Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The Day of the Lord

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.

Yet, the writer or writers of the story of Creation fail to disclose this secret knowledge. Was it in their minds to deceive their readers or to simply keep them in the dark? Or, did they not know, themselves, the meaning of that which they wrote? Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.

The creation story was not written during the first three days of creation.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:49:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:41:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.

The creation story was not written during the first three days of creation.

No, but just because the word Yom was used does not mean that in retrospect the first 3 days must be presented in relation to the sun. If the sun did not exist for the first three "days" of creation, then you can't measure the temporal duration of those three "day" in relation to he sun.

Not that I think this is the best argument for the compatibility of creationism and evolution/fossil records, but I do not think this is the best objection either.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:31:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:49:45 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:41:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.

The creation story was not written during the first three days of creation.

No, but just because the word Yom was used does not mean that in retrospect the first 3 days must be presented in relation to the sun. If the sun did not exist for the first three "days" of creation, then you can't measure the temporal duration of those three "day" in relation to he sun.

Not that I think this is the best argument for the compatibility of creationism and evolution/fossil records, but I do not think this is the best objection either.

Coolbeans. I destroy the sun, then time stops working.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 12:01:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, but just because the word Yom was used does not mean that in retrospect the first 3 days must be presented in relation to the sun. If the sun did not exist for the first three "days" of creation, then you can't measure the temporal duration of those three "day" in relation to he sun.

So, in using the word "day", who was being deceptive, God, for allowing the writer to use a word that was entirely misleading or the writer?
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 12:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.

Yet, the writer or writers of the story of Creation fail to disclose this secret knowledge. Was it in their minds to deceive their readers or to simply keep them in the dark? Or, did they not know, themselves, the meaning of that which they wrote? Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?

God is infinite. He lives outside of space or time. Why would one of his days be considered by our standards, when he is greater than us? Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 1:18:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 12:57:17 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.

Yet, the writer or writers of the story of Creation fail to disclose this secret knowledge. Was it in their minds to deceive their readers or to simply keep them in the dark? Or, did they not know, themselves, the meaning of that which they wrote? Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?

God is infinite. He lives outside of space or time. Why would one of his days be considered by our standards, when he is greater than us? Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time.

"Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time."

So God couldn't even create humans who could comprehend his message exactly, but expects them to follow his message exactly? Sounds pretty sinister..
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 1:18:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/15/2012 12:57:17 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.

Yet, the writer or writers of the story of Creation fail to disclose this secret knowledge. Was it in their minds to deceive their readers or to simply keep them in the dark? Or, did they not know, themselves, the meaning of that which they wrote? Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?

God is infinite. He lives outside of space or time. Why would one of his days be considered by our standards, when he is greater than us? Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time.

"Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time."

So God couldn't even create humans who could comprehend his message exactly, but expects them to follow his message exactly? Sounds pretty sinister..

Humans have free will. We made up our language. We are not perfect because we are not god. would you really want a god who you could fully comprehend? No, because that would make him just as flawed as us.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:35:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:31:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:49:45 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:41:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.

The creation story was not written during the first three days of creation.

No, but just because the word Yom was used does not mean that in retrospect the first 3 days must be presented in relation to the sun. If the sun did not exist for the first three "days" of creation, then you can't measure the temporal duration of those three "day" in relation to he sun.

Not that I think this is the best argument for the compatibility of creationism and evolution/fossil records, but I do not think this is the best objection either.

Coolbeans. I destroy the sun, then time stops working.

Strawman. The concept of time is not dependent on the existence of the sun. Also, Mestari did not imply that time did not exist for the first three days, only that we could not measure the amount of time it really was because the measurement didn't exist.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.:

Which of course fails because Moses (or whomever wrote it) went out of there way to describe a literal day. The language is very clear as it is repeatedly stated "it was day, it was night, the (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) Day." But as has been also pointed out, some of the Yom's existed outside of the creation of the Sun, which is a logical absurdity.

Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?:

It's a case of people trying to explain the world around them.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 5:51:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The bible cannot be logically depicted, thus semantic misinterpretation is it's best offering.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:05:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/15/2012 12:57:17 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
God is infinite. He lives outside of space or time. Why would one of his days be considered by our standards, when he is greater than us? Language can only describe so much and they used the most appropriate word that they could at the time.

So, the most appropriate word at their disposal was one that denoted 24 hours? Don't you think "year" or "ten thousand years" or "tens of thousands of years" or "a multitude of days so great that they could not be measured" would have been terminology closer to millions of years?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:29:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:29:40 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The Hebrew word used for day, "Yom", is relevant to the sun.
P.2 The first three "days" of creation the sun didn't exist.
P.3 Therefore if the sun didn't exist the human idea of a day did not exist, therefore they were not 24 hour days.

Your conclusion isn't even valid. All we can deduce from those two premises is that the word "Yom" was not invented until at least after the first three days of creation, and by association, any passages in the Bible with the word "Yom".

Your premises do not set up the necessary truths to logically deduce the word "Yom" doesn't refer to a 24-hour period.
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 12:40:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:46:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Many Christians, in order to apologise for the Bible's lack of scientific integrity, will imbue words with meanings that either attempt to abuse poetic license or are completely foreign to one's understanding of a particular terminology. For instance, the word "day" in the creation story is not compatible with the age of the earth or the fossil record; so, instead of conceding the creation story is a mere myth contrived by primitive humans to explain the origins of our world, they say the word "day" figuratively refers to an age or an era.

Yet, the writer or writers of the story of Creation fail to disclose this secret knowledge. Was it in their minds to deceive their readers or to simply keep them in the dark? Or, did they not know, themselves, the meaning of that which they wrote? Did God speak into their ears, with a foreign tongue? Was it the craftiness of the creator to conspire against the very writers of the Jewish bible? If you imbue words with hidden meanings is it a mark of deception or an attempt to keep the listener ignorant?

I'd like to put some thoughts on this but it's to the Christians who are afraid of the religion of science or the religion of the evolution theory!