It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Genesis Account and How it Refutes Creationism

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.


I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.


I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.
edit on 18-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: chr0naut
Stop being so pedantic. As a time concept a day has 86400 seconds so a "day" would be anywhere if you count out the seconds.. Buuut as I put in my answer before the big bang there was not a Sun, there was not an Earth so the concept to man was moot.
And don't say "you don't know what was there before the big bang so there might have been a Sun", no one knows.



A time period that would later come to be defined as a day could exist before there was a Sun & stars.

The description of a discrete period of time as a 'day' is merely a convenient convention. The insistence that a day is defined by the Earth's rotation in sunlight only is applying 'text book' pedantry. The Genesis account is not a scientific text (as many have previously noted) it describes things that science cannot hope to penetrate.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.


I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.


I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.


In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

I do not believe that the Genesis creation account is allegorical overall, but metaphor and simile are used in it because its concepts are generally beyond the knowledge and experience of its authors and most readers.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.

edit on 18/4/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.


I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.


I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.


In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.


Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.
edit on 18-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

the bible doesn't say the world is 6k years old...

btw




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

the bible doesn't say the world is 6k years old...

btw



Some people have interpreted that way for a long time. You have to consider that creation days are longer than earth days to get past that.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well no... the six days of creation can be solved with a verse in 2 peter, refering to a passage in psalms... a day is like a thousand years to God (paraphrased)

As far as the world being 6k years old... its not said, ever...

that theory came from a bishop who literally tried to calculate the age of the earth by the genealogies in the bible

I think his name was Usher... back in the 16oos i believe




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

Well no... the six days of creation can be solved with a verse in 2 peter, refering to a passage in psalms... a day is like a thousand years to God (paraphrased)

As far as the world being 6k years old... its not said, ever...

that theory came from a bishop who literally tried to calculate the age of the earth by the genealogies in the bible

I think his name was Usher... back in the 16oos i believe



It was before the 1600's but yes it was from geaneology. Using the birth of Seth at 130 years after Adam for instance.

There have been several takes on the age of the earth using the bible the last being 1956 at 4.5 billion.

It doesn't matter to me. These are allegory examples people cling to imo. There is no point in putting a date on creation from a biblical or metaphysical perspective. If you are interested in Cosmology that just seems like a seperate interest. Like Laimatre wanting his science seperate from the church.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.


I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.


I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.


In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.


Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.


"Popular science" is entirely metaphor.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: chr0naut
The description of a discrete period of time as a 'day' is merely a convenient convention. The insistence that a day is defined by the Earth's rotation in sunlight only is applying 'text book' pedantry.


Nah, it's just blatant denial of the way the word "day" has been used for thousands of years in different languages and is still used that way today. From the google dictionary regarding the word "day":


2. a particular period of the past; an era.
"the laws were very strict in those days"
synonyms: period, time, age, era, generation
"the leading architect of the day"


That is no different than the way Moses used the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1. But I'm sure there are plenty of young earth creationists out there that demand an answer to the line "there was evening, and there was morning" before they even want to consider that fact/reality/truth. That's programming and conditioning at its finest for ye (as if it requires one before a person can deal with this fact). Perhaps LifeisGrand can have a shot, I'm too discouraged by the nuh-uh's regarding facts/realities on ATS (and internet in general). Making my comments a bit cynical, so I probably need a break.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

the problem with that argument is :

at precisley which point [ biblically ] do you use ,

day = 24 hours

or day = 1000 years ?

the obvious rebuttal is < paraphrasing > " on the 3rd day , christ rose " - was that 72 hours or 3000 years - yes i am being feceacious

but see the point ?

before anyone chirps - yes i am familiar with stongs - and know that there are identical spellings that have different meanings [ context driven ]

but i smell cherry picking bollox in the " interpretation " of day lenghth



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Well IF we're speaking biblical...

A 24 hour day wouldn't have happened until after the sun was "created"


the obvious rebuttal is < paraphrasing > " on the 3rd day , christ rose " - was that 72 hours or 3000 years - yes i am being feceacious


Well... Christ didn't actually rise in "three days" according to the texts...

3pm friday... to Sunday morning

And no i don't see your point...




posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

In the Danish Bible ...


Luckily we have older more reliable Hebrew manuscripts that use the same Hebrew word in Genesis 2:4 as in Genesis chapter 1. On the biblehub website you can nicely see which bible translations have removed the word "day" from Genesis 2:4 to assist in this obscuration of the facts and keeping people in darkness (ignorant of) as per your translation of the Danish bible as if the same word isn't used (why do these translations suddenly switch when they translate it to "day" in chapter 1? Only to confuse and assist in misleading argumentation and make it more vague, which is now used by many who use these bible translations such as the NIV, and then don't forget to accuse the NWT of so-called "theological bias" of course...oops, there goes the sarcasm and cynicism again, sorry, it's just so...Isaiah 5:20, and hypocritical when it's the other translations doing that; and I'm no longer thinking of you, I'm thinking about others with their hypocritical false accusations now, but plenty of people believing these false accusations because it's tickling their ears, what they want to hear).

Genesis 2:4 Hebrew Text Analysis:


3117 [e] : bə-yō-wm, : בְּי֗וֹם : in the day that


I just checked the list on the left with the most popular bible translations, and each one I checked where the word "day" was removed from the translation (making another choice in translation) was a modern translation of the bible (the NIV being the oldest from 1978 and the rest all in the 90's or more recent). That was noteworthy to me (given what I posted regarding the slow rise of young earth creationism around 1880-1923 and much more after that, whose main teachers and scholars don't want you to think about the fact that the same word in Genesis 2:4 is used in chapter 1, for the reasons explained by LifeisGrand in the OP, so just as they have been doing for centuries with the doctrine of the Trinity, they're trying to make their bibles say what they want it to say, often to hide little twists in interpretation like this; even though some of the ones using a synonym there are still using a correct translation, they won't make it clear that the same word is used in Genesis chapter 1, so there a synonym applies as well then if you're going to use it in Genesis 2:4 (such as "time" in the HCSB), and then they suddenly don't want to do that allowing others to interpret the same word as a 24-hour day in chapter 1, and then as a "time/period/age/era" in Genesis 2:4, conveniently and inconsistently).

This is one of the many reasons why I sometimes try to remind those on ATS who think they are awake to religious deception such as critics of organized religion, critics of the bible ('the bible is used for controlling the masses, it's bronze age myth', etc.), or those who think they are awake to political deception from a so-called NWO or elite or "the illuminati" or "freemasonry" or "satanism and satanists", or those who feel they are enlightened (Latin: illuminatus) and well educated themselves regarding philosophy, religion and various views of reality and that their views or opinions are logical and reasonable (or otherwise close to the truth); THAT THEY ARE NOT AWAKE! Enlightened or otherwise. 'You' haven't even scratched the surface.

And that often, they are...


using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

Source: One Myth Leads to Another

I hope I didn't overdo it on the capitalization, I'm not shouting, just strongly emphasizing.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
Well more than half of bible users just believe it's an allegory story. The creationists are a minority. It's been hundreds of years since the catholics believed the story to be allegory. Heck the big bang was theorized by George Laimatre who was a priest.

I am not a believer myself but I haven't met many Christians or Jews p who believe Genesis to be a factual story.


I am a Christian who believes that the content of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 is factual, but it is not factual in a scince textbook sense.

It is more about the "why" of things than the "how" of things.

As an aside, I don't think ANY of my science textbooks from school could still be be considered factual. This is because science is always in flux, with old ideas thrown out and new ones supplanting them. When I was at school, the steady state universe was a highly regarded cosmology. With the WMAP survey, the Big Bang has now completely supplanted it.

The Bible, however, stands unchanged and unedited over the same time period yet still has legitimacy, while science has vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with it. That, to me, gives extra credence to the Bible's accounts as being representative of an absolute truth.


I don't see how this changes that most bible believers take the story as allegory.

Also comparing science to theology/philosophy/metaphysics is like comparing computers to oranges. They just are not remotely the same.

Plato's the Cave also still has meaning as does critique of pure reason from Kant.

If your are referring to Genesis as a story of say Aquinas's first cause than sure. It can have metaphorical meaning.

There are people who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old though.


In no science textbooks is there ever likely to be an explanation of the purpose of creation. That is beyond science.

The Biblical account explains (among other things) a purpose for creation, which science cannot.

I believe the Genesis account is entirely factual but it's not 'scientific', in exactly the same way that Winston Churchill's four volume "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" is factual but not scientific.

To assume that science is the only source of fact or truth is narrow minded.


Well that's a big strawman.

I never said science was the only form of truth. Philosophy has plenty truths. The categorical imparitive for instance.

I don't think science proves why or intends to.

Cosmology even only has intention to prove origin.

I am not a bible believer but I respect your beliefs. I can't denie your belief in them or want to.

If you believe however the earth is 6000 years old that would be a literal interpretation. Do you believe that or that Genesis is allegory?

Guess you edited that. I still don't really understand exactly what you believe is a metaphore and what is real.

You are correct the design could have been made before the sun and earth etc.

None if that proves a biblical God. It just proves a designer. Just like almost every other origin story. Metaphysics doesn't deal with scientific proof. It doesn't need to.

My issue would be thinking the bible is saying the earth is 6000 years old and God is playing tricks on nonbelievers. That is a poor arguement.


"Popular science" is entirely metaphor.


You mean the one that allows you type this rediculous arguement in the internet right now?
edit on 19-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Well IF we're speaking biblical...

A 24 hour day wouldn't have happened until after the sun was "created"


the obvious rebuttal is < paraphrasing > " on the 3rd day , christ rose " - was that 72 hours or 3000 years - yes i am being feceacious


Well... Christ didn't actually rise in "three days" according to the texts...

3pm friday... to Sunday morning

And no i don't see your point...



Nobody here seems to be understanding that the arguement has been going on since before basil. For a bunch of religious folks I would think you would have studied the history of Christianity and Judaism a bit more. There are plenty of historical writings about this arguement. Some people believed the creation days represent eras some think they were literally 24 hour days. I am not sure why it matters to anyone of faith what the accuracy of this is. The important part is the concept.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

why don't you help us out a bit and quote something about "24 hours" (or "24 hour day(s)") from one of these "historical writings" you're talking about. That would be quite interesting to me cause I love tracing myths back to their roots; preferrably from before 1880, and even better before Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656). Or something from Archbishop Ussher about "24 hours" or perhaps something that demonstrates he didn't view Genesis 1:1 as seperate from the creative days/periods/eras in the rest of the chapter in Genesis (making the date Ussher mentions not applying to the age of the earth if he views Genesis 1:1 seperately as LifeisGrand explained in the OP, since the universe and the earth are already created preceding the 1st creative day/period/era, unlike what many young earth creationists teach).

Remember, I can read wikipedia myself so preferrably a source that I might not have found yet, cause wikipedia isn't helping me much in terms of accuracy and direct quotations so I can make up my own mind as to what these people exactly believed and not have to rely on wikipedia doing it for me.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier

why don't you help us out a bit and quote something about "24 hours" (or "24 hour day(s)") from one of these "historical writings" you're talking about. That would be quite interesting to me cause I love tracing myths back to their roots; preferrably from before 1880, and even better before Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656). Or something from Archbishop Ussher about "24 hours" or perhaps something that demonstrates he didn't view Genesis 1:1 as seperate from the creative days/periods/eras in the rest of the chapter in Genesis (making the date Ussher mentions not apllying to the age of the earth if he views Genesis 1:1 seperately as LifeisGrand explained in the OP, since the universe and the earth are already created preceding the 1st creative day/period/era).

Remember, I can read wikipedia myself so preferrably a source that I might not have found yet, cause wikipedia isn't helping me much in terms of accuracy and direct quotations so I can make up my own mind as to what these people exactly believed and not have to rely on wikipedia doing it for me.


Sure. Look up St Basil. After that look up Talmud the history of and the consolidation of writing in that era.
edit on 19-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

maybe you didn't understand my comment, I've already been looking but couldn't find what is being claimed by young earth creationists and suggested by wikipedia. Was hoping for someone who actually believes in a 6000 year old earth+universe to quote something specificly about 24-hour days from these guys, including the ones you mentioned, or that these people did not view Genesis 1:1 seperately from the creative days/periods/eras. Cause neither wikipedia or young earth creationists I've heard about this are very clear about this, and it kinda affects the suggestion or implication that these people believed in a 6000 year old earth+universe.

So I'll just wait until I see some more clear evidence of that before I assume that. Not that it matters all that much, I can perfectly imagine these people believing that, I've just never seen anyone present clear evidence of it. Not the online etymology and not wikipedia in my quick check just now either. Again, nothing about how they viewed Genesis 1:1 compared to the rest of the chapter or whether they considered the days/periods/eras in Genesis to be 24 hours.
edit on 19-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

the bible doesn't say the world is 6k years old...

btw



Some people have interpreted that way for a long time. You have to consider that creation days are longer than earth days to get past that.


The 6,000 year old earth comes from the genealogy listed in the Bible tracing from Jesus back to Adam. Add up all the years of lifespans and you get roughly 4,000 years. Add in the next 2,000 years to get to the present and you get 6,000, give or take.

It does not take into account how long the earth existed prior to creation of man and it also does not take into account the length of time Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden prior to the fall. The Bible doesn't explicitly say how long this was, but there are some clues hidden later on in Genesis. I personally believe Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden a very long time, had many children, and those children went out and populated the earth. The first reason is when sin occurred and God cursed man one of the specific items listed was that childbirth would now cause extreme pain. To me this infers childbirth had already occurred. The second reason is when Adam and Eve's children left the home, there were other people and other cities already in existence.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier

maybe you didn't understand my comment, I've already been looking but couldn't find what is being claimed by young earth creationists and suggested by wikipedia. Was hoping for someone who actually believes in a 6000 year old earth+universe to quote something specificly about 24-hour days, or that these people did not view Genesis 1:1 seperately from the creative days/periods/eras. Cause neither wikipedia or young earth creationists I've heard about this are very clear about this, and it's kinda important if you want to suggest or imply these people believed in a 6000 year old earth+universe.

So I'll just wait until I see some more clear evidence of that before I assume that. Not that it matters all that much, I can perfectly imagine these people believing that, I've just never seen anyone present clear evidence of it. Not the online etymology and not wikipedia in my quick check just now either. Again, nothing about how they viewed Genesis 1:1 compared to the rest of the chapter or whether they considered the days/periods/eras in Genesis to be 24 hours.


Well I am kind of an agnostic atheist who leans towards diesm and pantheism. I did get a philosophy degree and had to study theology for it. St. Basil believed creation was literal. Pretty easy to find his hommilies and writings. Here is a Catholic website to get you started. They believe Genesis to be allegory.
catholicexchange.com...
edit on 19-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join