|  eat | May 8, 2007 4:48pm | 213: "Now you are saying that it all was in 24 hour days. Were in scripture does it mention that. I know this is touched on before, but nothing was set is stone. As for the tracing of Adam to now, that has also been discussed and has been said that that was a theory, or personal interpretation, again. So you see, one can believe in Genesis and still believe that the earth is old."
I introduced the argument that 'day' per Genesis 1 means a conventional 24-hour day first here: apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/29669/16/ [apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/29669/16/] (Defending Biblical Literalism, post 17) and commented on it here: apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/66354/11/ [apologetics.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/66354/11/] (Talking with skeptics, post 12). For convenience, I'll repost the relevant portion from the first link:
-
"In its original Hebrew, the day used throughout the first chapter of Genesis is "yôm." The following is a footnote from answersingenesis.com [answersingenesis.com]: "M. Saebo, in his Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 6:22, says that yôm is: 'the fundamental word for 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).' Cited from Ref. 1, p. 72." If Moses wrote 'day' to mean 'an indefinite period of time' as asserted in your previous post, then he could have used 'yom' combined with 'light and darkness'; however, in Genesis 'day' is combined with 'evening' and 'morning' ("And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day").
Moses used other Hebrew words to describe indefinite spans of time in other parts of the Pentateuch, but not in Genesis 1. In Genesis 9:12, he writes Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'. If Moses meant 'indefinite span of time', then why did he not use these words? The most logical conclusion is that Moses meant what he wrote-- day as used in Genesis 1 means one rotation of Earth around its axis."
-
The genealogies of Genesis and Matthew pose another problem. They imply two things. Since they outline the lineage between Adam and Jesus, they directly imply the age of humanity. And since Earth is only five days older than humanity (proven above), they imply the age of Earth. The relevant genealogies are found in Genesis 5:1-32 , Genesis 11:10-32 and Matthew 1:1-17. A more digestible table of names and dates in Genesis can be found at Wikipedia - Genealogies of Genesis.
The age of Earth, and moreso humanity, are unambiguously laid out in scripture. Showing how old humanity is requires simple arithmetic: 1946 years between Adam and Abraham + at least 2550 years between Abraham and Jesus + 2007 years between Jesus and now = about 6550 years (age of Earth: 6500 years - 5 days = 6550 years).
Anyone that believes that the Bible is the word of God must believe that Earth is young. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 9:43am | Again, Man's interpretation of Genesis is what is at question here. You final conclusion is flawed. No, there is no specific belief in the age of this Earth that must be held to believe the word of God. "The book gives us major points of the story, not full detail account of what happen. The overall picture is why the book was written, Adam and Eve, satan and the fall of man." Have you read the writings of Augustine on Genesis?
...But before the appearance of the sun, in what sort of cycle could three days and nights have passed in succession? Even if there existed the light which was first created, and even if we assume that it was a corporeal light, it is difficult to discover any solution to propose for this problem. Perhaps one might say that God gave the name "darkness" to the mass of earth and water which were still not separated one from the other (a thing which is said to have happened on the third day), in view of the dense bodily mass of the earth and water, which light could not have penetrated, or in view of the dark shade of the huge bulk. Now there must be such a shade on one side of a body if there is light on the other....
As I have mentioned in post 45, this debate is old. The early Church fathers discussed this point. And they all believed the word of God and where within the teachings of Christ.
...It seems that like in the early Church, fellow brothers of the Lord will differ on the meaning of days. This debate can be seen in writings from Justin Martyr, to Irenaeus, and further. Some have said regular days and some have said periods. I don't think scipture gives us the exact time frame of creation. The Early Church Fathers even point to the facts that light was created on the first day, yet the sun was created on the fourth. Now that brings us to the age of the universe. I believe that it did have a certain place in time when it was created. I have said and will continue to say that faith should not fear science.... |
|
| 
|  JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 10:20am | where is the justification for interpreting some passages as literal and others as allegory? the only reason genesis is considered allegorical now is because it's obviously false. I've read information about language tone, etc. discussing the claim that genesis wasn't written as a story (it most likely had it's origins in myth I suppose), it was written as a history. I could be totally wrong though. anyhow... it seems common-sensical to say what is allegory and what is literal, ONLY because we actually have scientific facts to tell us what should be allegorical--this wouldn't be interpretable from the text.
if this is the case, why not reinterpret everything else too? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" doesn't really mean that, it just means try your best to not let things get in the way, but if there are others gods that are nice, that's cool too--just be sure to keep jehova number 1! I clearly see that as a possibility.
or this: "28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (rom 1, niv)
here, he's not really saying that god thinks people like this should die, he's just saying, think what it would be like if we killed them? would the world really be a better place? he's just trying to make us think. a kind, merciful, loving god doesn't want to kill people. we know in our hearts that jesus is our homeboy.
sorry for the sarcasm. but if you don't keep genesis literal, then how do you prevent everything else from being non-literal also? there is no basis for dogma or any faith at all really, because everything is open to interpretation. again, the way I see it, is that the ONLY reason genesis is now considered allegorical and out-dated, is because well... it's completely inaccurate and obviously not written by a supreme being. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 10:30am | Well, that is why Catholic believe and hold to the belief that Jesus established His Church that teaches in His absence. Genesis has always been a point of dissention for certain Christians, because there has never been a clear cut teaching on what it really means. There doesn't have to be, it was never said that this a clear cut way that creation happened and that if anything is ommited, then it didn't happen.
There are several camps that Christians can and do believe and they can still be said to be Christians in good standing.
1) The "ordinary week" interpretation. (7-24 days) 2) The "day-age" interpretation. This is where the word (yom) can be argued to mean a period and not just a day. 3) The "framework" interpretation. Which means just that, the framework that was done by God.
Now most early church Fathers did believe in 6 24-hour days, but some didn't. But the other beliefs are permissable because it is not the exact account of how and when that is valued in Genesis, it is the meaning.
In your reasoning about taking things further, then you are teaching against what Christ taught and what the entire bible teaches. You need to take it all as a whole. As for the people who deserve death, as you said, I see no where were it says that we are the ones to do it. Again, take the whole of Scripture, you will see that God is the judge and not us. So for us to think that people are not of God, we can't see into there heart to judge, so we just need to let God do that. You have good arguements, but once you start to understand the word of God, you will see that these things go all in hand. You don't take one statement and act on it. |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 10:38am | I'm familiar with all the camps. But none of them answer the question: why can't I interpret biblical passages like I did in my last post? And why should Catholics hold to the belief you stated about the church? there's no reason, it's just "faith" (which I already knew, but I'm trying to say that there's no foundation for it...)
"it was never said that this a clear cut way that creation happened and that if anything is ommited, then it didn't happen."
it doesn't have to say that. all it has to do is do what it did. the only reason we are able to interpret allegories as allegorical, is because we know the truth. what if I said, the reason bee stings hurt is because they visit so many flowers and make so much honey, it fills up inside them and it's so sweet that it hurts. you would know it's allegory, ONLY because you know the truth, the scientific truth. in the absence of this evidence, you might very well take me literally. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 10:41am | | Because then you do have contradictions. |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 10:47am | no, they're interpretations. there don't have to be contradictions if everything can be reinterpreted. we should follow the example of the very first book of the bible, and find as many meanings as possible for biblical passages, then take the one that fits best with modern science. that's what has been done to genesis--why not do it to the rest of the book?
(and sorry, I added a bunch to my last post after you responded--but I don't think it pre-addressed your comment. and I know the bee example sucks, but it was the best my brain could do at the moment, lol). |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 10:53am | If a complex truth is presented in several ways through out the book, we must take all of those references and compare them, compare them to historical teachings, and see what is meant. Genesis is one that we have very limited cross references and then allows different camps of thinking because the underline truth of God remains undisturbed.
Here is an interesting article by Kenneth J. Howell; "HOW AUGUSTINE REINED IN SCIENCE" |
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 11:16am | There are many, many different camps of thinking--it's not just limited to genesis. why do you think this is the case? I think it's because we know some of it has to be allegorical. once allegory enters, there's no demonstrable standard to follow--because allegories are open for interpretation.
(warning: potentially imflammatory material follows--don't read if you're easily offended) on a sidenote, a complex truth: god required himself to sacrifice himself, to himself, because of a rule he made about forgiveness and blood sacrifices. to do this, he impregnated mary with himself.
I know... I know... |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 11:29am | 217: "if you don't keep genesis literal, then how do you prevent everything else from being non-literal also?"
This is an important question, and it should be emphasized that the reinterpretation of Genesis gives a precedent for reinterpreting the rest of the Bible.
Genesis was written in at some time between 500 and 900BC, well before Greek scholars like Augustine, Justin Martyr, Iraneus and others could comment on it. Compared to other historical accounts of creation during the Iron Age, Genesis was almost certainly one of the more advanced. Genesis was so advanced and well publicized that it remained the dominant theory of creation until the 19th century. Since science has begun to contradict Genesis, however, Christians have begun a piecewise allegorization of its historical account from its original literal intent as written by its author centuries before the birth of Christ.
Even in the hypothetical case that Genesis was originally intended as metaphorical, the genealogies of Genesis even more unambiguously state that humanity is no more than 6500 years old (and since my original average generation time between Abraham and Jesus was probably around 25, not 50, a reasonable estimate for humanities age is certainly closer to 5250). Archaeological evidence indicates that homo sapiens emerged on the order of 70,000 years ago. The math of Genesis, which certainly intended to give a sense of historicity to the book, cannot be reinterpreted.
In addition to a believing in a young Earth, anyone who believes that Genesis is the word of God must believe that humanity is tens of thousands of years younger than it actually is. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion