- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted on 5/29/25 at 4:13 pm to Narax
Posted on 5/29/25 at 4:13 pm to Narax
The whole idea of billions of years and evolution doesn’t fit within the biblical narrative. At the same time, I don’t think the 6,000-year timeline really holds up either. Even within the Bible’s own framework, it doesn’t seem to give enough time for everything to play out. For example, the Tower of Babel is supposed to happen only about 100 years after the flood, which doesn’t leave much time for humanity to repopulate, form organized societies, and start building massive structures. It just feels a bit too rushed.
Because of that, I tend to lean toward the theory that the Masoretic Text might have been edited. There’s even a theory that Jewish scribes adjusted the timeline to make Shem and Melchizedek the same person. That way, Melchizedek would fall within the priestly line, which could be used to argue that Jesus, who wasn’t a Levite, couldn’t really be a legitimate high priest. That kind of change would make theological sense from a Jewish perspective pushing back against Christian claims.
So, while I don’t buy into deep time or evolution, I also think the 6,000-year view is too tight. At the very least, I think young earth creationists should consider the Septuagint timeline as a more reasonable starting point.
Because of that, I tend to lean toward the theory that the Masoretic Text might have been edited. There’s even a theory that Jewish scribes adjusted the timeline to make Shem and Melchizedek the same person. That way, Melchizedek would fall within the priestly line, which could be used to argue that Jesus, who wasn’t a Levite, couldn’t really be a legitimate high priest. That kind of change would make theological sense from a Jewish perspective pushing back against Christian claims.
So, while I don’t buy into deep time or evolution, I also think the 6,000-year view is too tight. At the very least, I think young earth creationists should consider the Septuagint timeline as a more reasonable starting point.
3
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You even accused that poster of creating the digression to have that argument when he didn't even do it and I created this digression.
Well then firstly LA I do apologize to you for accusing you of digression.
quote:
Me bringing up the 6,000 years, as I said, we're just a way to create a shortcut to identify that population, because we know what's at the heart of their argument whether or not they admit it or not.
I still think a discussion has to exist on its own merit.
Does a witness disqualify themselves because they believe in a 6000 year old universe?
My background is math, theories live or die independent of the goals of the author.
I don't care if a theory is by an atheist, a santanist or a Muslim, if it is logical valid, then it should exist on its own merit no matter how much I dislike it.
Not every law requires a decision on abortion.
Not every Biblical theory requires or precludes the age of the earth.
Personally I am earth age agnostic. I don't know, I know there is no natural way for the earth to be 6000 years old.
It would require a supernatural event. Literal Deus Vult.
It would also require a God who not just created stars and their propogated lightwave for millions of light years.
But also placed the remains of dinosaurs that never lived as fossils and oil in the ground.
While that is no more supernatural than creating matter in the first place, it is also evidence free.
I really don't know, I think many Christians admit that they don't know, and more so have zero ability to prove a supernatural event.
Which is the essence of faith.
But that does not preclude accepting of archeological finds and research.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
"Have hope
Perhaps one day."
Martin Luther
Perhaps one day."
Martin Luther
Posted on 5/29/25 at 11:13 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
Yeah, and in case there is any question where the Vatican stands on "Science" (and God), we can look to the heretic 'Big Bang' fabricator, by "Father" Georges Lemaître in 1927, their 'Lucifer' telescope (searching for "aliens"??), its agnosticism or outright support of the impossible theory of "Evolution", and its constant support of Scientism's anti-Bible agenda.
Catholics understand you can use your brain AND believe in a higher power.
Prots in comparison...
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:21 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
You want to wade into the academic pool?
No. I'm simply seeking spirituality.
It's Pharisees like yourself who drive me away from the Book.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:27 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
It's not really vague
You're wrong, "source criticism circles" IS vague - your lame protestations notwithstanding.
Mojeaux used a vague reference, as did you. Own it.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:00 am to FooManChoo
quote:It doesn't matter. As far as we know, yom never meant a 24 hour period in every case. Any person from any time period who chose to interpret it that way was doing so unnecessarily
YEC was the predominant view in history with a few notable outliers until recently
quote:There was no "reinterpretation." The creation story was never meant to be a scientific account anyway.
biblical scholars to attempt to reinterpret the Bibl
quote:Does that include CRI, ICR, AIG, etc?
There are a lot of brilliant Bible experts who are wrong on all sorts of things
quote:The context does not insist a hard stance on the age of the earth. It is a story about God's providence and desire for us. It is not a blow for blow of every minute of the universe.
It's interpreted narrowly based on the context it resides in.
quote:There don't have to be any other parallels. No ancient audience would have expected that the creation account was a scientific accounting down to the minute. They would have known yom to be flexible because they understood the word and knew the account was glossing over some details
What other passages of the Bible
quote:In your narrow opinion of yom which is not shared by many super smart people who know the point of the passage is not to nail down a scientific argument. AIG may be right for all I know and I see merit in some of their observations. But they also might be wrong
the natural reading of the text just doesn't support that
There is no reason from an exegetical or hermeneutical standpoint to be anything other than agnostic on the age of the earth. The account tells us what we need to know from a theological standpoint and doesn't have to conflict with our knowledge of the world at this time
If someone's salvation is not at stake and the reliability of the text is not injured, why force a particular translation? What is the point of doing that? What is gained?
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:05 am to FooManChoo
quote:This is something I wish you could reevaluate because it is blatantly unbiblical. You have said itt you don't believe anyone's salvation is at stake. What other theological ramification would there be? Yom absolutely could be interpreted as something other than a literal 24 hour period so biblical reliability is not at stake. You're starting to become coy with this.
there really are theological ramifications for the age of the Earth, both in terms of the reliability of the Scriptures themselves, as well as essential doctrines like original sin
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:07 am to Wolfhound45
quote:Do you know who we learned yom doesn't always mean a day from? The same audience you are referencing. Do you honestly believe any ancient audience thought the creation account included every single moment of creation and that not a second was missed?
It would not have been a debate about what “yom” means
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:08 am to cssamerican
quote:Are you basing that on genealogies?
the Tower of Babel is supposed to happen only about 100 years after the flood
Posted on 5/30/25 at 11:12 am to Harry Boutte
quote:Only for someone who doesn't want to do the work. Throw out some half baked idea and when it gets challenged just whine about it instead of actually investigating the rebuttal
You're wrong, "source criticism circles" IS vague
Posted on 5/30/25 at 12:30 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:The word doesn't have to always mean a 24-hour period in every case. I already acknowledged that it does have multiple meanings. My point, though, was that it's always the context that determines the meaning of how the word is used.
It doesn't matter. As far as we know, yom never meant a 24 hour period in every case. Any person from any time period who chose to interpret it that way was doing so unnecessarily
Take, for instance, Genesis 7:12, where God through Moses writes, "And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights." The word for "days" here is yom, but no one would argue that it's talking about 40 months, 40 years, or 40,000 years, because the language used includes a number (40), and also the word "nights" to correspond to the word "days". This clearly indicates 24-hour days in this example.
As I said, you have to let the context determine the meaning of the word. You can't arbitrarily pick a meaning every time you see the word yom, and the audience of the writings are not called upon to develop their own meanings of the text. God was providing a particular meaning.
quote:There most certainly is reinterpretation when the clear meaning of the text is being challenged and changed due to factors outside of the text.
There was no "reinterpretation." The creation story was never meant to be a scientific account anyway.
And it doesn't matter if the story was meant to provide scientific accuracy. It was still intended to provide truth. The context of the text helps us understand how we are intended to receive it. The word yom does have meaning, and the context helps us understand what that meaning is.
quote:Yes. All human beings are fallible. That's why each claim needs to be investigated on its own and bounced up against the biblical data to determine whether or not the claim is consistent with God's revelation, as God cannot lie.
Does that include CRI, ICR, AIG, etc?
quote:I agree it isn't a blow for blow of every minute of the universe, however what it does say, we can understand.
The context does not insist a hard stance on the age of the earth. It is a story about God's providence and desire for us. It is not a blow for blow of every minute of the universe.
The context limits the meaning of "day" to a 24-hour period based on how the word is used in the rest of Scripture (I already provided my reasoning for this). The creation of man was on the 6th day of that first week, and Jesus affirms that man was created "from the beginning". Whatever the first week looked like scientifically, it has to fit within the meaning of a morning and an evening time frame format, and the creation of man had to take place in some sense toward the beginning of creation.
quote:You have to be joking about this. The word "day" is used over 2,000 times and it couldn't have always been up for interpretation each time it's used. If so, there would be no way to know exactly what God was relaying to us.
There don't have to be any other parallels. No ancient audience would have expected that the creation account was a scientific accounting down to the minute. They would have known yom to be flexible because they understood the word and knew the account was glossing over some details
For instance, Leviticus 19:6 says "[the sacrifice] shall be eaten the same day you offer it or on the day after, and anything left over until the third day shall be burned up with fire." You can't legitimately look at that verse and say that we don't know what it is saying because the word "day" can mean multiple things.
It seems you are desperately grasping at straws to make it seem like we can't really know what the word meant in Genesis 1 when the text gives us more than enough context clues to understand it.
quote:My opinion is narrow because the text, itself, demands it. I'm not so narrow to say that the word yom always means a 24-hour period of time, but I am attempting to be faithful to basic grammatical construction by using the rest of the words in the passages to understand the meaning of the text. You are not being narrow enough, and it can result in total skepticism of every word of the Bible, if basic grammatical constructs can be discarded and words can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean.
In your narrow opinion of yom which is not shared by many super smart people who know the point of the passage is not to nail down a scientific argument. AIG may be right for all I know and I see merit in some of their observations. But they also might be wrong
quote:I adamantly disagree with you, and have explained why. The text dictates specific meaning, otherwise we cannot have confidence that we can know what God means anywhere.
There is no reason from an exegetical or hermeneutical standpoint to be anything other than agnostic on the age of the earth. The account tells us what we need to know from a theological standpoint and doesn't have to conflict with our knowledge of the world at this time
The Bible is not silent on the age of the Earth, and I've explained why that is the case. So far, you have not rebutted my argumentation, but only have said that I'm being too narrow. Please explain why my argument is wrong.
quote:I would argue that this does attack the reliability of the text. If a clear grammatical interpretation can be discarded, why not the whole text of Scripture? What else can we do away with by saying the text isn't saying what it seems to clearly say?
If someone's salvation is not at stake and the reliability of the text is not injured, why force a particular translation? What is the point of doing that? What is gained?
Even so, the point of "forc[ing] a particular translation" is to get at what God has truly said. It was the first lie of the serpent in the garden, after all. What is gained is truth and glory to God in understanding and believing what God has revealed to us.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 12:39 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:Please explain how what I said is blatantly unbiblical.
This is something I wish you could reevaluate because it is blatantly unbiblical.
quote:It's a slippery slope that could result in damnation. I explained this already. It puts the text of Scripture into doubt, first of all, which would then put teachings from Scripture that are necessary for salvation into doubt.
You have said itt you don't believe anyone's salvation is at stake. What other theological ramification would there be?
I didn't say that believing in an old Earth necessarily means someone is not a Christian, but the reason for why a person believes that could certainly impact other things the Bible teaches. For instance, you are making the case that we really can't know what the word "day" means, even if the context clearly tells us. That level of skepticism you are exhibiting is what liberals use to cast doubt on things like the resurrection of Christ. While you may not being casting doubt on that, others use the same methodology you are using to do so.
An inconsistent interpretative hermeneutic results in heresy all the time. It's important to understand how to read the Bible to avoid such things.
quote:I have explained why this isn't the case. The context dictates the meaning, and the context doesn't allow for anything but a 24-hour understanding of the word. "Morning" and "evening" are used as boundaries for whatever length the day is, and the number "1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc." explains the divisions between those lengths of time.
Yom absolutely could be interpreted as something other than a literal 24 hour period so biblical reliability is not at stake.
The rest of the Bible--including the rest of the Pentateuch, which is traditionally held as written by Moses--supports this interpretation, because in every other instance where the word "day" is accompanied with "morning", "evening", and/or a number, it means a literal 24-hour period of time. The only way you can explain the meaning of the word yom differently in Genesis 1 is to say that this chapter is entirely unique in the Bible, to which you need to provide support for it.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 12:42 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:What is being stated is not "every single moment", but the normative and common usage of the word "day" when used with the words "morning", "evening", and a number (i.e., "first").
Do you honestly believe any ancient audience thought the creation account included every single moment of creation and that not a second was missed?
If I told you that I was going to a baseball game on the 3rd day of the first week next month, and that the game would be in the evening, would you claim that you didn't know what I was talking about just because others have said things like "back in my day, I went to baseball games"?
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 12:55 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:Do you honestly believe that is what they were debating in those two passages in Matthew and Mark?
Do you know who we learned yom doesn't always mean a day from? The same audience you are referencing. Do you honestly believe any ancient audience thought the creation account included every single moment of creation and that not a second was missed?
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible is not silent on the age of the Earth, and I've explained why that is the case. So far, you have not rebutted my argumentation, but only have said that I'm being too narrow. Please explain why my argument is wrong.
I have no problem believing God could have created the earth as we see it in 6 literal days as calculated by the decay of cesium.
We know that time, space, gravity and velocity are highly interlinked, your head goes through time faster then your feet due to velocity.
We also know at the quantum level states can reverse and flow backwards, though calling that a reversal of time is questionable.
My question comes more to did He, what did He mean?
It is impossible for God to lie, so did He create fossils with less Carbon 14? Did those fossils ever live?
To speak the universe into existence is coupled with the impossibility of lying.
If He created things to look a way, then He created them.
Did He make time flow in an instant?
Did the "day" represent a period of time known only to Him in the absence of a day and night?
I really have no idea.
It's not that I don't believe He could, I just don't know that He did.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:27 pm to Narax
quote:These are valid questions and YEC scientists have spent quite a bit of time and effort developing hypotheses on how to answer those questions based on the natural world, evidences therein, and the biblical data.
I have no problem believing God could have created the earth as we see it in 6 literal days as calculated by the decay of cesium.
We know that time, space, gravity and velocity are highly interlinked, your head goes through time faster then your feet due to velocity.
We also know at the quantum level states can reverse and flow backwards, though calling that a reversal of time is questionable.
My question comes more to did He, what did He mean?
It is impossible for God to lie, so did he create fossils with less Carbon 14? Did those fossils ever live?
To speak the universe into existence is coupled with the impossibility of lying.
If he created things to look a way then he created them.
Did he make time flow in an instant?
Did the "day" represent a period of time known only to him in the absence of a day and night?
I really have no idea.
It's not that I don't believe he could, I just don't know that he did.
One thing I know is that the issue isn't typically with the evidence, itself, but with how we interpret the evidence. Our interpretations stem from our presuppositions.
For example, the principle of uniformitarianism is at the heart of the scientific method, however what if there were supernatural acts by God in the past that violated this principle? The conclusions may be very different than what is supposed.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:09 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Are you basing that on genealogies?
Yes, according to the Masoretic Text:
The Flood ends.
Two years later, Shem has Arphaxad.
Arphaxad is 35 when he has Shelah.
Shelah is 30 when he has Eber.
Eber is 34 when he has Peleg.
Adding those numbers:
2 (to Arphaxad) + 35 + 30 + 34 = 101 years after the Flood when Peleg is born.
Genesis 10:25 says that “in the days of Peleg the earth was divided,” which is traditionally linked to the Tower of Babel. Taking this at face value, the Tower of Babel happened about 101 years after the Flood in the Masoretic tradition.
In the Septuagint:
Two years after the Flood, Shem has Arphaxad.
Arphaxad is 135 when he has Cainan.
Cainan is 130 when he has Shelah.
Shelah is 130 when he has Eber
Eber is 134 when he has Peleg.
Adding these:
2 + 135 + 130 + 130 + 134 = 531 years after the Flood when Peleg is born.
The Septuagint suggests the Tower of Babel occurred about 531 years after the Flood. This provides for ample time for significant population growth and the development of early post-Flood societies.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:17 pm to Old Money
quote:who in retrospect created most of the advancements of modernity...
Prots in comparison...
...and molested on average 4.3 children less each
Hume
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:20 pm to cssamerican
quote:531 years and you barely have the first mud hut
The Septuagint suggests the Tower of Babel occurred about 531 years after the Flood. This provides for ample time for significant population growth and the development of early post-Flood societies.
Page 25 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News