• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven Days

The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars. The Hebrew verb has two states; the perfect state, which indicates completed action, and the imperfect state which indicates action in progress, incompleteness. In Genesis 1:1, "created" in the Hebrew was the perfect state indicating completeness. The act of creating the heavens and the earth were complete.

In college, I was looking for answers to life persistent questions so turned briefly to religion in an attempt to find them. Since my background is Secular Jewish, I turned to Judaism and learned quite the opposite about Genesis 1:1. Modern English translations used by Jews translate it as "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the Earth ..." indicating not only was it an ongoing process, but that it is still, in fact ongoing. far from a fait acompli that you suggest.

Now, I don't speak Hebrew myself, so I have to take the translator's word. However, I am more inclined to go with a translation from a tradition that has studied that particular work in Hebrew for the last several thousand years, as opposed to one that is working from texts that have been translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Latin to English.

I am not stating that I believe the text is factual, but I am much more inclined to accept the Jewish translation of Hebrew verb conjugation than I am of a Christian translation of the same.
 
Try and understand these very simple facts. The Bible doesn't agree or disagree with the age of the universe according to science. The Bible doesn't say that the universe was created in 144 hours. The majority of atheists believe the Bible says the universe was created in 144 hours.

No, we believe that a majority of American Christians believe that. Your beef is with them, not us.
 
Why should you? Did I say that the Bible was a science textbook?

No, you said this:

David Henson said:
Uh . . . if you ask me that is pretty impressive for a primitive bunch of goat-herders who didn't know what was going on.

And I'm saying it isn't very impressive at all. It's about what you would expect from people living in that culture at that time and place.

The point in this thread is the same point of the one I did on the soul. That is to say that what you think the Bible says it doesn't.

How do you know what I think the Bible says?

What refutation do I have from the oppisition so far? Uninformed opinion. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me where the Bible says the universe was created in a litteral 144 hours.

Nobody here claims the Bible says that. Millions of Christians claim the Bible says that. If you think otherwise, try to convince them. And good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
If we can say a day didn't mean a day, then we can say the meant soda and sheep meant assault rifles.

Of course you can make sense out of anything if you just change the meaning of words. If they didn't mean day, the bible would have said " it took **insert number here** long" but it didn't.

For kord's sake man, i would agree with loose friggen change if i could just change the meaning of words.
 
Ladewig said:
Is Noah's Flood allegory or an actual historical event?

Actual historical.

When you are finished with this thread, would you consider starting a thread about the Flood? I already know that a Being capable of forming the cosmos is capable of making water appear from nowhere (and return to nowhere), but science indicates that there was no universal genetic bottleneck in the past 10,000 years, so there is a conflict between the Bible and what is observed by cellular biologists
 
What would be the point. I don't give a rat's ass what you think any more than you care about the Bible. Don't labor the point(less).
So what was your "point"?

You attack a strawman of atheism by using a pretty crappy criticism of the Bible(I have other criticisms) in order to correct a belief among atheist that this absurd literal creation story that is rampant among Fundamentalist Christians is somehow wrong?

Yes, we know.
 
Yeah, can't imagine how I would get that impression:

"On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work."

But now you go coasting down one slick slope. If that wasn't literal, maybe this isn't either:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

How does one go through the Bible accurately choosing the parts that are meant literally and those that are just poetry? God did a really bad job of making that clear.

Stole the words right out of my keyboard.

This isn't the first time I've seen the, "How do you distinguish the literal from figurative?" question asked. I think David's got a system in place.

If it's been totally falsified, then it was obviously supposed to be figurative.

By the way, what's the point in quibbling over what "day" means? The book says very clearly that first there was an earth, then there was light, then there was a sun. This is patently false figurative.
 
The Bible doesn't specify the age of the universe, so any estimation of science isn't actually in disagreement.


Yes, there is. Science says that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and man arose less than 3 million years ago. The majority of Bible literalists that I have encountered claim that dinosaurs (which were either actual dinosaurs or dragons) and man were contemporaneous. Some even claim that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
 
Try and understand these very simple facts. The Bible doesn't agree or disagree with the age of the universe according to science. The Bible doesn't say that the universe was created in 144 hours.

Not in those words, no.

It does, however, say that the universe was created in six days, which is equivalent to 144 hours.

The majority of atheists believe the Bible says the universe was created in 144 hours.

... quite possibly indicating that they've read the Bible.

I need for you or anyone else here to tell me why you think that the Bible says the universe, that is the heavens and earth, were created in 6 days.

That is all I am interested in hearing. Show me where I'm wrong.

Genesis 1:31. "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
 
Not in those words, no.

It does, however, say that the universe was created in six days, which is equivalent to 144 hours.

...snip...

Well it is rather vague, the Bible begins with

"In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth"

And then the second version of creation story (Gen 2:4-25) puts it as

"In the day of YHWH God's making earth and the skies"

So you could argue that it doesn't start with the beginning of everything i.e. the universe but just the parts of it that concerns the Jews.

Which is an interpretation more in line with the creation story itself since, for instance, the earth existed prior to the start of the creation story ("the earth had been shapeless and without form").

What can't be argued however is that in the Hebrew text there is nothing at all that indicates that the creation story itself is talking about anything but days so it is correct to say that the Bible creation story is about 6 days of work.
 
You do realize that most atheists don't believe the earth was created at all......
 
Am I correct in thinking that you support the idea that the Bible gives the creation account as taking place in a 144 hour period?
That's certainly what it says.

Here is the thing. Most scholars agree that Genesis 1:1, the creation of the heavens and the earth is, as I stated, complete, an indeterminate time before the first creative "day" began. The word day is used in the brief creation account in 3 different ways, including all six "days" as one "day."
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Sorry, no. If you want to argue that they didn't say what they meant, you can do that, but you can't argue that they didn't say what they said.

William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies - "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens."
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

How do you explain this?
Explain what?

From a quick reading of the creation account and an uninformed preconception that the Bible must be against science because the Bible, from time to time, deals with the supernatural which isn't testable by science and so science has nothing to offer regarding the supernatural?
No.

That would be typical, but how do you explain the flaws I pointed out in that thinking?
What flaws did you point out in that thinking? Yes, certainly, that is flawed thinking, because supernatural claims are in fact testable by science, but I'd like to get your take on it. It's bound to be entertaining.

The Bible is not against science in and of itself. It's a religious text written a millennium or two before science truly began. It's people who try to interpret it as a scientific text who are against science.
 
Well it depends on how you interpret the word....
.
"In the big inning, the word was created, and the word was 'Yer out!'".
And the Cubbies won the Series...
.
.
.
.
.
I crack me up! :)
 
Science and the Bible don't disagree nearly as much as you "think" they do.

I'd like to see the "correct" modern-day, scientific interpretation of the part of Genesis where God parades all the animals past Adam, but Adam didn't find one that he would like as an help meet for him.
 
.
"In the big inning, the word was created, and the word was 'Yer out!'".
And the Cubbies won the Series...
.
.
.
.
.
I crack me up! :)

Ah, so you DO believe in miracles (or possibly the apocalypse).
 
Hokulele's post reminded me of a similar conversation we had with DOC back in the day. As I said then, I'm far more impressed with certain Native American creation stories seeming to adhere to the scientific understanding.

Here's a Hopi creation story I posted, with my own comments in brackets:

The Four Creations

The world at first was endless space in which existed only the Creator, Taiowa. This world had no time, no shape, and no life, except in the mind of the Creator. [We start inside the Plank dimensions] Eventually the infinite creator created the finite in Sotuknang [Big Bang], whom he called his nephew and whom he created as his agent to establish nine universes. [The nine spatial dimensions of string theory] Sotuknang gathered together matter from the endless space to make the nine solid worlds. [Solar system formation] Then the Creator instructed him to gather together the waters from the endless space and place them on these worlds to make land and sea. [Earth forms] When Sotuknang had done that, the Creator instructed him to gather together air to make winds and breezes on these worlds. [Atmosphere forms]

The fourth act of creation with which the Creator charged Sotuknang was the creation of life. Sotuknang went to the world that was to first host life and there he created Spider Woman, and he gave her the power to create life. First Spider Woman took some earth and mixed it with saliva to make two beings. Over them she sang the Creation Song, and they came to life. [Life forms from organic compounds] She instructed one of them, Poqanghoya, to go across the earth and solidify it. [Volcanic activity diminishes] She instructed the other, Palongawhoya, to send out sound to resonate through the earth, so that the earth vibrated with the energy of the Creator. [I’ll think of something] Poqanghoya and Palongawhoya were despatched to the poles of the earth to keep it rotating. [Wow. They knew the earth rotated. And that the period changed. Bonus points.]

Then Spider Woman made all the plants, the flowers, the bushes, and the trees. Likewise she made the birds and animals, again using earth and singing the Creation Song. When all this was done, she made human beings, using yellow, red, white, and black earth mixed with her saliva. [Pretty correct sequencing] Singing the Creation Song, she made four men, and then in her own form she made four women. At first they had a soft spot in their foreheads, and although it solidified, it left a space through which they could hear the voice of Sotuknang and their Creator. [Evolution of frontal lobes, maybe.] Because these people could not speak, Spider Woman called on Sotuknang, who gave them four languages. [Evolution of language] His only instructions were for them to respect their Creator and to live in harmony with him.

These people spread across the earth and multiplied. [African diaspora] Despite their four languages, in those days they could understand each other's thoughts anyway, and for many years they and the animals lived together as one. Eventually, however, they began to divide, both the people from the animals and the people from each other, as they focused on their differences rather than their similarities. [We go from tribes to clans to larger social structures.]
 
So in the beginning God created the earth to look like it had coalesced out of a disc of gas and dust like every other planet in the universe but it wasn't so god is deceptive?

Read the creation accounts and other cosmological stuff in the OT with this in mind, and it makes a lot more sense.
GdihBl.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top Bottom