In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages
Debate Rounds (4)
"In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages"
I will be arguing for the day age approach. Where the days are not 24 hour days, but rather long period of time, potentially millions of years. I will draw from both science and scripture, where applicable.
To define terms:
"Genesis" The first book of the Christian Bible, and Torah
"Genesis 1 (the creation story)" You must accept this as the outline for how God created the universe. This will imply that you are religious, particularly Christian.
"days" referring to the Hebrew word y"m that has been translated into day. (apparently they don't enjoy funny letters, the " is supposed to be an o with a circumflex on it)
"24 hour time period" the day that we observe on the earth due to the rotation of the earth on its axis.
"ages" long periods of time, potentially accounting for the scientific estimation of the age of the universe (estimated at 13.7 billion years old)
Your job will be to defend the idea that the world is young, an estimated 5-10 thousand years old.
My argument is based on, it is neither day = 24 hours, nor day = ages. And it is simple to do. I am aware of the word "yom" it is similar to Arabic "yawm". The word "yom" is also means long period of time, as Arabic word "yawm".
Now, let's assume "day" in Genesis means long period of time.
So, it is obvious that, "day" in the Genesis cannot mean long period of time.
Then it means 24-hour-period.
Then it contradicts the basic Knowledge about Universe.
So, it is neither long period of time nor 24 hours. May be there is third option, but I am unaware of that. If there is please share with us.
Thank you for reading.
Well, not the debate I intended to have, but I can try to develop a response.
First, why would it be `good` if the creation was not capable of surviving. Yes, plants can survive a day without the light of the sun, but assuming that the sun and moon didnt exist for that period of time, the earths temperture would be far below that required to sustain life without other significant sources (other star's radiation does fall on the earth, but ont enough to keep the temperature at a livable temperature. The moon is responsible for the tidal levels that are seen today. Without the moon, current water levels in equatorial regions would be notably lower. This would imply that the bioms of different areas would be significantly altered if a moon was to suddenly appear, possibly killing many low (in altitude) plants around the equator.
To deal with the problem of the lack of light, that can be settled with the idea that God is perfect in every sense. In him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Since God is light, it is very reasonable that he emits this light in such a way that he can sustain his creation without the necessity of an external source. God could have replaced his staining presence with a sun to shield is creation from his physical presence (wen they fell).
Take it or leave it, we are made in Gods image, and so everyone of our characteristics are a lesser version of his. Recently is was determined that humans emitted light in a small quantity (http://www.livescience.com...). If we emit a small amount of light, how much more likely is it that God would then emit light.
Additionally, going along with the old earth view, the plants that were initially created do not necessarily need to be every plant that did come to rise.
Additionally, there are 3rd options that call Genesis a story, replacing it with either evolution or one spontaneous event, but these can have theological implications.
Answer to first point: I do not know if you read the Bible, Bible says stars also created after creation of plants in the same day with Sun and Moon. So, star radiation does not work here. And read paper on star radiation. The nearest star to our Solar System is Proxima Centauri and there is no way for this star to sustain any life on earth. Now without moon life on Earth is possible, but not without Sun. So that does not work also.
Answer to second point: QUOTE - "God could have replaced his staining presence with a sun to shield his (I assume you mistyped here, so I corrected it) creation from his physical presence". Few questions here:
Does God emit photons? What does "his physical presence" mean? And this statement is assumption, the Bible does not say anything like it or similar to it. We are dealing here with facts vs. Bible, not your assumptions.
Answer to third point: Humans emitting light, what God's nature has to do with it. Is God human, answer is NO. Humans emit many thing, mostly in restrooms. QUOTE - "Additionally, going along with the old earth view, the plants that were initially created do not necessarily need to be every plant that did come to rise." Again this is an assumption, not a fact.
Lastly, QUOTE - "Additionally, there are 3rd options that call Genesis a story, replacing it with either evolution or one spontaneous event, but these can have theological implications," - so what? Does it prove anything.
At the end none of your points proved your argument, and also did not disprove my point.
At least when you debate have a strong and cogent argument.
00r3d forfeited this round.
It's sad that my opponent gave up in this round. Because, it does not matter if it is 24 hour or long period of time, the verses in Genesis does not make sense. The only plausible explantion is Bible is wrong, as always.
That is where things get convoluted, as you have a different 'story' to follow. (I will assume this is it or similar, http://evantunstall.weebly.com...) So from the start you had redefined the debate. This debate was to be over the interpretation of Genesis, not the validity. As you nicely point out, there is much to be wanted in the sense that it may not appear to say everything. A quick google search shows that there are 'numerous' contradictions within the Quran, that with a different point of view would not actually contradictions. To state that because one passage of the Bible doesn't make sense from your point of view, therefor the whole Bible must be wrong is making a straw man of the Bible. If we had more rounds, it would be interesting to hear your point of view. You accept neither the young or old earth, making it impossible to counter against your view.
In a debate sense, you won as far as I have nothing to counter you that you would not initially reject. You reject the Genesis account, and so since I don't know what your view is, I don't see where I can proceed from here.
Feel free to explain your view, even though there is no more rounds to continue.
We are not debating Quran, but Bible. If you are so sure about contradictions in Quran, let's debate. Show me that contradictions. I am not just saying there is contradictions in Bible, also showing them, and explaining them. God created earth before sun, there was day, night, morning and evening before creation of sun and stars. These are straight sentences. You cannot interprete them otherwise.
And I did not use any web-site or reference except Bible for my argument(s).
I am smart.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Not convinced or decided either way... CONDUCT: Pro missed a round, forfeiting the conduct point. ARGUMENT: First of all con threw out presentation, with the weird formatting, all bold for a round, etc.. Second "it does not matter if it is 24 hour or long period of time, the verses in Genesis does not make sense. The only plausible explantion is Bible is wrong, as always." *facepalm* this debate was not about ranting against any religion, merely examining a facet of it to say if 'within this story, was the narrator talking about days in the literal sense or not.' Since pro was "arguing for the day age approach. Where the days are not 24 hour days, but rather long period of time" either con was arguing for them being 24 hours or less (as he stated there might be a third option), to which he failed even more than pro. Granted pro did not make a strong argument, but at least it wasn't a rant utterly disconnected from the resolution in consideration.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.