|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 5:56:50 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can you cite one reputable Hebrew scholar or Hebrew grammar that supports any of YOUR crazy idea's about how Hebrew grammar works?
Thanks for the flattery, but I can't claim authorship of the concept of yom meaning 1 day, but I do consider it valid based upon what I've seen. One source is the one quoted from Strong's. Did you miss that, for the definition of yom meaning a 24-hour day, the example was as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1?
quote:
To say that it CANNOT EVER mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day is just as dishonest as saying that it MUST NOT mean a literal 24 hour day; no Hebrew reference supports either contention.
Which then begs the question: in your view, when DOES yom mean a 24-hour day? What criteria would define it as such? I'd like to hear your hermeneutic on that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/15/2009 6:22:20 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
Can you cite one reputable Hebrew scholar or Hebrew grammar that supports any of YOUR crazy idea's about how Hebrew grammar works?
Thanks for the flattery, but I can't claim authorship of the concept of yom meaning 1 day, but I do consider it valid based upon what I've seen. One source is the one quoted from Strong's. Did you miss that, for the definition of yom meaning a 24-hour day, the example was as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1?
Do you realize that "24-hour day, the example was as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1?" is an edit added to the original Strong's definition and is not the definition that Strong's provided?
Strong's ISBN 0-917006-01-1 does not contain this misinformation.
quote:
quote:
To say that it CANNOT EVER mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day is just as dishonest as saying that it MUST NOT mean a literal 24 hour day; no Hebrew reference supports either contention.
Which then begs the question: in your view, when DOES yom mean a 24-hour day? What criteria would define it as such? I'd like to hear your hermeneutic on that.
Context.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/15/2009 6:28:24 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 9:23:26 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
To say that it CANNOT EVER mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day is just as dishonest as saying that it MUST NOT mean a literal 24 hour day; no Hebrew reference supports either contention.
Which then begs the question: in your view, when DOES yom mean a 24-hour day? What criteria would define it as such? I'd like to hear your hermeneutic on that.
Context.
On this we DO agree. But WHAT context? Are there any hermeneutical rules that can help us to recognize when the Word says "yom", that God is referring to a 24-hour day? AiG and others have exposited some rules, which you have adamently claimed to be rubbish. But then WHAT should take their place?
Forgive me for digressing, but again, this is what I've found disturbing in your posts: that you almost seem to be saying that we mere mortals cannot be certain of anything the Word of God says, that God's special revelation to us of Himself through His Word is no revelation at all, because we are just incapable of reading it and receiving COMMUNICATION from God. I really DO NOT wish to believe this about you, which is why I've spent as much time as I have in trying to get you to define your position. Please help me in putting this concern to rest.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 11:26:43 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
To say that it CANNOT EVER mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day is just as dishonest as saying that it MUST NOT mean a literal 24 hour day; no Hebrew reference supports either contention.
Which then begs the question: in your view, when DOES yom mean a 24-hour day? What criteria would define it as such? I'd like to hear your hermeneutic on that.
Context.
On this we DO agree. But WHAT context? Are there any hermeneutical rules that can help us to recognize when the Word says "yom", that God is referring to a 24-hour day? AiG and others have exposited some rules, which you have adamently claimed to be rubbish. But then WHAT should take their place?
How about just sticking with the grammar rules found in Hebrew grammars written for students of Hebrew?
quote:
Forgive me for digressing, but again, this is what I've found disturbing in your posts: that you almost seem to be saying that we mere mortals cannot be certain of anything the Word of God says, that God's special revelation to us of Himself through His Word is no revelation at all, because we are just incapable of reading it and receiving COMMUNICATION from God. I really DO NOT wish to believe this about you, which is why I've spent as much time as I have in trying to get you to define your position. Please help me in putting this concern to rest.
No, I do not believe that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of anything"; that is a very post-modern idea that I completely reject. However, I do recognize that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of everything." There are aspects about the culture, history, grammar, vocabulary, and idioms that affect our understanding of the bible about which we really don't have all of the answers yet, and we may need to weight until we see God in heaven before we will have them all answered. For example in the Hebrew bible there are a number of words for which we simply do not know the meaning and every translator has had to make the best educated guess. One such example is the word חשמל used only in the opening chapters of Ezekiel. This is the only place in any Hebrew literature where this word is used and the meaning of this word found in Hebrew Lexicons is simply the best guess that can be made based on how this word was used in this passage and on how it was translated in early translations. The Hebrew grammar in the last few verses of Daniel's vision of the 70 weeks is another terribly difficult passage; the grammar is so bad that there have been long been questions about whether words in this passage have been lost over time. The difficulty in reading the Hebrew is demonstrated by the wildly different English translations. Another, such example that has come up recently in another thread is the reading of Jer. 3:14 where the literal text uses the verb 'בעל' which literally means 'to own' or 'to be master' and translators are divided on whether to translate this verse using the literal meaning or the common idiom meaning 'to marry'. A quick check of several different English translations will demonstrate the fact that Hebrew translators are divided on the correct translation of this verb in the context of this verse.
While most of the message of Scripture is very clear and we really can understand (for the most part) the message the author intended to convey to us, we need to recognize that there really are limits to our understanding and that we do not, and cannot, know everything because we are not God. Some of our challenges can be overcome by further study, some may be overcome by new discoveries in archeology, and some may just have to wait until we can stand before the throne of God and ask him face to face.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 1:16:22 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Benelchi - You often use Hebrew characters...you wouldn't by any chance also have some expertise in graphics...specifically the Illustrator program?
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 1:28:06 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Frontporch
Benelchi - You often use Hebrew characters...you wouldn't by any chance also have some expertise in graphics...specifically the Illustrator program?
I assume you mean programs like Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw? I do use both of these programs on occasion, but neither is required for typing Hebrew characters. I simply have enabled the multilingual support in Windows. Because I can touch type in Hebrew reasonably well, most of the time I just type the Hebrew directly into my post. On longer selections of text, I have found that cut and paste from Microsoft Word (or other Microsoft programs) works when pasting into a forum post, but cut and paste from most other programs do not. Often I will cut and paste from a Hebrew source into word and then from word into a forum post; that is why it is usually easier just to type. 
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 6:36:06 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
On this we DO agree. But WHAT context? Are there any hermeneutical rules that can help us to recognize when the Word says "yom", that God is referring to a 24-hour day? AiG and others have exposited some rules, which you have adamently claimed to be rubbish. But then WHAT should take their place?
How about just sticking with the grammar rules found in Hebrew grammars written for students of Hebrew?
Yes, agreed, now can you please list a few that would indicate when we should interpret "yom" as a 24-hour day?
quote:
No, I do not believe that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of anything"; that is a very post-modern idea that I completely reject. However, I do recognize that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of everything." There are aspects about the culture, history, grammar, vocabulary, and idioms that affect our understanding of the bible about which we really don't have all of the answers yet, and we may need to weight until we see God in heaven before we will have them all answered. For example in the Hebrew bible there are a number of words for which we simply do not know the meaning and every translator has had to make the best educated guess.
(Whew!) I'm really glad you're not a post-modern relativist! (You just can't talk to such) 
I think I agree with everything you said in this last post. But a question I still have for you, do you believe the use of "day" is Genesis 1 is like this? That it is basically non-translatable?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/16/2009 7:39:26 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
On this we DO agree. But WHAT context? Are there any hermeneutical rules that can help us to recognize when the Word says "yom", that God is referring to a 24-hour day? AiG and others have exposited some rules, which you have adamently claimed to be rubbish. But then WHAT should take their place?
How about just sticking with the grammar rules found in Hebrew grammars written for students of Hebrew?
Yes, agreed, now can you please list a few that would indicate when we should interpret "yom" as a 24-hour day?
quote:
No, I do not believe that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of anything"; that is a very post-modern idea that I completely reject. However, I do recognize that "we mere mortals cannot be certain of everything." There are aspects about the culture, history, grammar, vocabulary, and idioms that affect our understanding of the bible about which we really don't have all of the answers yet, and we may need to weight until we see God in heaven before we will have them all answered. For example in the Hebrew bible there are a number of words for which we simply do not know the meaning and every translator has had to make the best educated guess.
(Whew!) I'm really glad you're not a post-modern relativist! (You just can't talk to such)
I think I agree with everything you said in this last post. But a question I still have for you, do you believe the use of "day" is Genesis 1 is like this? That it is basically non-translatable?
The difficulty with Genesis 1 is that the literature is unique and there is almost nothing similar to compare it with to draw a conclusive opinion. Part of the difficulty is that Genesis 1 contains some of the oldest Hebrew in the bible, and there is very little else we have to compare with outside of the other texts of the bible itself. Given the limits of our current understanding, good arguments can be made both for and against a literal 24 hour day. The issue is not that the word is untranslatable, but that an exact definition is not really knowable given the information we have available today. It is possible that a new archeological discovery will shed greater light on this issue in the future (like previous discoveries have already done for many other textual difficulties), but right now I think we have to be content with knowing that we just cannot be absolutely sure given the information we have today. The really important part is that Genesis 1 (no matter how a day is defined) tells of God's infinite creative power and his love and plan for all humanity. It is impossible to read Genesis 1 and come away thinking that this world is just an accident or that God is not directly and intimately involved with his creation.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/17/2009 7:02:48 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank you, Benelchi, I don't think I could ask for your position any more clearly than that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/18/2009 8:22:11 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The difficulty with Genesis 1 is that the literature is unique and there is almost nothing similar to compare it with to draw a conclusive opinion. Well, the creation of the universe demands unique language to describe a unique event. Which is precisely why I believe Moses was inspired to define his terms very carefully - six serial days qualified by the dark/light cycle. Nothing at all here so difficult to conclude, benelchi, when one justs reads the passage without bias and over-analysis.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/18/2009 9:56:34 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
Thank you, Benelchi, I don't think I could ask for your position any more clearly than that.
Thank you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The difficulty with Genesis 1 is that the literature is unique and there is almost nothing similar to compare it with to draw a conclusive opinion. Well, the creation of the universe demands unique language to describe a unique event. Which is precisely why I believe Moses was inspired to define his terms very carefully - six serial days qualified by the dark/light cycle. Nothing at all here so difficult to conclude, benelchi, when one justs reads the passage without bias and over-analysis.
When one treats the often patently false information provided by organizations like AiG almost as authoritative as Scripture itself and refuses to even examine or question the information that this organization provides, it is not difficult to draw a conclusion. However, most would consider that reading Scripture with a STRONG BIAS. Take a closer look at some of the AiG papers you have posted to try and defend the idea that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, not only do the provide numerous points of mis-information, but they are also guilty of some of the greatest errors of "over-analysis"
Again, believing that Moses was intending to convey the idea that the days of Genesis 1 were 6 literal and consecutive 24 hour days is reasonable given the textual evidence we have today and there are many good biblical pastors and theologians who hold this view whom I deeply respect. However, declaring that everyone MUST believe this is unreasonable given the the lack of textual evidence available to prove the contention that this was what Moses' intended. When you ignore the fallacious information provided by AiG scholars that cannot read Hebrew, and stick only with the the evidence supported by true Hebrew scholars that have spent their life studying the language, culture, and history of the Ancient Hebrew people, you will find that it is much more difficult to "prove" that there is only one possible view about how to interpret the days in Genesis. There are many good Hebrew scholars really do support your interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 (and many who do not); however, all of the Hebrew scholarship on this topic that I have read has been very gracious to opposing positions because these scholars recognize the difficulty of drawing a hard line on this topic. While you can find good Hebrew scholars who will posit the idea that the days of Genesis 1 SHOULD be interpreted as a literal 24 hour day, you wont find scholars that posit the idea that a day in Genesis 1 MUST be interpreted as a literal 24 hour day. That kind of overly dogmatic assertion only comes from organizations like AiG and the fact that they are willing to use dishonesty to "prove" their "truth" should itself be a warning against placing too much trust in the information they provide.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/18/2009 10:03:36 AM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/18/2009 10:25:01 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
you wont find scholars that posit the idea that a day in Genesis 1 MUST be interpreted as a literal 24 hour day. "MUST" or what? One won't be saved? One won't be a "real" Hebrew scholar? One won't be allowed on YEC lists? What are you actually saying here, benelchi?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/19/2009 9:13:27 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
The literal 6 days of creation is only a small part of the overall AiG message. They primarily advocate the ultimate authority of scripture to speak Truth in every area which God has spoken; which includes the creation, global flood, the dispersion of nations & languages at Babel; that all of these are literal historical accounts and trustworthy as-written. They also advocate that it is the placement of man's opinion above scripture, regarding authority, as the root cause of much of society's ills today.
I'm curious, Benelchi, if you only have issue with AiG's defense of "yom" as a 24-hour day, or also with these other areas that AiG advocates.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/19/2009 11:37:47 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
The literal 6 days of creation is only a small part of the overall AiG message. They primarily advocate the ultimate authority of scripture to speak Truth in every area which God has spoken; which includes the creation, global flood, the dispersion of nations & languages at Babel; that all of these are literal historical accounts and trustworthy as-written. They also advocate that it is the placement of man's opinion above scripture, regarding authority, as the root cause of much of society's ills today.
I'm curious, Benelchi, if you only have issue with AiG's defense of "yom" as a 24-hour day, or also with these other areas that AiG advocates.
The problem I have with AiG and CRI is that they will often knowingly publish false information, and will continue to do so even when the false information has been pointed out to them. One of the CRI classic's is the "moon dust" paper. CRI's own scientists acknowledged the error of the moon dust calculations, but CRI continued to publish the false information for decades after that acknowledgment. While these organizations often do have a lot of good information in the articles they publish, many of these article have mixed in verifiable false information and one has to be diligent to check all of the claimed facts in anything they publish because these organizations refuse to do this themselves (even when they are aware of the mistakes). The situation has become a little better in recent years, but it is a problem that just doesn't seem to go away. While I have seen dishonest representations of evidence made by evolutionary scientists, I have a little more understanding about why they have done this i.e. because they are not Christians and the motivation is often simply greed; however, I have little understanding about why Christian organizations believe that using deceptive practices is a valid way to convince people about the truth of God's word. By being deceptive, I think these organizations do far more damage to cause of Christ than any good that comes from them because those who are asking tough questions about faith in Christ, who look at the evidence these organizations provide, may dismiss everything as a lie because they can verify that some of what these organization have presented as the truth is a lie. As Christians I believe we should be diligent to make sure that whatever objective information we provide is accurate. While mistakes do happen, when they are not corrected when they are brought to light, it demonstrates a lack of integrity that should not be part of a Christian ministry that is supposed to be sharing the truth of God's word.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/19/2009 1:11:41 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 5740
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Why can't the age of the universe be measured? God already has, but you deny the accuracy of His Word!
This is what it all boils down to.
We are not like our Father Abraham.
He believed God, we do not.
We twist scriptures to form a for gone conclusion
instead of reading what it actually says.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/19/2009 1:28:31 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
We twist scriptures to form a for gone conclusion
instead of reading what it actually says. So what do the "scriptures actually say" about the duration of God's creative events? What do they actually say about the genealogy of Adam to Abraham? Was humankind created in the beginning of the creation or not?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/19/2009 1:33:39 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Lapidoth - We twist scriptures to form a for gone conclusion
instead of reading what it actually says.
What does Genesis actually say????
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/24/2009 4:05:11 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 934
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
The literal 6 days of creation is only a small part of the overall AiG message. They primarily advocate the ultimate authority of scripture to speak Truth in every area which God has spoken; which includes the creation, global flood, the dispersion of nations & languages at Babel; that all of these are literal historical accounts and trustworthy as-written.
with aig, everything is based on 6 day creation. all the other stuff is dressing to try to get people to buy into it. all their stuff is based on trying to explain away scientific processes to fit a young earth.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/28/2009 12:00:05 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
The literal 6 days of creation is only a small part of the overall AiG message. They primarily advocate the ultimate authority of scripture to speak Truth in every area which God has spoken; which includes the creation, global flood, the dispersion of nations & languages at Babel; that all of these are literal historical accounts and trustworthy as-written. They also advocate that it is the placement of man's opinion above scripture, regarding authority, as the root cause of much of society's ills today.
I'm curious, Benelchi, if you only have issue with AiG's defense of "yom" as a 24-hour day, or also with these other areas that AiG advocates.
The problem I have with AiG and CRI is that they will often knowingly publish false information, and will continue to do so even when the false information has been pointed out to them. One of the CRI classic's is the "moon dust" paper. CRI's own scientists acknowledged the error of the moon dust calculations, but CRI continued to publish the false information for decades after that acknowledgment. While these organizations often do have a lot of good information in the articles they publish, many of these article have mixed in verifiable false information and one has to be diligent to check all of the claimed facts in anything they publish because these organizations refuse to do this themselves (even when they are aware of the mistakes). The situation has become a little better in recent years, but it is a problem that just doesn't seem to go away. While I have seen dishonest representations of evidence made by evolutionary scientists, I have a little more understanding about why they have done this i.e. because they are not Christians and the motivation is often simply greed; however, I have little understanding about why Christian organizations believe that using deceptive practices is a valid way to convince people about the truth of God's word. By being deceptive, I think these organizations do far more damage to cause of Christ than any good that comes from them because those who are asking tough questions about faith in Christ, who look at the evidence these organizations provide, may dismiss everything as a lie because they can verify that some of what these organization have presented as the truth is a lie. As Christians I believe we should be diligent to make sure that whatever objective information we provide is accurate. While mistakes do happen, when they are not corrected when they are brought to light, it demonstrates a lack of integrity that should not be part of a Christian ministry that is supposed to be sharing the truth of God's word.
Amen to that, brother. I agree with your position about Christians must pursue the truth and eschew falsehood, since we know who are the fathers of both. I notice "moon dust" is now officially on AiG's "don't use these" arguments list, the very existence of which tells me that they do make some attempt at this. Even some arguments that haven't been disproven, but for which strong evidence supporting doesn't exist, has made this list.
So I don't know, but personnally I think the accusation of intentional misleading is a bit overly harsh. They may just not be convinced. They too probably look at anyone's accusations of "falsehood" with skepticism and due diligence, since there is SO MUCH deception out in the world due to incorrect worldviews.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
