The YECs' Dilemma

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Genesis 2:4 uses the word 'yom'. So if YECs believe that day means 'a 24 hour day', that would mean that God created the heavens and the earth, in literally 24 hours, according to their reckoning.
Any YECs would like to explain that?

The question is why it took so long, and the rest (plants, animals) even longer. And then this omnipotent deity needed a day of rest. Why is taking only a day a dilemma, but needing a day or more not? Any Christians at all want to explain that?

And why is there a commandment to rest on the Sabbath?

There are thousands of creation myths, but I'm not aware of another with a timeline. I'm pretty sure I know why the Christian creation myth has a timeline and a day of rest included, but I'd like to hear answers from the believers first.

 

[nPeace]

But how do you know the bible is right? I expect you will say it's the word of God. But where (or whom) did you hear that from?

This question has been asked many times, and has been answered numerous times on these forums.

How do we know if anything is true? Don't we test it? Don't we investigate if it is or not?
Does that mean everyone will reach the same conclusion?
No. There will be believers, and unbelievers.

I have already presented the reasons why we can trust the Bible as a reliable source of truth. If you are interested in that, I discussed some of those reasons in a number of threads. One of them is here.
Don't recall seing you though.

 

[nPeace]

I still fail to see the problem. (Apart from the more general YEC difficulties.) The idea seems to be that the Hebrew word indicates a measure of time, presumably based on days as observed here on Earth. I don't see any more problem in measuring how long the creation of the universe (supposedly) took in terms of days than in measuring astrophysical quantities in terms of years (or light-years).

They are arbitrary and rather terrestrial-centric measures, but all measures are arbitrary when we get down to it.

I suppose that another issue might be that 'yom' didn't necessarily mean 'day' in that sense. It might have had a vaguer and more general meaning not unlike when we say "Things were different, back in the day". I don't know enough ancient Hebrew to comment on how the word was used in first millenium BCE Palestine.

The problem is, either 'yom' refers to not just a literal 24 hour day, or it doesn't.
So yes, you did mention it as an issue in your last comment.

 

[nPeace]

It seems reasonable to think that a 24 hour day was intended by the authors of Genesis, since (a) they refer to 'the evening and the morning' being a day in each case and (b) the idea that God is apt to confuse a 24-hour day with a thousand years isn't found in the Tanakh ─ the sole reference that might even be called close is Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night" and is substantially a device used by modern Christian apologists.

Why should a magical God in a story NOT get a lot done in a day?

It seems you have volunteered to explain why it's not a 24 hour day in Genesis 2:4.
Yes, go right ahead, thanks.

 

[nPeace]

The question is why it took so long, and the rest (plants, animals) even longer. And then this omnipotent deity needed a day of rest. Why is taking only a day a dilemma, but needing a day or more not? Any Christians at all want to explain that?

Sorry, I am not computing your first question. Why what took so long... a day?
The second question is simple to answer, if you have time for an explanation.
I'll give the answer in a pea-shell.
God has a purpose which he started to carry out in the Genesis. A purpose involves a process - requiring time. Hence, the periods of time, including where God rested, as in allowing time for that purpose to come to realization. Rather than, "Oh. I'm so tired."

And why is there a commandment to rest on the Sabbath?
That is explained in the scriptures.

Jesus explained, the Sabbath was made for man. Not man for the Sabbath.
(Mark 2:27) . . .The Sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath.
In a nutshell, it was a day of rest and rejoicing for God's children.
It allowed them the opportunity to give consideration to important things, thus helping one avoid being too caught up (distracted) in other pursuits, while neglecting others of greater importance.

There are thousands of creation myths, but I'm not aware of another with a timeline. I'm pretty sure I know why the Christian creation myth has a timeline and a day of rest included, but I'd like to hear answers from the believers first.

It can be observed, if one takes the time to look, that the Bible is unique in its narration, setting it apart from those thousands of myths - including the modern day myth of creation.

 

[epronovost]

It can be observed, if one takes the time to look, that the Bible is unique in its narration, setting it apart from those thousands of myths - including the modern day myth of creation.

How is the Bible unique in its narration? Yes, it's a different story than the others; they are all unique after all, but it has several elements in common with the others. It's narrative tools are also nearly identical; it's literally a story with description and dialogues and even characters who face challenges and dramatic situations.

PS: what would you refer as the modern day myth of creation?

 

[Audie]

This question has been asked many times, and has been answered numerous times on these forums.

How do we know if anything is true? Don't we test it? Don't we investigate if it is or not?
Does that mean everyone will reach the same conclusion?
No. There will be believers, and unbelievers.

I have already presented the reasons why we can trust the Bible as a reliable source of truth. If you are interested in that, I discussed some of those reasons in a number of threads. One of them is here.
Don't recall seing you though.

Nah. There are just plain "regular "
people, and there are "believists" so
named for their way of just going about
believing things.
Regular people dont just believe
when told in a robo- call that they
won $10,000,000.
Regular girls dont just believe every
guy who says he " loves" her.

Unfortunately good sense cannot be taught or learned, apparently.

 

[nPeace]

How is the Bible unique in its narration? Yes, it's a different story than the others; they are all unique after all, but it has several elements in common with the others. It's narrative tools are also nearly identical; it's literally a story with description and dialogues and even characters who face challenges and dramatic situations.

PS: what would you refer as the modern day myth of creation?

Creation
...further discovery and research have merely made apparent the great gulf between the two accounts [Babylonian and Genesis]. They do not parallel each other. Wiseman quotes The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, who hold that “the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.” He himself observes: “It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew ‘borrowings’ from Babylonian sources.” — Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.
.
Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.” — New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

Book of Genesis
Genesis is the only source known to humans that provides a logical, coherent history of things back to the beginning. Without its factual history of the first man and woman, we would be left with the fanciful stories or allegorical explanations of man’s beginning that are found in the creation accounts of pagan nations. A comparison of the book of Genesis with the pagan creation accounts clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Bible account.

Not one of such ancient sources furnishes us with the history, genealogy, and chronology that the book of Genesis provides.

Babylonian myth
Marduk used a net, a gift from Anu, to entangle Tiamat; Tiamat attempted to swallow Marduk, but 'the Evil Wind' filled her mouth. With the winds swirling within her she became distended – Marduk then fired his arrow, hitting her heart – she was slain. The other gods attempted to flee but, Marduk captured them, broke their weapons, and netted them. Her eleven monsters were also captured and chained; whilst Kingu was taken to Uggae (the Angel of Death), the 'Tablet of Destinies' taken from him. Marduk then smashed Tiamat's head with the mace, whilst her blood is carried off by the North Wind.

Marduk then split Tiamat's remains in two – from one half he made the sky – in it he made places for Anu, Enlil, and Ea.

How does stories like that compare to Genesis?
Genesis 1 tells us simply, God created the heavens and earth. It says there was light upon the watery deep which covered the entire surface of the earth.
Trees and plants with seed grew.
Animals with regenerative powers were created... etc. etc.
Sounds like reality to me. Rather than the myths today that present stories like...
The giant-impact hypothesis

Why believe those stories? What makes them any different?

 

[epronovost]

Creation
Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.” — New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

That's completely false and insultingly so. The Veda presents a creation myth which explicitly refers to the organization of the universe and its cultural processes despite being polytheistic. There plenty of creation myths that explains the organization of the universe and its cultural process as well as the creation of man; hell you yourself just posted one bellow showing the vast biased exaggerations of Douglas point of view.

Book of Genesis
Genesis is the only source known to humans that provides a logical, coherent history of things back to the beginning. Without its factual history of the first man and woman, we would be left with the fanciful stories or allegorical explanations of man’s beginning that are found in the creation accounts of pagan nations. A comparison of the book of Genesis with the pagan creation accounts clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Bible account.

Not one of such ancient sources furnishes us with the history, genealogy, and chronology that the book of Genesis provides.

That's nothing really special and the pseudo-genealogy of the Bible is its greatest weakness from a factual point of view. It's also very incomplete too. I'd like to note that polytheists are big fans of genealogy too, making extensive genealogy for their heroes and deities. They have also understood very instinctively that trying to make a genealogy from two individuals, ancestors to all humans, was very stupid as it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals, especially not a species as large and diverse as humanity.

Babylonian myth

Marduk used a net, a gift from Anu, to entangle Tiamat; Tiamat attempted to swallow Marduk, but 'the Evil Wind' filled her mouth. With the winds swirling within her she became distended – Marduk then fired his arrow, hitting her heart – she was slain. The other gods attempted to flee but, Marduk captured them, broke their weapons, and netted them. Her eleven monsters were also captured and chained; whilst Kingu was taken to Uggae (the Angel of Death), the 'Tablet of Destinies' taken from him. Marduk then smashed Tiamat's head with the mace, whilst her blood is carried off by the North Wind.

Marduk then split Tiamat's remains in two – from one half he made the sky – in it he made places for Anu, Enlil, and Ea.

How does stories like that compare to Genesis?
Genesis 1 tells us simply, God created the heavens and earth. It says there was light upon the watery deep which covered the entire surface of the earth.
Trees and plants with seed grew.
Animals with regenerative powers were created... etc. etc.
Sounds like reality to me. Rather than the myths today that present stories like...

So to you, a deity speaking magic words to make stuff happen is better than an epic combat between primordial forces to create the world? That might very well be your taste, but to me both are completely equally fanciful to my ears. One can be seen as a poetic rendition of the conflict between nature and man for the rise of civilization while the other seems to be mostly making it into a painting moving along step by step; one is certainly less violent then the other. Both describe magical ways things happened and both are equally completely wrong about it.

The giant-impact hypothesis

Why believe those stories? What makes them any different?

Because they have a wealth of independently verifiable and accurate evidences supporting them. They are scientific theories, not stories. They are demonstrated and built by observable facts, repeatable experiences, observation and successful precise predictions can be made thanks to those (and were). The biggest difference between them is that one is real and based on something objective and verifiable, while the other is a story with characters, scenes, a narrative structure and a narrator passed down as a tradition in a given culture.

 

[nPeace]

That's completely false and insultingly so. The Veda presents a creation myth which explicitly refers to the organization of the universe and its cultural processes despite being polytheistic. There plenty of creation myths that explains the organization of the universe and its cultural process as well as the creation of man; hell you yourself just posted one bellow showing the vast biased exaggerations of Douglas point of view.



That's nothing really special and the pseudo-genealogy of the Bible is its greatest weakness from a factual point of view. It's also very incomplete too.


So to you, a deity speaking magic words to make stuff happen is better than an epic combat between primordial forces to create the world? That might very well be your taste, but to me both are completely equally fanciful to my ears. One can be seen as a poetic rendition of the conflict between nature and man for the rise of civilization while the other seems to be mostly making it into a painting moving along step by step; one is certainly less violent then the other. Both describe magical ways things happened and both are equally completely wrong about it.


Because they have a wealth of independently verifiable and accurate evidences supporting them. The scientific theories, not stories. They demonstrated by observable facts, repeatable experience, observation and successful precise predictions can be made thanks to those. The biggest difference between them is that one is real and based on something objective and verifiable, while the other is a story with characters, scenes, a narrative structure and a narrator.

I hear you guys using that word verifiable so often, and inappropriately... for want of a better word.
No one has verified the impact hypothesis ... except perhaps in the imagination or dreams you guys may have.
So this is not true. This is actually another myth.

 

[nPeace]

That's completely false and insultingly so. The Veda presents a creation myth which explicitly refers to the organization of the universe and its cultural processes despite being polytheistic. There plenty of creation myths that explains the organization of the universe and its cultural process as well as the creation of man; hell you yourself just posted one bellow showing the vast biased exaggerations of Douglas point of view.

Please provide a source... if any exists.
An Ancient Creation Record - Can You Trust It?
“WHO can say whence it all came, and how creation happened?” You find that question in the poem “The Song of Creation.” Composed in Sanskrit over 3,000 years ago, it is part of the Rig-Veda, a Hindu holy book. The poet doubted that even the many Hindu gods could know “how creation happened” because “the gods themselves are later than creation.”—Italics ours.
Writings from Babylon and Egypt offer similar myths about the birth of their gods in a universe that already existed. A key point, however, is that those myths could not say where the original universe came from. You will find, though, that one creation record is different. This particular record, the Bible, opens with the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

 

[epronovost]

This particular record, the Bible, opens with the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

That's also false; prior to that Genesis describe the spirit of Lord moving over the water which means that before heaven, earth, light and dark there were things that were already existing. Your myth follows the same concept; your God creates a universe, but he was already in one himself.

 

[nPeace]

That's nothing really special and the pseudo-genealogy of the Bible is its greatest weakness from a factual point of view. It's also very incomplete too. I'd like to note that polytheists are big fans of genealogy too, making extensive genealogy for their heroes and deities. They have also understood very instinctively that trying to make a genealogy from two individuals, ancestors to all humans, was very stupid as it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals, especially not a species as large and diverse as humanity.

There goes your science.

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

 

[epronovost]

I hear you guys using that word verifiable so often, and inappropriately... for want of a better word.
No one has verified the impact hypothesis ... except perhaps in the imagination or dreams you guys may have.
So this is not true. This is actually another myth.

Actually yes, we did verify it by analyzing lunar rocks, comparative orbits and radiometric data. Yes, the impact hypothesis has been verified and supported by a numerous key elements. In fact, its the leading and pretty only hypothesis for its formation because all the facts point towards it. It's only real competition is that the re-collision, but it's still very embryonic and follows the same gist.

Until your myth can be supported by verifiable physical evidence; it's not going to come close to a scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what I was talking about when I was referring to "almost insane level of delusion". You are normally capable to make the difference between a story and a scientific hypothesis, except when it comes to your religious myths; then, even though they have the same structure and foundation as any other work of fiction, you can no longer tell them apart from a biology or physics textbook.

 

[nPeace]

That's also false; prior to that Genesis describe the spirit of Lord moving over the water which means that before heaven, earth, light and dark there were things that were already existing. Your myth follows the same concept; your God creates a universe, but he was already in one himself.

You faulty understanding is speaking here. That's false.

 

[blü 2]

It seems you have volunteered to explain why it's not a 24 hour day in Genesis 2:4.
Yes, go right ahead, thanks.

I'm sorry you're unable to understand what I post.

Don't hesitate to ask specific questions (as distinct from attempts at blanket dismissals) because I'm happy to respond.

 

[epronovost]

There goes your science.

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

That's the common ancestor for mitochondrial DNA not humanity itself. She wasn't the first woman at all. In fact, she is younger than many Homo Sapiens fossils. She was the common ancestor of all current living female human beings meaning that our descendance is linked to her and she lived millennia apart from the eldest male genetic ancestor. Finally, she existed about 150 000 years ago, in another continent than where your Bible is set place... talk about confirmation of the biblical narrative.

 

[epronovost]

That's false.

No, that's true. He never created the waters; he only separated between the water that forms the sky (which is of course not a thing, but Genesis describe the world as flat and under a dome) and those forming the oceans and seas. Find my the verse where God creates the ocean or the waters.

 

[nPeace]

Actually yes, we did verify it by analyzing lunar rocks, comparative orbits and radiometric data. Yes, the impact hypothesis has been verified and supported by a numerous key elements. In fact, its the leading and pretty only hypothesis for its formation because all the facts point towards it. It's only real competition is that the re-collision, but it's still very embryonic and follows the same gist.

Until your myth can be supported by verifiable physical evidence; it's not going to come close to a scientific theory or hypothesis. That's what I was talking about when I was referring to "almost insane level of delusion". You are normally capable to make the difference between a story and a scientific hypothesis, except when it comes to your religious myths; then, even though they have the same structure and foundation as any other work of fiction, you can no longer tell them apart from a biology or physics textbook.

You are free to make these unsupported claims on any forum you like.
There is no crime in that... at least to earthly rulers.
Debate forums are the Atheist platform for spewing all sorts of unsupported claims.

The origin of the Moon is usually explained by a Mars-sized body striking the Earth, making a debris ring that eventually collected into a single natural satellite, the Moon, but there are a number of variations on this giant-impact hypothesis, as well as alternative explanations, and research continues into how the Moon came to be. Other proposed scenarios include captured body, fission, formed together (condensation theory, Synestia), planetesimal collisions (formed from asteroid-like bodies), and collision theories.

 

[epronovost]

You are free to make these unsupported claims on any forum you like.
There is no crime in that... at least to earthly rulers.
Debate forums are the Atheist platform for spewing all sorts of unsupported claims.

The origin of the Moon is usually explained by a Mars-sized body striking the Earth, making a debris ring that eventually collected into a single natural satellite, the Moon, but there are a number of variations on this giant-impact hypothesis, as well as alternative explanations, and research continues into how the Moon came to be. Other proposed scenarios include captured body, fission, formed together (condensation theory, Synestia), planetesimal collisions (formed from asteroid-like bodies), and collision theories.

These theories, while they all have merits, have been largely discredited since they don't account for the particulars of the Moon's orbit. That's why the collision hypothesis is the currently the one accepted by the scientific consensus. Your own article explains why those theories have been largely abandoned and if one day become vindicated it will be thanks to PHYSICAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES.