• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you believe God’s word or man’s?

Ted Evans

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
1) This is intended for those who *staff edit* try to explain away the creation version in Genesis using “interpretation” and/or “translation” issues in order to reconcile with non-believers.

2) The issue of a normal 24 hour day as opposed to a period of time.

“God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:5, NASB95)

3) Every place in Genesis with the subject of creation uses the noun, common, singular, absolute of “yom”. Whereas, when used as a time other than evening and morning, it is not NC-SA. As an example…
upload_2017-8-9_11-40-7.png
upload_2017-8-9_11-40-21.png


4) Notice the Morphology changes from noun, common, singular, absolute to noun, common, masculine, plural, construct. Are the Hebraist contending there is not a difference in meaning?

5) In addition, I find the following chart interesting.
upload_2017-8-9_11-41-27.png


“Yom NC-SA - day (sunset) n. — a unit of time from sunset until the next sunset; including evening and morning.”


6) When taken in like context with other scriptures, “yom” NC-SA is used 1292 times, whereas, when used as meaning something other than evening and morning, a different morphology is used, at least from what I have been able to find.

7) Graphs and quotes are from…


Faithlife Corporation. (2017). day (sunset) (Version 6.14 SR-5) [Computer software]. Logos Bible Software Bible Sense Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation. Retrieved from https://ref.ly/logos4/Senses;KeyId=ws.day.n.01

[God's word - writings in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures that were inspired by God....Man's word - claims and writings by man that were not inspired by God]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So if the gist of the OP is accurate, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the universe and earth are much, much older than 6,000-10,000 years, then I am entirely justified in rejecting the Bible as the word of God, correct?
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jose Fly said:
So if the gist of the OP is accurate, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the universe and earth are much, much older than 6,000-10,000 years, then I am entirely justified in rejecting the Bible as the word of God, correct?
Click to expand...

You're a legend in your own mind.
 
Ted Evans

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Prior to the advent of modern science, most people did believe the Earth was relatively young

Reasons To Believe : Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?


If, the 16th – 17th century is accepted as the beginning of “modern science” does that mean that most people from the earliest history of scripture did not believe the earth was billions of years old? Why do you suppose they had that belief, was it because they understood scriptures to say just what was written? Why would God present something as history that would mislead billions of people over thousands of years? I do not think He would.

Just a reminder, this thread is a subject for Christians.
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ted Evans said:
This is intended for those who say they are Christians but try to explain away the creation version in Genesis using “interpretation” and/or “translation” issues in order to reconcile with non-believers.
Click to expand...
So being a Christian in your book means denying modern science in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis? Okay, even if what you say is valid about the words being written specifically meaning 24 hour periods, why does that matter? It's still a metaphor. "In the night sky, I see Orion with his bow". Now my words are literally Orion, the great hunter. But yet, I mean it as a metaphor. The issue is not the words the author chose, but how you literalize them into meaning Genesis should be taken as a scientific explanation of our planet's origins. That's a problem, for a Christian living in a day and age when we have actual scientific data. I don't believe the authors of the Genesis stories (there are two of them) were trying to grapple with questions of science? Do you? If so, then on what basis do you claim this?

The real question is, how is that some Christians cannot reconcile their faith with the facts? To me, that says something about their faith, needing faith to fit their ideas they have about God, and not resting in the Unknown.
 
Ted Evans

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Windwalker said:
So being a Christian in your book means denying modern science in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Click to expand...

My standard response, even though I fail to see how your post is relevant to the OP, I will answer every question you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, you will agree to do the same. If not, then you have opinions that I disagree with, fair?
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ted Evans said:
My standard response, even though I fail to see how your post is relevant to the OP,
Click to expand...
You accused Christians who don't interpret the Bible the way you do to be insincere, that they are trying to "explain away" Genesis in your words. I'd say my response is exactly relevant to your comments in OP.

Ted Evans said:
I will answer every question you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, you will agree to do the same.
Click to expand...
Of course. You can start with the questions I posed in my response. What question do you have of me?
 
Ted Evans

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Windwalker said:
You accused Christians who don't interpret the Bible the way you do to be insincere, that they are trying to "explain away" Genesis in your words. I'd say my response is exactly relevant to your comments in OP.
Click to expand...

Ted Evans said:
1) This is intended for those who say they are Christians but try to explain away the creation version in Genesis using “interpretation” and/or “translation” issues in order to reconcile with non-believers.
Click to expand...

Are you a Christian?
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
Both are painfully obvious. So what are you going on about?
Click to expand...
Treating man-made religious texts as "God's words" is idolatry. It's no different than treating man-made (sculpted) religious idols as though they possess divine powers. The Bible does not claim to have been written by God. The Bible does not proclaim itself to have been dictated by God, nor does it claim to be "inerrant". The substitution of the term "word" in the Bible replaces the ancient Greek word "logos", which did not ever refer to a divinely authoritative text. In fact, it never referred to text at all. It referred to a kind of divine idealized 'blueprint' through which material existence manifests. Nor does the use of the term "divinely inspired" imply that the Bible is the result of divine dictation. Many human endeavors can be considered "divinely inspired" but that has never rendered them "inerrant", or unquestionable, of absolutely authoritative.

The literalist's claims that the Bible contains "God's words" is not even a valid claim according to the Bible, itself. Nor is it a claim validated by any other means.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top