The Instigator
Skepticalone
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
ndedo
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Each day of the valid Christian Creation must have been a literal 24 hour period.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ndedo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,524 times Debate No: 42746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Skepticalone

Pro

You will argue why a valid Christian Creation could have taken place over eons of time and I must show how a valid Christian Creation could not have taken longer than a literal week as stated in Genesis. I am new to the site and the debate format, so feel free to point out any errors in protocol. Also, I am not religious, but I do intend to defend my point of view tenaciously. This is my first debate so take it easy on me, I'm a noob! :) No offensive language, personal attacks, or unsupported claims.
Here we go!! Let's have some fun! ..and good luck!
ndedo

Con

I accept the debate challenge, and I plan to argue that the Bible can be interpreted to mean that the phases of Creation took place over a much longer time period than a week.

Looking forward to my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Skepticalone

Pro

First off, thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to an interesting exchange.

The genesis story claims creation took place with each phase of creation taking a day "requiring an evening and a morning" [1]. Death was not known in creation until the original sin of Adam. Life was perfect until Adam disobeyed God. [2] [3] All men die because of Adam and his original sin. Jesus was to take away the curse of death due to the original sin. [4]

If God's created over millions of years, or even thousands of years there would have been disease and death before the original sin. The death and disease with life operaterating under a natural system as it does now. The Bible does not mention any special rules of life before the fall of mankind. Since death is part of the curse for the original sin, the sacrifice of Jesus would have been for nothing. It is very important physical death originated with the original sin and was not part of the natural created order. Otherwise the creation story is not valid since this would undermine the Gospels. Also, if there were death before the original sin, it would have repercussions for the believer's resurrection. since death is "freedom from bondage of corruption". If the corruption existed before Adam sinned then what does Heaven hold? Heaven should be as creation was before the fall.[5] If creation was corrupted pre-Adam, there is little hope for heaven. Therefore, creation must have occurred over days, instead of eons of times.

Since this is my first debate, I hope you will be kind! I look forward to your response.

[1]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5]http://www.biblegateway.com...
ndedo

Con

Since there are not enough rounds to have an argument round, a rebuttal round, and then a counter-rebuttal/conclusion round, I will post my argument and my rebuttals this round.

Argument
Through my argument, I will attempt to prove that the Bible actually invalidates the idea that Creation happened in one week, rather than supporting it. In 2 Peter 3:8, this is said: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Therefore, the human concept of time is totally different from the divine one. As Genesis is accepted to be divinely inspired, one "day" can mean any amount of time; it does not specify. Psalm 90:4 further supports this concept: "For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night."

Rebuttals
My opponent stated that "Death was not known in creation until the original sin of Adam." This ignores the fact that many herbivores must have been consuming entire plants: plenty of whales eat millions of microscopic plant organisms, and moles eat the roots of plants, thereby causing their death.
The Bible says that there was no death before the fall and that the punishment for original sin did include death -- for humans. The Bible does not state that animals did not eat each other and experience death. Genesis 1:29–30 states that God has given fruit and seed bearing plants for the animals to eat, but it does not say that animals ate only plants. Essentially, all animals rely on plants to survive because carnivores would die without herbivores. The idea of carnivorous activity preceding original sin is not contradicted by the Bible.

The redemption that Christ gives to humanity does not apply to animals; the punishment of original sin did not apply to them either, therefore there is no reason to believe that they did not die before the fall of humanity. The Bible does not say anything to suggest that animals had to change their eating habits to include carnivorous activity when Original Sin was committed.

The names that Adam gave to carnivorous animals connoted their carnivorous nature. Here is a chart (1) that gives the translations:


"The genesis story claims creation took place with each phase of creation taking a day 'requiring an evening and a morning.'"
The Hebrew words for morning and evening are also used in Psalm 90:5-6: "In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away." Grass cannot sprout, flourish, fade, and wither away all in one day. Therefore, it must be inferred that the words "morning" and "evening" can be assigned to metaphorical beginnings and endings; here, it most likely refers to spring and fall (2). This invalidates any argument that uses those words as evidence.

Sources:
(1) http://www.godandscience.org...
(2) http://godandscience.org...
(3) http://www.biblegateway.com...;*

*All Bible verses quoted are from the New American Standard translation.
Since this is my opponent's first debate, I'd like to suggest to him that he use the final round for rebuttals as well as a conclusion as it will be his final opportunity to appeal to the voters. Thanks for a good debate so far!
Debate Round No. 2
Skepticalone

Pro

I thank my opponent for a solid and interesting debate. I will use this round to respond to my opponent's argument and respond to his criticism of my arguments. Also, I ask my opponent to limit his final turn to rebuttal and conclusion, and refrain from additional arguments since I will not be able to respond. Thank you for being cooperative in my first endeavor!

"My opponent stated that "Death was not known in creation until the original sin of Adam." This ignores the fact that many herbivores must have been consuming entire plants: plenty of whales eat millions of microscopic plant organisms, and moles eat the roots of plants, thereby causing their death."

The Bible is very clear about a vegetarian diet before the fall for ALL creatures. [1] Also, in Genesis 4:2-5 [2], God favored Abel's offering of sheep over Cain's offering of fruit. Animals were more sacred because of their blood, and the role blood would play in the sacrifice Jesus was to make on behalf of mankind.


Genesis 1:29 states:

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


Genesis 4:2-5 states:

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


“The redemption that Christ gives to humanity does not apply to animals; the punishment of original sin did not apply to them either. The Bible does not say anything to suggest that animals had to change their eating habits to include carnivorous activity when Original Sin was committed.”

While I agree with my opponent Christ does not come to save the animals, the Bible does give reasons to believe animals were included in the punishment of original sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.[3]

Also, the Bible establishes exactly when creation can eat meat. God allowed meat to be eaten once the flood was over. Genesis 9:3 [4].
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

"The Hebrew words for morning and evening are also used in Psalm 90:5-6: "In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away." Grass cannot sprout, flourish, fade, and wither away all in one day. Therefore, it must be inferred that the words "morning" and "evening" can be assigned to metaphorical beginnings and endings; here, it most likely refers to spring and fall (2). This invalidates any argument that uses those words as evidence."

My opponent has cited one example when the Hebrew word "yom" was used without a number and has concluded 'day' does not refer to a 24 hour period. I agree with his assessment in the case of Psalms 90:5-6. However, Genesis 1 does use the word ‘day’ with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

“• Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
• The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
• When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
• When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)”


“Through my argument, I will attempt to prove that the Bible actually invalidates the idea that Creation happened in one week, rather than supporting it. In 2 Peter 3:8, this is said: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

I agree with my adversary, we finite beings cannot comprehend the temporal understanding of an omniscient being, but we can understand how words are interpreted from other areas of the Bible, and I point to my argument immediately above.[5]

I have shown in the "long creation" model, death would have existed before the original sin thereby invalidating the necessity of the redemption of Christ (since death was the curse of original sin). My opponent has not established why a long creation would be valid, and I have illustrated why a literal translation of Genesis is a much more viable interpretation of the creation story. I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate and look forward to his rebuttal and conclusion. Whether you are a creationist or an atheist, I hope you have enjoyed my argument and found it compelling. Vote Pro!!





[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5]http://evidenceweb.net...

ndedo

Con

"The Bible is very clear about a vegetarian diet before the fall for ALL creatures."
The Bible is not clear about this. Nowhere is it explicitly stated that all creatures had a vegetarian diet. I have already addressed the verse my opponent used as evidence for this claim. As I wrote in round 2, "Genesis 1:29–30 states that God has given fruit and seed bearing plants for the animals to eat, but it does not say that animals ate only plants." Nutrition for all creatures does come from plants; herbivores are nourished by them, who in turn are eaten by carnivores. Thus, plants do provide "meat" for all creatures even in a carnivorous society.

"God favored Abel's offering of sheep over Cain's offering of fruit."
This in no way supports the idea that there was no carnivorous activity or animal death preceding the fall. In fact, Cain and Abel's situation actually works against my opponent. If animal death is an evil that was brought about as punishment for original sin, then why would God be pleased with it? Should God not favor the one who makes a sacrifice not involving such evil? Rather, he is pleased, and nothing evil can please God.

"The Bible does give reasons to believe animals were included in the punishment of original sin."
Here, it is conceded that this idea is not clearly stated in Romans 8:22, only suggested. To this I respond with Genesis 18:25:
"Far be it from You [God] to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
God does not punish the innocent. Animals did not participate in the first sin, so it would be wrong for God to punish them for it. Therefore, we must conclude that animal death and suffering did exist beforehand, or it would not exist today.

"Also, the Bible establishes exactly when creation can eat meat. God allowed meat to be eaten once the flood was over. Genesis 9:3 [4].

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."
My opponent seems to purport the idea that this passage is even addressed to animals at all; it is not. Nothing here even remotely implies that all of creation could then eat meat; it only refers to humans. Even then, neither this verse nor the contextual ones clearly state that humans could not eat meat beforehand. It is open to interpretation and does not support the resolution; remember, this debate revolves around whether the creation days must have been 24 hours.

"Genesis 1 does use the word ‘day’ with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day."
To say that this happens every other time in the Bible is false. There are numerous occurrences of yom with a number that do not refer to a single day. The Hebrew word echad means one, and here I will list several instances where echad yom refers to a period of time longer than one day.
(2) Daniel 11:20-28 Referring to the rise and reign of Seleucus, it is prophesied that "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered." The reign lasted 12 years.
(3;4;5) Zechariah 3:9-10, Zechariah 14:7-8, and Hosea 6:2 all refer to the Day of the Lord, a period which will be 7 years long.


Sources
(1) http://godandscience.org...
(2) http://www.biblegateway.com...
(3) http://www.biblegateway.com...
(4) http://www.biblegateway.com...
(5) http://www.biblegateway.com...

Conclusion
I believe that my opponent has not adequately proven that the creation days must have been 24 hours long based on biblical references. I believe I have disproved the validity of his resolution by thoroughly refuting each of his arguments. I remind voters that this debate is based solely on the Bible and disregards any scientific evidence available (Neither side used any, but I think it's necessary to make that clear). Sorry for the lengthy final response; I felt it was necessary to give thorough rebuttals. Thanks to my opponent for a great debate, and Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Vote according to the validity of the arguments, not according to your personal views, please! ..and Vote often!!
Posted by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
NO ONE VOTE! the score is at 6-9
Posted by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
@OtakuJordan, Can you elaborate on that? Not sure what you mean.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
The problem with the arguments o both sides in this debate is that they view "death" as necessarily referring to physical rather than spiritual death.
Posted by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
I interpreted the resolution to be whether or not the biblical creation story must refer to 24 hour days - using only the biblical narrative. Both sides agreed that the entire bible could be used, and that this wouldn't be a science vs faith debate.

Con specified that his job would be only to show that a counter interpretation is possible, and Pro didn't object.

I shared the BOP, since neither side would argue from a science vs faith stance, and both sides would only go by the literature.

In the first round of arguments, Pro argues that the bible would have to undermine itself in order for the creation story to be non literal. I noticed a few S&G errors.

Con does not defend against the idea that a non literal week undermines other parts of the bible, and points out that other passages may also seems at odds with the genesis story. I saw this as a drop, which removed it from the debate going forward. If Con does not contest that different parts of the bible present conflicting narratives, then Pro has to explain why a reader "must" interpret the story according to one of these competing narratives over another.

In the next round, Pro starts off by continuing to argue that the bible does not present a consistent narrative. This is really turning into a debate over whether or not the bible should be taken very literally or not. I thought Pro did pretty good by talking about how the words can be understood even if gods can't be . But he still doesn't explain why we should be literal with the 7 day story and not Cons biblical quote that god days are different than earth days.

In the end, I can't score on sources. S&G I gave to Con. Conduct was a tie. Arguments hinged on whether or not the bible must be read literally. Pro did a good job of arguing that the bible might give mutually exclusive stories - but the very fact that it does degrades his argument that readers "must" only interpret the whole narrative in one way. On the other hand, Con does po
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Thank you, Ndedo! This was my first debate, and I found this to be an excellent exchange. I hope to debate you again. I would be interested in debating other extremes if you're ever looking for a sparring partner!
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Skepticalone
Yes, by valid I mean biblically valid.
Posted by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
Is this based only on Bible interpretation? i.e., would Con simply have to argue that the Bible can be interpreted to mean a much longer time period, disregarding scientific evolutionary evidence?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
SkepticalonendedoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. Con only had to show that different parts of the bible reinterpret the original creation story, which was pretty easy to do.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
SkepticalonendedoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close call. Great debate on both sides. I think that Con won the vegetarian/original sin arguments, but I wasn't very clear on why they were important to Pro. I think the most important part of the debate falls to the literal interpretation of the language. I would have been very sympathetic to the notion that the Bible should be read as literature (figuratively and not literally), but I did not see that argument in round, so we have to see if the word meant day or period. Pro provided some extremely strong evidence round three (I think 4x as strong as round 2) that is hard to refute for the literal nature of the word. Here's the tricky part: while Con responded to that by giving some instances of a number being attached to yom, s/he did not explain/justify why the "day of the Lord" isn't 7 years, or whether the passage in Daniel was meant to be literal and is just wrong (whether intentionally or not). The sheer number of literal uses of yom+number won out.Great job on both sides!
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
SkepticalonendedoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed enough exceptions against Pro's arguments to allow for him to get the win. While Pro provided statistics to show how 'day' was represented for the majority of the time in the Bible, Con was able to show enough exceptions to get the win, due to the fact that BoP was on Pro.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
SkepticalonendedoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a disappointingly straightforward debate. Pro made a valid argument concerning the death problem of the Christian creation account, but it was only one argument that left pro vulnerable on many fronts, not really expanded on in detail, nor reinforced by other supporting points. Con's counter model (all death prior to sin was from being eaten) was stranger still. While it provided a possible explanation, it did not really attack the basis for pro's case. Con did well to parry the number issue but it didn't provide evidence for his side, since pro had not used it in their case. However just as con could parry the "day" word issue, pro could parry the "meat-eating" word issue. Ultimately pro won this debate because none of the semantic quibbling stood (both sides had fair rebuttal), leaving their R2 case as all that was left. I'll also award 2 points to con for better analysis overall, even if his strategy was totally weird. Msg me if you have any questions or want more feedback!