 6000 years in the text, it's wrong to insert it.
    No need to insert it. We know about Adam. We know how long he lived before he sired Seth. We know how long Seth lived before he sired Enos, etc., etc, etc, to Abraham, and we have a decent idea how long from Abraham to David and from David to the Babylonian exile, and from the exile to Christ. It's in the text.

    You have to assume the geneaologies or the creation story are not telling the truth to get something much greater than 6000 years. (Assuming is the same kind of thing as inserting; adding numbers is NOT the same thing as inserting.)


    Well, I wrote "figurative" when I meant "literal" so that's probably why you got confused. Sorry.
    What confused me here was that you corrected MY text. I appreciate your correcting your own text, and the apology, but I would also appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth by editing my text.


    What YE creationists are doing, is focusing on things like the age of the Earth, instead of listening to what God wants them to learn from the creation story.
    And you're going to tell me what God wants us to learn from the creation story? I'm all ears.


    The real damage YE creationism does, is mentioned by Augustine:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].
    St. Augustine, ibid
    If old earth creationists are wrong, a different kind of damage is done. But that kind of damage Augustine was afraid of is possible, indeed happens, even with truths of the gospel. That kind of thing happened to Jesus, who pronounced truth and only truth.

    [Mat 9:24 KJV] He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

    Listen, I'm in favor of being careful about what we print and say to the world. It isn't that hard to go beyond scripture, and I think YE creationists do that sometimes. But it is just as damaging to go against scripture in the other direction--claiming scriptures tell a different story that's also wrong.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 29th, 2019)

  12. #414
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Listen, I'm in favor of being careful about what we print and say to the world. It isn't that hard to go beyond scripture, and I think YE creationists do that sometimes. But it is just as damaging to go against scripture in the other direction--claiming scriptures tell a different story that's also wrong.
    Most Christians who are old Earth point out that what God wants us to get from Genesis is not whether or not the days are time periods, but God's role as Creator, and our relationship with him, including our separation from Him as a result of becoming aware of good and evil without being able to be truly good.
    This message is hidden because ...

  13. #415
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,896
    Thanks
    14,465
    Thanked 21,893 Times in 12,390 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147713

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Most Christians who are old Earth point out that what God wants us to get from Genesis is not whether or not the days are time periods, but God's role as Creator, and our relationship with him, including our separation from Him as a result of becoming aware of good and evil without being able to be truly good.
    "Most Christians" don't really believe that the Bible means what it says. They pick and choice what they want to believe based on their opinions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 29th, 2019)

  15. #416
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    "Most Christians" don't really believe that the Bible means what it says. They pick and choice what they want to believe based on their opinions.
    No. YE creationists are a small minority. Most Christians believe that the Bible means what it says. Even YE creationists say that, but they don't mean it. They prefer their new revisions of the Bible to the way God did it.
    This message is hidden because ...

  16. #417
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1607
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Most Christians who are old Earth point out that what God wants us to get from Genesis is not whether or not the days are time periods, but God's role as Creator, and our relationship with him, including our separation from Him as a result of becoming aware of good and evil without being able to be truly good.
    Well said.

  17. #418
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,143
    Thanks
    544
    Thanked 13,017 Times in 9,145 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    YE creationists are a small minority.
    Darwinists love believing that they are in the majority. It's their most compelling argument.

    Most Christians believe that the Bible means what it says.
    The Bible says "evening and morning," "six days" and "the whole Earth."

    Do most Christians believe that?

    We know you don't.

    Even YE creationists say that.
    It's easier for us.

    But they don't mean it.
    "I don't like this tiger, he reads minds."

    Barbarian prefers his modern revisions of the Bible.



    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 31st, 2019),Right Divider (April 1st, 2019)

  19. #419
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,101
    Thanks
    527
    Thanked 924 Times in 634 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246940
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Most Christians who are old Earth point out that what God wants us to get from Genesis is not whether or not the days are time periods, but God's role as Creator, and our relationship with him, including our separation from Him as a result of becoming aware of good and evil without being able to be truly good.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    No. YE creationists are a small minority. Most Christians believe that the Bible means what it says. Even YE creationists say that, but they don't mean it. They prefer their new revisions of the Bible to the way God did it.
    To cut down on confusion, would you mind telling us what you think the bible is saying in the creation story. Please don't spare the details. If the whole story is too big a chunk to bite off at one time, can I suggest a couple verses? I'm picking these pretty much at random, so if you'd rather take a couple different ones, I'm ok with that.

    [Gen 1:11 KJV] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    [Gen 1:12 KJV] And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
    [Gen 1:13 KJV] And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    I disturbs me a bit that we as brothers in Christ are both saying that we are reading the words as written, but we are coming to completely different interpretations.

    So, Barbarian, what do those three verses say, and on what points are you and YE creationists in conflict over them?

    You'll notice that I've used the KJV translation. If that is too recent a revision, please provide a more suitable English translation.

    Thanks!
    Derf

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (March 31st, 2019),Right Divider (April 1st, 2019),Stripe (March 31st, 2019)

  21. #420
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,347 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Darwinists love believing that they are in the majority. It's their most compelling argument.

    The Bible says "evening and morning," "six days" and "the whole Earth."
    "The whole Earth" is your addition. And as you learned, even 1500 years ago, Christians knew the "days" weren't time periods, but categories of creation.

    Do most Christians believe that? Yes, they do.

    Barbarian prefers his modern revisions of the Bible.
    Your revision is no older than the last century. And the knowledge that six days of creation were allegorical is much, much older than that.
    This message is hidden because ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us