The Instigator
subdeo
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Rondonmon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The days in Genesis are literal days

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
subdeo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 299 times Debate No: 100881
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

subdeo

Pro

Hello, Rondonmon, looking forward to this debate. From what I gather, you have been a pastor 25 years, no? As stated in the thesis, I believe that the days in the creation story are literal days. First round is acceptance and thesis. Round two is for Arguments, and rounds three and four are for rebuttals and arguments.
Rondonmon

Con

I argue that the translation of Day via the English language, as we know it, can not be correct. Even all Atheists and Agnostics must agree, that if our God is God, and if He can not lie, then He can not have meant a 24 hour Day in Genesis chapter one. Voters on this debate, believing in our God is irrelevant to this debate. If the Universe is 13.77 Billion years old as I argue, and God can not lie as both of the debaters here would agree on, then my argument has to be the only argument that has any credulity.

Almost every scientist has the age of the Universe at 13.77 billion years old. There was a mission by NASA, (WMAP) which mapped out the universe and it was found to have been 13.77 billion years old. So if God created the universe, as me and the other debater agrees on, then He can not have created it 6000 years ago in six days, unless all of those scientists are wrong, and they are not wrong. So if God is real, as we both agree, hence the debate, then I win the argument by default with everyone who agrees the universe is 13.77 billion years old, because an all knowing God who can't lie, would not tell us He created the universe in six days, 6000 years ago, when the universe is clearly 13.77 billion years old.

Yowm, the word used for Day in the Hebrew language has many meanings, not just day. The original meaning in fact is "To be hot". So my thesis is that God created the universe with one command, (by the way its still being created, even though God has rested or ceased His creation) and that command has continually brought forth the universe for the whole 13.77 billion years. So when it says God created the Heavens and the Earth in verse 1, that is exactly what He did, He commanded it to come forth, then this happened:

We had the Big bang, followed by Inflation, followed by cosmic microwave background where after 380,000 years loose electrons cool enough to combine with protons. The universe becomes transparent to light. The microwave background begins to shine. Then the dark ages/clouds of dark hydrogen gas cool and coalesce. The first stars appear, gas clouds collapse, the fusion of stars begin, the first of which appear about 400 million years after the Big bang. When the bible says Darkness was on the face of the deep, God knew exactly what was happening in the very beginning. There was 400 million years of Darkness, then the first stars appeared. Remember, Yowm originally meant "To be hot" !! So we have the first day or Yowm, the darkness (evening) and the Yowm (to be hot) morning. The evening and the morning is the first day or Yowm. (A 9.2 Billion Year Day)

So if God is real, would He lie to us voters? Or did he tell us things that might have been hard for us to grasp, seeing as the old Hebrew language had only 4000 words at the time Genesis was written, vs our modern English vocabulary which has 500,000 words. I say God let us know, but wasn't that worried about the semantics, seeing as it would take man over 5000 years to just grasp the Heavens in any detail. God at Babel confounded us and confused the languages, to stop us from gaining knowledge too fast, so He did not really want us at that time, to know what we now know today, in full. It wasn't important, and you could say God did not want us to be fully in the know, too soon, He even stated that in the bible. He knew that mankind would eventually understand the heavens and figure out everything for himself. Lets face it, we know the universe is 13.77 billion years old, so we know the universe was not created 6000 years ago in six literal days. God didn't lie to us, because He can't lie. He told us the creation story from His view point, but in vague terms, on purpose. Yowm can also mean a period of time. Since we know the earth is only 4.54 billion years old, we understand the first day had to be a period of time don't we VOTERS? It had to last from 13.77 billion years BC to 4.54 BC or 9.2 Billion Years. That is unless God is a liar !! Remember, the two debaters here both believe in God, and we both believe that God can not lie !! So my argument wins by default. This brother of mine in Christ Jesus, has to be wrong, God bless him.

Mankind was created on the sixth day. Now the sixth day lasted maybe 300-350 million years, it ended when God created man 6000 years ago. God placed a soul in man, and stated He created man in His own Image. There was no Human Being until 6000 years ago, there might have been animals like unto men as we are known today, but without God breathing a soul into him, he was not a Human Being. Thus God can be truthful and man can be confused all at the same time.

The Dinosaurs were made extinct on this day, 70 million years ago by a huge asteroid that hit in the Gulf of Mexico.

If the universe is 13.77 billion years old, my Christian brother can not be correct. He has no winning argument, unless the universe is 6000 years old and was Created in Six literal Days.

God bless my opponent, he's wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
subdeo

Pro

Thank you, Rondonmon, for accepting my challenge to a debate. I look forward to a good Christian discussion of this part of the Faith. However, I would like to point out to the voters an infraction of the rules here. The rules say, "First round is acceptance and thesis". The other rounds were for arguments, not round one. Voters, take note.
I differ with my opponent that the universe is 13.77 billion years old. On the contrary, the world and the entire universe are about 7,000-8,000 years old. However, since this debate is not regarding the age of the earth, but on whether the days referenced are literal days, I will try to avoid discussing proofs for the age of the earth.
Now, are the day"s literal days? The other uses of this word in the Bible can tell us what the intent was here. The word "Yom" (or Yowm) is used in the Old Testament 2,301 times. The vast majority of these times, it is used to refer to a literal day [1]. Because of this, Occam"s Razor dictates that we accept the more likely explanation. Namely, that it be taken literally.
Let"s consider the context in this passage. Notice at the end of each section, where it says, "And there was evening and morning the _th day." These evenings and mornings could only be existent in literal, 24 hour days. It is for these reasons primarily that I believe the creation week is comprised of literal, 24 hour days.

[1] https://www.gotquestions.org...
Rondonmon

Con

That was my Thesis:
1. a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved

2. a long essay or dissertation involving personal research

My Argument is short and sweet. No one that is highly intelligent really believes the earth/universe is 6000-8000 years old. Thus we understand God can not lie, thus we understand that the word Day means a period of time and/or to be hot. It doesn't mean a 24 hour day. The earth wasn't around for 9.2 billion years, so why would God call the first day a 24 hour day? He wouldn't.
Debate Round No. 2
subdeo

Pro

Exactly, a thesis is a *statement*. No where in those definitions is a thesis supposed to mean arguments to support your position, only the position itself.

By saying, "No one that is highly intelligent really believes the earth/universe is 6000-8000 years old", are you intending to insult me? There are many highly intelligent people (past and present) who believe in the Creation theory. Take Issac Newton, who said, ""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. " This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" ...or "Universal Ruler". " The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." [1] Not only he, but many others like him have and had done the same.

I await the rebuttals to my first argument.

[1] https://answersingenesis.org...
Rondonmon

Con

You have no argument. My Thesis will win the Day. I have already destroyed your argument. Take it as you will, I don't think any person in modern times, with as much info as we have today, is intelligent if they think the universe is 6000-8000 years old.
Debate Round No. 3
subdeo

Pro

That settles it, you are showing bad conduct by using a ad hominem attack, saying that one who believes the earth to be 6000-8000 years old is unintelligent. Voters, take note.
I do have an argument, did you read my last post? If we choose to believe the days in Genesis are figurative, we also choose to ignore the multiple problems highlighted in my last argument.
In addition, you have not "destroyed my argument", because you offered no rebuttals, and no strong arguments of your own. Also, you cited no sources. Voters, what do you think?
Rondonmon

Con

Hes begging for votes guys by crying wolf. He has no argument of course. I made a statement of fact. I don't think people who think the Universe is 6000-8000 years old are intelligent. I don't tell him he has to believe that way. If a guy believed a rock was really an Animal I would also assume that belief to be unintelligent. He has no argument. He has griped about this and that but in truth, I am a Chess Master and hes plying Checkers on this argument. And I truly am a Chess Master of sorts.

Don't be so offended by general statements sir. I was going to debate you on other things, but you are crying so much I don't know now. Going to get my umbrella.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FollowerofChrist1955// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: At onset Con, immediately opens with an absurd statement, losing all credibility. Note*" I argue that the translation can not be correct." **an Opinion, nothing more. **** **translations done by Expert Linguist , Con failed to provide evidence of himself as a linguist by profession. Note next phrase: if He can not lie, then He can not have meant a 24 hour Day in Genesis. This infers that if God Himself disagrees WITH Con, God is the liar! Note** If the Universe is 13.77 Billion years old as I argue, and God can not lie then my argument has to be the only argument that has any credulity. Again, pure imagination, note how Con ATTEMPTS to meld science into Gods creation. Note***The Dinosaurs were made extinct on (70 million years ago by a huge asteroid ) In closing Con lost the debate by beginning and ending utilizing complete conjectures, citing scientific evidence based totally on hypothesis, and questioning the integrity of the one he CLAIMS he believes in.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. The voter solely assesses Con"s. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess sources given by both debaters. The voter solely assesses Con"s.
************************************************************************
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 10 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
No he is not and if he is he's due a visit to the woodshed. Keep away from him, he's broken!

He does exactly what upsets God, having a form of godliness but denying Gods power.
2 Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

1 Corinthians 5:5
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

"4When you are gathered in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?"

This is a man who has compromised the word of God, there can BE no truth in Him. Avoid him lest you be contaminated by his sins against our God.
Posted by subdeo 10 months ago
subdeo
Okay voters, the ball is now in your court: who won?
Posted by subdeo 10 months ago
subdeo
Thanks for debating with me, Rondonmon. Are you really a pastor?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheDragon5 10 months ago
TheDragon5
subdeoRondonmonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much to see here... would have been much better if the "thesis" argument wasn't there. Anyways, conduct goes to Pro, since Con insulted Pro for believing in six literal days. S/G is tied, and so are CA. Sources goes to Pro for actually using sources, plus they are fairly credible.