Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you have a time machine? Seems to me we could save a lot of time by just going back and asking the original authors what they meant, instead of twisting the words they ACTUALLY WROTE to better fit with your preconceived ideas.

But I guess if you had a time machine, we could simply go back to the beginning of the universe and put this "debate" to rest for good.

The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.

To say that the word day could refer to an indefinite epoch is not a translation by any means.

Why back in my day people would have understood that. (by the way I am referring to an indefinite time period not a literal 24 hour day).

I thought the knock on persons that believe in the bible is that they are literalists? Seems Sham is a bit of a literalist himself.

[Lojik]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.

We need more facts.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.

To say that the word day could refer to an indefinite epoch is not a translation by any means.

Why back in my day people would have understood that. (by the way I am referring to an indefinite time period not a literal 24 hour day).

I thought the knock on persons that believe in the bible is that they are literalists? Seems Sham is a bit of a literalist himself.

And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So you're suggesting that the original authors used the word "day" (or whatever the original pre-translated word was) twice in two sentences, with two vastly different meanings? Why wouldn't they use a different word and avoid the confusion altogether? Do you think they lacked the vocabulary to express the concept of an extended period of time as opposed to a single day/night cycle?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We need more facts.

Is the term in Genesis for day a literal 24 hour day? No. Here is the fact.

Genesis 2:2 tells us God began to rest on the seventh DAY. Was it a 24 hour literal day?

Hebrews 4:10 For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.

God was still in the day of rest from the creative process over a thousand years from the writing of Genesis.

Conclusion: Hebrew is a poetic language the meaning of the word depends on the context, the context here is that the term day in the Genesis account is an indefinite period of time. That is proven by the writer of Hebrews, Paul, who wad himself a Hebrew scholar.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica..._the_cosmos.29



This is not something that I personally came up with. This is all widely agreed upon by biblical scholars and theologians across the globe. If you claim that the original authors had something in mind other than what is written, the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that. You can't just say "well maybe they meant this instead!" just because it's easier for you to reconcile with the modern world we live in.

Its also not something that is actually found in the bible. The word Raqia can have several different meanings, this shouldn't be hard to grasp, after all, every language has many words that have more than one meaning. The most common translation is "firmament", but its not.the only accepted translation. "Expanse" is also an accepted translation.
Though the formation of the expanse, or atmosphere, surrounding earth did not involve a ‘beating out’ of something as solid as some metallic substance, yet it should be remembered that the gaseous mixture forming earth’s atmosphere is just as real as land and water and has weight in itself (in addition to carrying water and innumerable particles of solid materials, such as dust). The weight of all the air surrounding earth is estimated at more than 5,200,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 1, p. 156) Air pressure at sea level runs about 1 kg per sq cm (15 lb per sq in.). It also exercises resistance so that most meteors hitting the immense jacket of air surrounding the earth are p. 787burned up by the friction created by the atmosphere. Thus the force implied in the Hebrew word ra·qi′aʽ is certainly in harmony with the known facts.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you're suggesting that the original authors used the word "day" (or whatever the original pre-translated word was) twice in two sentences, with two vastly different meanings? Why wouldn't they use a different word and avoid the confusion altogether? Do you think they lacked the vocabulary to express the concept of an extended period of time as opposed to a single day/night cycle?

No I don't. The term dating the creative process giving with the creation of the earth, nit the universe. As is staTed in Genesis 1:1 the beginning (of the universe) had already occurred. Yet the first creative day (epoch) was completed before the first literal day, that is before the atmosphere wad clear enough to distinguish the difference between day and night.It's really not that complicated

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Ikonoclastia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.

Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.

I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.

We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.

Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.

The dead sea scrolls which were written thousands of years ago translate perfectly, except for some grammatical errors, to the texts we have today. No other book can make that claim. Your point had no real life application.

[Rellapse40]

Dr Duane Gish

"All of the complex invertebrates appear fully-formed without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms linking one to the other.... If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found! Even more convincing, if that can be said, is the total absence of intermediates between invertebrates and fishes, and the total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for each major class of fishes... It is physically impossible for millions of years of evolution to take place, producing a great variety of major types of fish, without leaving a trace…The evidence from the fossil record ... has established beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has not taken place on the earth."

yall *****s dumb

[Versch]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You've derailed any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Well done, trolls.

[Nihilist_santa]

6/7 day creation is possible. Physicist Gerald Schroeder has some interesting ideas about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw

It is obvious that most of you have drawn your conclusions about the bible without any serious study or understanding. You laugh about 6 day creation without thinking about things like time dilation. How scientific is it to make conclusions without thoroughly examining the data? All you are doing now is showing how dogmatic you are about materialism.