Why are Christians embracing Evolution?

[DLH]

If you want to claim that the Bible cannot mean what it plainly says, you have to give good reason.

We claim that the Bible means more than it says when talking about the serpent in the garden. For example, we point to Paul's teaching to show that it was actually the devil talking to Eve, portrayed for whatever reason as a snake.

So we have good reason for a not strictly literal reading in that case.

What is a good reason that "six days" does not mean what it plainly says? Or means more than it plainly says.

Declaring that yohm might not mean a 24 hour period isn't a good reason.
1. It can mean a 24-hour period.
2. Genesis 1 teaches "evening and morning."

What you're doing there is ignoring everything I've already repeatedly said on the subject expecting me to obliterate your world view.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The rotation of the earth isn't in question. The earth doesn't stop rotating. The question is, does it rotate 360° once in 23 hours and 56 minutes or does it rotate once in the average 8 hour workday, which is from morning to evening.

Red herring.

The point we're, or at trying to make is that "evening and morning" is PART of that rotation, and not some "indeterminate period of time."

Your reasoning is clouded by traditional and faulty doctrine.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Prove it.

It doesn't matter if I made it up or Patrick from Sponge Bob Square Pants made it up.

Of course it doesn't. The problem is that "made up" stands in opposition to "objective reality."

The question is, is it accurate? Which can be tested. So test it.

What you have said so far is not accurate, no.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's an understandable mistake. The Bible sometimes says things that are not true,

False.

Everything the Bible says is true.

for example, snakes do not talk.

Snakes do indeed not talk.

However, the "serpent" in Genesis 3 is a portrayal of Satan, who CAN talk.

The snake didn't talk.

The "serpent" did talk, because Genesis 3 is portraying Satan as a serpent. It was Satan who was talking, not some random snake.

The text does say the snake talked.

Thank you for conceding the discussion.

Because Satan, the serpent, talked.

Because Eve thought it talked.

She thought it talked because it did, in fact talk, because the serpent, also known as Satan, was in fact talking.

Because Satan tricked her into thinking it talked.

Wrong. Satan IS the serpent.

And because Satan IS the serpent, and Satan, as you admit below, was in fact talking, therefore Satan "the serpent" was in fact talking.

It was Satan talking,

Correct.

using the snake as a sort of puppet.

What evidence do you have that the serpent in Genesis 3 is anything other than Satan?

The same with Balaam's ass.

Balaam's donkey was in fact talking, because God caused the donkey to be able to talk miraculously.

The Bible is rather explicit on that part.

It appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor;

Well, no, Samuel did, in fact, appear before the witch.

He didn't just "appear to be summoned." He actually showed up. Whether it was the witch who summoned Him, or it was God having a laugh on His part by bringing him up from the lower parts of the earth, is debatable, but there should be no question that it was, in fact, Samuel, appearing in that tent before the witch.

the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. Both untrue.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And ESPECIALLY in this case, you would be wrong.

Nephilim did in fact exist, in that land. Goliath was one such Nephilim.

See https://kgov.com/giants-and-the-bible and the follow-up shows at */giants-2 and */giants-3.

Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time.

Yes, that's because the Bible was written AFTER the events transpired, and using familiar terms helps readers of the books understand the context.

Just like New York City wasn't called "New York City" until a while after it's founding in 1624 as "New Amsterdam," yet if you were to google "when was new york city founded," it would give you a date of 1624, despite it not being called "New York City" until decades after that in 1664.

For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing (sword) existed.

Denying scripture is unhealthy, DLH.

The cherub had a sword of flame.

It's the first instance of an actual sword in the Bible. Yes, swords wouldn't be made by men until later, but a sword is a sword.

At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

My point exactly. It doesn't mean that the river didn't exist, though.

This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book?

The Bible seems to say that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days,

It doesn't just "seem to." It actually does say that.

but it doesn't.

Denying what scripture says is unhealthy.

It says that the heavens and earth were created and then there were six periods of time where it was being prepared for habitation.

And those six periods of time were literal days, and the Bible calls them such in multiple places.

That's the complicated argument I've presented which hasn't been successfully refuted.

It has been. But you've been avoiding responding to the points made with actual arguments.

But since no one is going to seriously tackle that what someone needs to do is address what exactly a day is.

See my first response to you, where I provide the definition of "day."

Does the Bible present the Hebrew word yohm as strictly applying to a literal 24 hours and does the English term day do the same. The answer I've demonstrated is no.

No one has said that "yom" ONLY means "a period of time from sunrise to sunrise" or similar.

What I SPECIFICALLY have said is that the meaning is determined by the context, which so far you have ignored.

The CONTEXT of Genesis 1 determines the meaning of "yom" in Genesis 1 as being "a period of time from morning to morning, a literal day." The CONTEXT does not allow for anything other than that definition to be used IN GENESIS 1. NOT the rest of the Bible.

Repeating that it does isn't an argument.

The reason we are repeating our arguments is due to the fact that you have yet to address them directly.

Supporting it with scripture isn't even an argument until you establish that they only apply to a literal 24 hours. You can't. Because they don't.

Again, straw man.

That's actually a very good point. I've never heard that before, and that doesn't happen often,

Thank you for being honest.

but it still does nothing to make the point. The point being made, I believe, is that the morning and the evening allegedly constitute a literal day.

No, that's not the point being made.

The point being made (at least by what I was saying) is that evening and morning are describing the end of the day and the start of a new one, just like any average human being would understand.

They don't. What you seem to be saying is closer to the morning and evening being metaphorical applications as I mentioned above. Somewhere.

If you want to insist that "evening and morning" is metaphorical, then the onus is on you to tell us what it is a metaphor for.

Because I'm saying the verse, when it says, "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day," that that means that the earth had finished it's very first rotation, and was at the start of the next rotation, and that the only reason to insist that it means something other than that is due to an a priori belief that God did not create in 6 literal days.

Not necessarily. They are listed that way probably because that is the order they were created, which certainly makes more sense. But there are a spiritual heavens and a physical heavens.

So what? The verse says, "God made the heavens and the earth."

Not at all. But the Bible distinguishes between a spiritual heavens and a physical heavens.

So what? In Genesis 1:1, it does not.

Both were created through the master worker (Michael/Jesus).

Michael is not Jesus. Jesus is not Michael.

You WILL get pinged for blasphemy on this board if you continue to assert that. This is a mainline Christian board.

In the beginning is only the beginning of the creation from the topical perspective of mankind. The physical heavens.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Prove it.

When was Jesus born? When did he become the official messiah? BC and AD come from the Easter table.

Again, "B.C." stands for "Before Christ." "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini," which is latin for "In the Year of Our Lord."

It's as simple as that.

In the alluvial plains near the ancient city Ur, about the time of Abraham, the worshippers of Astarte, the fertility goddess, dressed select children in their finest and set fire to them. Sacrificing them to fire for the goddess. Then they colored eggs, made bread in the shape of a cross, a phallic symbol of fertility of Astarte that originated with the god Tammuz mentioned in the 8th chapter of Ezekiel. Tammuz was the Sumerian King Dumuzi. Nimrod. His symbol was the filthy idol, as the Bible calls it. We know it as the cross. The cross, hot cross buns, rabbit and eggs. Found painted on ancient earns with the charred remains of children inside. Easter. I'm not impressed.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Why do I prefer BCE and CE? Because Jesus was probably born in October of 2 CE and not baptized until 29 CE. The terms BC and AD have more to do with the shoot of Tammuz than Christ.

Again, there is no such thing as the "Common Era."

It's a term made up by atheists to try to avoid referencing Christ.

And again, "B.C." stands for "Before Christ." "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini," which is latin for "In the Year of Our Lord."

It has nothing to do with whatever it is you're talking about.

I wish I had time to comb through all of those links. Your own explanation is insufficient to say the least.

I didn't have enough time to go into detail. I gave those links to you because they are, for the most part, relatively easy to go through.

From my understanding you are suggesting that Adam was created 7,600 years and six days ago?

7500 years ago, give or take 100 years, based on the orbits of clocklike comets and Biblical geneologies.

C'mon.

If you have a problem with what I say, then make the argument against it.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Supra.

I didn't.

Then why couldn't God have created angels after creating the heavens?

Actually, I would leave it out because it isn't applicable,

It is completely applicable.

you can't take it beyond the point in which the law of thermodynamics could have been established.

Remember, the point I was making was that with all the laws established, now He can MAKE something out of the matter and energy He had created.

Completed, in that God had finished creating something from nothing. No? There was only God, and then God created, and then there was God and what He created, the universe and matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that energy can be converted to and from matter, and that the amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to the other. This would have been established the moment God created the universe. All the laws established, now He can MAKE something out of that matter and energy. The Law of Thermodynamics was established when? You can't explain mechanical flight until you have it. Science scoffed at it some time after man was in the sky. It sounds to me like you are trying to incorporate the science of men into the word of God which would be fine if you were to establish they were compatible. There is a giant chasm in your attempt as far as I can tell. I'm not talking about when the law was discovered, DLH. I'm talking about when the law was established. It was established at creation, at the latest. And now you're calling into question the first law of thermodynamics.

You can say energy can't be created,

It cannot be brought into existence without a supernatural Cause.

like a power plant would,

Power plants don't create energy. They turn potential energy into usable energy.

but you can't say that a.) Jehovah, the creator of the universe, didn't create energy in the first place,

I'm saying that God created matter AND energy in the first place. And then since he had matter and energy to work with (the "completed action" you made reference to), He then MADE something with that matter and energy, which was an ongoing process over the next 6 days.

and [you can't say that] b.) it can be stated with any degree of certainty that the Bible was dependent or not upon such a law in the first place. The point is moot.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The point was that God had completed creating the universe and the matter within it, and that includes the laws that govern the universe (which include, as we call it, "the first law of thermodynamics." With that being completed, He could then "MAKE" something with the materials he had.

What you're doing there is ignoring everything I've already repeatedly said on the subject

Repeating your arguments doesn't make them correct. That would be a argument from repetition.

expecting me to obliterate your world view.

What we expect is for you to make the argument as to why you think when the Bible says something, it doesn't mean what exactly what it says, being either figurative or literal.

 

[Clete]

That's an understandable mistake.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Bible sometimes says things that are not true, for example, snakes do not talk. The snake didn't talk. The text does say the snake talked. Because Eve thought it talked. Because Satan tricked her into thinking it talked.

Saying it doesn't make it so...

Unless you're the bible! Then...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”​

So I've got the plain reading of scripture! What have you got, you're personal opinion?

It was Satan talking, using the snake as a sort of puppet. The same with Balaam's ass. It appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor; the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. Both untrue. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing (sword) existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.

You seem to know that the bible doesn't mean what it says!

Brilliant!

The Bible seems to say that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days, but it doesn't.

Liar.

It says that the heavens and earth were created and then there were six periods of time where it was being prepared for habitation.

Chapter and verse please!

Won't happen because there is no such verse!

That's the complicated argument I've presented which hasn't been successfully refuted.

There hasn't been a single syllable of an argument made here! You've stated your personal opinions but that isn't the same thing as an argument.

But since no one is going to seriously tackle that what someone needs to do is address what exactly a day is.

One trip around the Earth's axis of rotation.

Done. Next question.

Does the Bible present the Hebrew word yohm as strictly applying to a literal 24 hours and does the English term day do the same. The answer I've demonstrated is no.

You've demonstrated no such thing except a propensity toward ignoring the plain reading of scripture whenever your doctrine requires you to do so.

Repeating that it does isn't an argument. Supporting it with scripture isn't even an argument until you establish that they only apply to a literal 24 hours. You can't. Because they don't.

Nice try. A day is a day. If you want to make a claim that a day is something other than a day, then burden of proof is on you because you're the one making the extraordinary claim. As it stands, I have the plain reading of scripture and you have exactly nothing other than your own personal opinions.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

What you're doing there is ignoring everything I've already repeatedly said on the subject.

I don't know about that. I've never seen you before. I read your post and replied to it.

expecting me to obliterate your world view.

I ain't expecting anything.

You hold to the idea that "six days" can't mean what it plainly says. I want good reason to support your assertion.

Is "yohm can mean something other that 24 hours" the only thing you've got?

 

[DLH]

I don't know about that. I've never seen you before. I read your post and replied to it.

You hold to the idea that "six days" can't mean what it plainly says. I want good reason to support your assertion.

Is "yohm can mean something other that 24 hours" the only thing you've got?

I have science. Not theory. The speed of light of very distant stars. I have the Hebrew use of perfect and imperfect, light and the source, angels applauding, everything created through, by and for Jesus before he came to earth, I have the use of the Hebrew yohm that you mentioned, which is enough, because I showed where it is used for great periods of time in the Bible, how the Bible says the seventh day continues to this day, and the 6 days being mentioned as only 1 day. Read up.

My first post in this thread on why Christians are embracing evolution introduced group think, appeal to authority and ignorance. Here is that post.

Now think about that. group think, appeal to authority and ignorance. Same as why Christians embraced the literal 144 hour creation. YEC. Along with tradition. The group think, appeal to authority and ignorance became tradition.

My second post simply stated that it was my understanding that the date of the universe couldn't be had from the Bible.

My third post explained the Hebrew imperfect and perfect states in created (bara perfect complete state) and make (asah imperfect incomplete state), the various use of light ohr, light in general and maohr, it's source. The light itself, and each stage of the creation period itself.

Many ignorant Atheists as well as Christians think you can read a thousands year old text in 3 dead languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) at face value, even if the translations they read if from are a hundred years old or more in an English that itself has changed, and were produced before the manuscripts that are available to us now and our understanding of them have greatly increased. One of the things we have to watch out for is doctrinal traditions. That's your real problem. Doctrinal traditions.

The Jews waited for thousands of years for the messiah and by the time he got here religion had messed them up so bad that they not only rejected the messiah but they nailed him to a tree. Don't think for a minute that God needed, or would use, a crystal ball to have seen that coming. It was prophecy. Just as Paul said that eventually Christianity would prefer myths, the Greek mythos, later translated into the Latin fabulas, fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4) Every congregation thinks that is talking about someone else. Never them.

How can you fix it. Don't love your belief. Love the truth.

You probably won't read this far but maybe someone will stumble upon it. As for me, I'm just wasting my time. I got bored with arguing with idiots a long time ago. I came here for feedback not throw up.

I ain't expecting anything.

Exactly. And you won't accept anything that doesn't fit into your belief system. Here's the thing about belief. Only believe what is true. Never believe what you believe is true.

 

[Right Divider]

I have science. Not theory.

You think that you do. Science is all theory.

The speed of light of very distant stars.

There are other explanations that you have not considered.

https://kgov.com/stretch-cosmology-starlight-and-time-problem

I have the Hebrew use of perfect and imperfect, light and the source, angels applauding, everything created through, by and for Jesus before he came to earth, I have the use of the Hebrew yohm that you mentioned, which is enough, because I showed where it is used for great periods of time in the Bible, how the Bible says the seventh day continues to this day, and the 6 days being mentioned as only 1 day. Read up.

That is baloney.

 

[Clete]

I have science. Not theory.

Umm, did you mean you have scientific theories?

Now think about that. group think, appeal to authority and ignorance. Same as why Christians embraced the literal 144 hour creation. YEC. Along with tradition. The group think, appeal to authority and ignorance became tradition.

This might be the case for many Christians but I can assure you that it isn't the case with most any young earth creationist on this website. Quite the contrary in fact. Group think is about as far from what we do as it can get. As it turns out, there is a whole list of reasons to reject any theory that does not embrace a literal 144 hour creation...


* RSR's Lists of 24-Hour Indicators, and Gap Theory & Day Age Consequences: Below, see our list of Indicators of the 24-Hour Creation Days. Below that, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams, discuss the Gap Theory claim that the Bible indicates that a long period of time passed between the first two verses of Genesis. There they list the unexpected consequences that typically go along with acceptance of that alleged gap. They also briefly list the unexpected consequences of the Day Age Theory. The claim that the creation days were long periods of time has implications that are not always immediately obvious to those considering that position. (See that list immediately below this paragraph.) So, what isn't always presented upfront is that as supporters of the Gap or Day-Age theories try to maintain old-earth creation views, they then must rearrange the order of those days (since their theory requires the existence of the Sun before Day 4; etc.). Gap theorists also tend to reject that there were no thorns before Adam's sin, Noah's global flood, etc. Christian denominations, universities, and other organizations that adopt the Day-Age theory tend to reject all of that and even that the languages originated at Babel, and they tend to reject the Exodus, Jericho's supernatural fall, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, etc. For the vast majority of Christian groups that make what looks like just a small interpretative adjustment in Genesis 1, trying then to be consistent with that adjustment leads these Christian institutions to reject many seemingly unrelated and plain historical passages in Scripture. Further, accepting an old earth interpretation of the Bible appears to lead to disinterest in, and even outright rejection of, the many fascinating corroborating archaeological and scientific discoveries that affirm the Bible as God's Word.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:
- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)


* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above (like the Gap Theory observations below) is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:
- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everthing was very good" on Day Six


So it turns out that making a small adjustment in Genesis 1 and overlooking that "the evening and the morning" were the first day, the second day, etc., leads to extensive rejection of other plain historical passages of Scripture. Soon enough such compromise leads also to rejection of the Bible's teaching on gender and God making us male and female (Gen. 1), on sexual morality (Gen. 1, 9, Ex. 20, etc.), on marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2), and even the killing of the innocent (Gen. 4, 9, Ex. 20, etc.) through suicide, euthanasia, and abortion. What then, arises, with the adoption of the Gap Theory? Bob and Fred investigate (see below).

 

[Stripe]

I have science. Not theory.

You do? Does anyone else "have science"? What is wrong with having a theory?

The speed of light of very distant stars.

Is that different from the speed of light of nearby stars?

I have the Hebrew use of perfect and imperfect, light and the source, angels applauding, everything created through, by and for Jesus before he came to earth, I have the use of the Hebrew yohm that you mentioned, which is enough, because I showed where it is used for great periods of time in the Bible, how the Bible says the seventh day continues to this day, and the 6 days being mentioned as only 1 day. Read up.

I know all of these arguments. They have been encountered and discarded numerous times. Read up.

Now think about that. group think, appeal to authority and ignorance. Same as why Christians embraced the literal 144 hour creation. YEC. Along with tradition. The group think, appeal to authority and ignorance became tradition.

This is "the science" that "you have"?

Three dead languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek)

Dead languages?

Is this more of "the science" that "you have"?

One of the things we have to watch out for is doctrinal traditions. That's your real problem. Doctrinal traditions.

What is wrong with traditions?

You probably won't read this far but maybe someone will stumble upon it. As for me, I'm just wasting my time. I got bored with arguing with idiots a long time ago. I came here for feedback not throw up.

If you want someone to respond, try engaging as an equal.

You won't accept anything that doesn't fit into your belief system. Here's the thing about belief. Only believe what is true. Never believe that you only believe to be true.

 

[DLH]

You do? Does anyone else "have science"? What is wrong with having a theory?

Yes. I do. And yes. They do. Nothing is wrong with theory. Belief is theory. Science is spiritual, it's faith. There is no difference between belief in God, which I have, and belief in evolutionary theory. You can't prove it. You don't know for sure. That is faith. You can say you know God exists for sure, as I do, but you don't really know it in that you can prove it. You also can't prove what you had for lunch yesterday.

Is that different from the speed of light of nearby stars?

In a sense, yes. If the speed limit from my house to the mall is 55 miles per hour I can get to the mall in a short time. If I'm driving to Florida it takes longer. If the speed of light is about 186,282 miles per second it takes the light from Sirius about 9 years to get here, but it takes the light from Icarus 9 billion years to get here. Science. That means that the Earth has to be at least that old. I used a more distant example with the Hubble telescope earlier which demonstrated it's at least 14 billion years old. It can see light from 10-15 billion light years away.

Now, is this "science" we have infallible? No. Is the Bibles we have infallible? No. Is our interpretation of them infallible? No. Is God's inspired word infallible? Yes.

I know all of these arguments. They have been encountered and discarded numerous times. Read up.

I've been doing this for over a quarter of a century.

This is "the science" that "you have"?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Observation, investigation, testing and confirming.

Dead languages? Is this more of "the science" that "you have"?

What is wrong with traditions?

Languages that are no longer spoken. An example: The Hebrew word pim. In 1611 when the KJV was written they didn't know what the Hebrew word pim meant. The word occurs only once in the Bible, at 1 Samuel 13:21. Older translations, like the KJV translates it as the word file, like this: “Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.” Given the context they thought, in 1611, it must be a tool sharpening device.

Uninformed critics of the Bible argue that the Hebrew scriptures were written much later than they actually were. Even as late as the first century BCE. They don't know about pim. In 1907 a pim was excavated near the city of Gezer. It was a weight measure of 7.82 grams, about 2/3 of a Hebrew shekel. The shekel weight system went out of use when Judah and Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE and the pim was long forgotten by the time of the Hellenistic-Roman era came about. The time skeptics argue 1 Samuel was written. No one in that time or up until 1907 knew what the word meant. So the dating of the skeptics is wrong.

Another example. In 1611 the word hell meant to cover or conceal. A book heller was the person who put the cover on a book, the final part of the process. To hel a house meant to cover a portion with tile. To hell potatoes meant to put them underground for cool storage, like in a cellar. Similar words from the same root have a similar meaning. Heal is the covering of a wound. Hall is building with cover for storage or assembly, hull is the covered part of a nut or ship. Hill is the level ground covered with stone or dirt. Hole is an uncovering. Shell is a covering.

In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the known world. The Bible had foretold Alexander's coming and so the Jews submitted to him. Instead of fighting and being destroyed they welcomed him into their gates and showed him the prophecy in their scriptures.

Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: 1736

The influence that Alexander would have on Jewish culture was staggering. Really, the influence remains today, especially with those of us in the West. Unfortunately. The Jews adopted the fashion, the art, the culture, and most importantly the games of the Greeks. A Gymnasium was erected in Jerusalem where Jewish youth would frequent with great enthusiasm. The Greek word gymnasium (γυμνάσιον) means, basically, naked exercise. The trouble is the training for the games they played was heavily saturated with Greek philosophy. Gods and spirituality.

Some of the things they adopted were the immortal soul from Socrates (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28) and hell.

The religious leaders that Jesus had so much trouble with were heavily influenced by this philosophy. They coveted the influence and prestige of the Aaronic priests. When the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE it marked the end of the priesthood and made room for those apostate Jewish religious leaders to form Judaism as we know it. Jewish tradition corrupted by Greek philosophy. The same thing happened with Constantine the Great influencing Christian teachings with the myth and fables of Greek philosophy.

With dead language, science, tradition and even theology comes many things. Many of them harmful if you aren't aware of their roots.

If you want someone to respond, try engaging as an equal.

You won't accept anything that doesn't fit into your belief system. Here's the thing about belief. Only believe what is true. Never believe that you only believe to be true.

That's why I'm here. It is my honor to be afforded the opportunity to learn from you. And to share what I've learned. Many times I have been corrected and adjusted my thinking accordingly. Feedback. Don't throw up or regurgitate dogma and tradition and science and language and theology at me. Make it come alive and explain - discuss and debate - the details. Simply saying that day means day is wrong. And myopic. Calling me a liar etc., as others here have, is an unnecessary distraction. I don't have time for nonsense but I love to learn, even to learn what others who disagree with me believe. Shintoism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism and Christianity.

I'm not here to prove my frail beliefs right and yours wrong. That is nonsense. Impossible. Pointless. I'm here to learn the details.

 

[Right Divider]

That's why I'm here. It is my honor to be afforded the opportunity to learn from you. And to share what I've learned. Many times I have been corrected and adjusted my thinking accordingly. Feedback. Don't throw up or regurgitate dogma and tradition and science and language and theology at me. Make it come alive and explain - discuss and debate - the details.

Please give us the "science" for billions of years and don't forget to include the fact that God stretched out the heavens (i.e, your starlight theory is not proof of billions of years).

 

[DLH]

You think that you do. Science is all theory.

So is theology.

There are other explanations that you have not considered.

https://kgov.com/stretch-cosmology-starlight-and-time-problem

I have a search engine. I don't read links given as answers. If you want, give the relevant information in the link in summary, in your own words, and the link for reference.

 

[Right Divider]

So is theology.

Irrelevant.

I have a search engine. I don't read links given as answers. If you want, give the relevant information in the link in summary, in your own words, and the link for reference.

The point is that God STRETCHED out the heavens (the Bible says this many times).
So there is no need for a HUGE universe to be "billions of years old".

 

[DLH]

Irrelevant.

You say that my saying theology is theoretical is irrelevant in response to your having said that science is? When you give those self-satisfying quips would it trouble you to do so with at least the semblance of having put some thought into it?

The point is that God STRETCHED out the heavens (the Bible says this many times).
So there is no need for a HUGE universe to be "billions of years old".

God stretched out the heavens. True. Now you tell me, in your own words, what that has to do with the age of the universe. Why, if God stretched out the heavens, which he did, is that any evidence in context to our discussion.

 

[Right Divider]

You say that my saying theology is theoretical is irrelevant in response to your having said that science is?

Yes, that is correct.

It does not matter how many other things are theoretical. All science regarding the physical world is theorectical. Some theories are better than others.

When you give those self-satisfying quips would it trouble you to do so with at least the semblance of having put some thought into it?

False accusation, but thanks.

God stretched out the heavens. True.

How do you know that it's true?

Now you tell me, in your own words, what that has to do with the age of the universe.

It simply means that the size of the universe does not indicate the need for "billions of years".
Was that really too hard for you to understand?

Why, if God stretched out the heavens, which he did, is that any evidence in context to our discussion.

Again, is it really true that you cannot understand that distance light sources are not ipso facto evidence of "great age"?

 

[DLH]

Umm, did you mean you have scientific theories?



This might be the case for many Christians but I can assure you that it isn't the case with most any young earth creationist on this website. Quite the contrary in fact. Group think is about as far from what we do as it can get. As it turns out, there is a whole list of reasons to reject any theory that does not embrace a literal 144 hour creation...


* RSR's Lists of 24-Hour Indicators, and Gap Theory & Day Age Consequences: Below, see our list of Indicators of the 24-Hour Creation Days. Below that, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams, discuss the Gap Theory claim that the Bible indicates that a long period of time passed between the first two verses of Genesis. There they list the unexpected consequences that typically go along with acceptance of that alleged gap. They also briefly list the unexpected consequences of the Day Age Theory. The claim that the creation days were long periods of time has implications that are not always immediately obvious to those considering that position. (See that list immediately below this paragraph.) So, what isn't always presented upfront is that as supporters of the Gap or Day-Age theories try to maintain old-earth creation views, they then must rearrange the order of those days (since their theory requires the existence of the Sun before Day 4; etc.). Gap theorists also tend to reject that there were no thorns before Adam's sin, Noah's global flood, etc. Christian denominations, universities, and other organizations that adopt the Day-Age theory tend to reject all of that and even that the languages originated at Babel, and they tend to reject the Exodus, Jericho's supernatural fall, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, etc. For the vast majority of Christian groups that make what looks like just a small interpretative adjustment in Genesis 1, trying then to be consistent with that adjustment leads these Christian institutions to reject many seemingly unrelated and plain historical passages in Scripture. Further, accepting an old earth interpretation of the Bible appears to lead to disinterest in, and even outright rejection of, the many fascinating corroborating archaeological and scientific discoveries that affirm the Bible as God's Word.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:
- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)


* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above (like the Gap Theory observations below) is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:
- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everthing was very good" on Day Six


So it turns out that making a small adjustment in Genesis 1 and overlooking that "the evening and the morning" were the first day, the second day, etc., leads to extensive rejection of other plain historical passages of Scripture. Soon enough such compromise leads also to rejection of the Bible's teaching on gender and God making us male and female (Gen. 1), on sexual morality (Gen. 1, 9, Ex. 20, etc.), on marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2), and even the killing of the innocent (Gen. 4, 9, Ex. 20, etc.) through suicide, euthanasia, and abortion. What then, arises, with the adoption of the Gap Theory? Bob and Fred investigate (see below).

Don't paste at me. I can do a search. If you can't take the time to talk to me don't expect me to take the time to read your C&P.

 

[DLH]

It does not matter how many other things are theoretical. All science regarding the physical world is theorectical. Some theories are better than others.

Which is why it was relevant in the first place. See? Only some thought required. My theological theory is better than yours as far as I can tell because you haven't demonstrated why you think that not to be the case. You just keep repeating it as if that will make it true.

How do you know that it's true?

I read it in a book. Defining true: 1, In accordance with fact or reality; 2. Accurate or exact; 3. Loyal of faithful; 4. Honest.

It simply means that the size of the universe does not indicate the need for "billions of years".
Was that really too hard for you to understand?

Yes. It is. Explain it.

Again, is it really true that you cannot understand that distance light sources are not ipso facto evidence of "great age"?

Okay. Why not? If we can estimate the speed of light, and the time therefore it takes for light to get to here from a star, why can't we estimate, with some accuracy, that the universe is older than a few thousand years?

 

[Right Divider]

Which is why it was relevant in the first place. See? Only some thought required. My theological theory is better than yours as far as I can tell because you haven't demonstrated why you think that not to be the case. You just keep repeating it as if that will make it true.

That's hilarious. And mine is better than yours as far as I can tell... so there's that.

I read it in a book.

The book that you said is fallible. How do you get your truth from a fallible book?

Yes. It is. Explain it.

I have, but you are too dense to understand it.

Okay. Why not? If we can estimate the speed of light, and the time therefore it takes for light to get to here from a star, why can't we estimate, with some accuracy, that the universe is older than a few thousand years?

Again, NO!

God STRETCHED out the universe and that did NOT take "billions of years".

You are so thoroughly and completely blinded by your "own truth" that you cannot see outside of the little box that you've put yourself in.

 

[DLH]

False.

Everything the Bible says is true.

Nonsense. Even the Bible itself warns against that line of thinking, but let's save that argument for another day perhaps.

You say everything the Bible says is true. Earlier I gave examples of that not being the case, but sticking to the discussion at hand you say that the Bible says the days of creation were literal 24 hour periods. A day, it says, is a day, and so a day must mean only what you think it is.

Okay, all that aside I want to ask you 2 short questions and if you don't mind, give short answers.

1. Did Jesus tell the criminal that died next to him that today he would be in paradise with Jesus? (Luke 23:43)

2. Where did Jesus go when he died and for how long?

 

[Right Divider]

Nonsense. Even the Bible itself warns against that line of thinking, but let's save that argument for another day perhaps.

Let's NOT. If you're going to make a CLAIM... put some SUPPORT.