re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

OEC are not basing their biblical interpretation on outside factors. That's a YEC strawman. And the clear meaning has nothing to do with the length of yom. Nothing.

---

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates long ages. So if the interpretation is not drawn from outside factors, then where is is drawn from?

quote:

---

It's the rest of scripture that informs us of the semantic range of yom and the point of the creation story.

---

The point of the story doesn't indicate long ages. The semantic range is limited by context in any given text. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. You just keep saying I'm missing the point of the story, as if the grammar of the story doesn't matter at all. That's absurd

quote:

---

We do this every minute of every day. Context helps but it takes conversation in order to ferret out what someone means. Ancient biblical audiences would have been no different. There's no way you aren't aware of this. We have constant misunderstandings with each other. Have you read John 3:3-4? And even if Jesus' audience understood it as a 24 hour period, that doesn't mean that God intended the meaning to always be locked in to that forever. I can say that because the word has flexibility. If God intended something other than that, he could have chosen a different word that would have provided the specificity that you require.

---

OK, I've given a clear and logical explanation as to why Genesis 1 has to mean a literal 24-hour period of time based on the way the language is used. You have given no argument to the contrary. You keep going back to me missing the point of the story (I'm not missing the point; you're ignoring the text, itself) and that the word is flexible, even though I've explained how word meaning is always limited by its context, or else it doesn't mean anything in particular.

quote:

---

We know that there are multiple possibilities and that should be good enough for anyone who understands the intent of the passage.

---

You are showing yourself to be an unserious person. Do you even read what you've written?

You, yourself, are saying that yom has multiple meanings, and yet you do not accept that the precise meaning in any given usage is determined based on grammatical context.

Have you got anything to say about the other examples from Scripture I provided in Genesis and Leviticus where the word is limited by its context? Do you think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years?

quote:

---

But you are intentionally missing the whole point of the passage which has NOTHING to do with the length of yom. Absolutely nothing. If they understood it to mean day, that's ok because they were relying on their contemporaneous phenomenological understanding. That's the beauty of the flexibility of the word - it allows for our inevitable progression (provided by God BTW) and it's sad that you aren't allowing for the possibility that it was God's design all along.

---

1. I'm not missing the point of the story. God does not only tell us that He created all things, but He gives us more detail than that. One of the details He provided is how He created (He spoke), and over what period of time (six days). You are insisting the text doesn't mean what it says but have not backed up your statement. You only continually repeat that I'm missing the point and that the word CAN mean multiple things, so that's good enough.

2. You admit that even the recipients of the text understood it to mean a literal 6-day creation because of their "contemporaneous phenomenological understanding", and yet you seem to be also claiming that they were wrong in their understanding. If so, why? What other aspect of God's word provides such clarity in your mind? Where did Jesus or the Apostles provide the true interpretation?

quote:

---

OEC does not injure the reliability of scripture, not one bit.

---

This conversation is a good example of how it does. You, yourself, are claiming that grammatical limits placed upon the text don't actually provide clarity in meaning, but leave it open to any interpretation a persons wants. Not only is that ridiculous on its face, but it means that anyone can interpret the Bible however they want as long as they claim they know the point of the text, as you are doing. It means that the text, itself, is not the final arbiter of truth, but the interpreter. God isn't giving us one meaning, but leaving it up to us to determine it for ourselves. That absolutely injures the reliability of the Scriptures because it places their reliability on the shoulders of man.

quote:

---

i have said repeatedly that you are missing the theological point of the creation story and it has absolutely nothing to do with the length of yom. It is about God's providence, omnipotence and desire for a relationship with us. There's no way you can deny that.

---

It means even more than what you said. It reveals the nature of God and nature of man and our need for a savior.

However, it also places this need in the context of reality. You can't interpret the text however you want.

quote:

---

You are eisegetically shoehorning yom into the theological meaning.

---

I have done nothing but shown how the word is used from the rest of Scripture. I'm the one quoting other passages to provide context of how it is used. You have done nothing to rebut anything I've said, but have just said essentially "you're wrong". I believe you are the one eisegeting here, and you have given no evidence that you aren't, but only to the contrary.

quote:

---

How does the length of yom change our praxis? None.

---

For one, it changes how we approach the Scriptures. You, in this thread, are a good example of that. You are clearly ignoring the actual text in favor of an interpretation that ignores the textual context. Traditional biblical hermeneutics is absolutely thrown out the window in what you are doing here.

quote:

---

We are to worship God and creation is no less of a miracle either way. We still have to accept Jesus as lord and savior. We still have to evangelize. None of that changes in the slightest. Adding an extra layer of science is completely superfluous to the theological purpose.

---

I'm not adding a layer of anything. I'm interpreting the text consistently. If we all interpreted the Bible as you are doing, we could say anything we wanted: God didn't actually create; the story is just a metaphor. Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us.

Those are actual statements I've heard from people because they don't see the text of Scripture as meaning what it says it means.

quote:

---

Grammar is not the point of the story and that's why YEC presumption of "clear" needs to be amended

---

Grammer is important to help us understand what is being communicated. You are ignoring this.

quote:

---

Where I do have a question with it though is why would he?
We aren't just taking about sapphires, but of Neanderthal and Homo Sapience DNA humans, and even proto-cities such as Eridu, Jericho and Çatalhöyük are all dated in that time period.

---

I'd say it depends on interpretation of the evidence. A YEC view would say that proto-humans were just humans and that proto-cities were post flood cities.

There doesn't have to be a lie or fiction from God when our methods of dating and discovery into historical things could be flawed based on the assumptions we talked about. Soft tissue in dinosaur remains seems to be impossible given the timeframes proposed, yet that has been found.

quote:

---

I'd say it depends on interpretation of the evidence. A YEC view would say that proto-humans were just humans and that proto-cities were post flood cities.

---

Time is strange, If God was traveling at the speed of light while he created the universe, then the billion years of the universe would pass by while God experienced a day.
If God had the gravitational field of a Black hole, same effect.

So if he meant that to a non-existent observer on earth it took 6 days as calculated by the decay of Cesium (for some reason) then Yes, I believe it could have happened, and that would mean either:
1. He created all the bodies and ruins in the ground.
2. Our interpretation of all the evidence is wrong in some way I can't fathom
3. Everything happened in fast motion, with animals living and dying in attoseconds
4. Something else I can't fathom.

quote:

---

There doesn't have to be a lie or fiction from God when our methods of dating and discovery into historical things could be flawed based on the assumptions we talked about. Soft tissue in dinosaur remains seems to be impossible given the timeframes proposed, yet that has been found.

---

I think it's premature to assume there is a natural answer to a supernatural event.

It's trying to bound God by our laws of nature.
The laws of the universe are set by God, but nowhere does he say he is bound by them.

Look at the loaves and the fishes.
There is no re-interpretation of evidence in a natural way that allows dead fish and cooked bread to multiply.
Something happened, was it quantum level, string theory vibrations that made pieces of fish (of the right type and cookedness) appear?

There was no natural process for Lazarus, he began to stink, he wasn't in a coma, he was dead.
A doctor post resurrection would find based on a correct interpretation of evidence that he was never dead.

But to summarize; If God meant that he did it in 6 literal days, then yes he could have, but when given the oddness of time itself, it's hard for me to contemplate that I know exactly what God meant by 6 days.

quote:

---

If God is beyond the constraints of space-time, He doesn't have to "travel", He doesn't 'experience' time at all, much less a day. All of eternity is simultaneous to God. That's how He can be everywhere at the same time. After all, didn't He create space-time?

---

Yes, this is somewhat to my point, even in a 100% natural world, time is not a constant.

Creation is a non natural event, shrinking it down to Newtonian time seems far too restricting when Newtonian time isn't even real.

Talking about days when there isn't a day night cycle doesn't make sense, especially as Newtonian time as we think of it wouldn't be formalized until the invention and propagation of the town clock.

Hence my resistance to put a limit on God that even our GPS satellites break easily.

quote:

---

You could have for Mojeaux's claim as well

---

No I can't because it doesn't exist. I don't know why you can't understand that. You two have whined for pages now and I still provided substantiation that you should have found yourself. I went above and beyond. You still haven't even acknowledged it or responded to it. You're still whining about, I don't know. I have no idea. A claim was made. It wasn't backed up. I rebutted it. You two clowns haven't even acknowledged the details

quote:

---

For all the writing you do, you have remarkably little capacity for understanding other people. It's unbelievable that you still don't get the point.

---

You and Jeaux prove me wrong by providing the JEDP sources and the list of "consensus"

quote:

---

It's people like you who drive me away from scripture

---

You are making your own eternal choice. It's not dependent on other people. If you want to chance it, go right ahead. People massaging your ego has nothing to do with you recognizing truth

quote:

---

If Heaven is full of people like you, I don't want any part of it

---

Have you heard of what the alternative is?

quote:

---

So you do not read what you post

---

Let me know when you find it

quote:

---

You’re the world’s preeminent scholar of being a twat

---

You seem like an extremely whiny baby. You throw some half baked crap at the wall and when it gets called out, this is your elementary school playground response

quote:

---

You're making demands on others you are not willing to do yourself

---

I provided a list, even though you should have done this yourself. Did you not see it?

quote:

---

Buddhism

---

No, the alternative to "heaven." Buddhism is a mess

quote:

---

I provided a list

---

I never asked for a list, I merely pointed out that you hadn't provided one when you were chiding Meauxjo for not providing one himself.

quote:

---

you should have done this yourself

---

Why?

quote:

---

Hi twat. I see that you’re here to mischaracterize people’s arguments, put words in their mouths, and make declarative statements as if you’re some authority.

What a twat you are. How did you get through school, and just how far did you go? What is your occupation, other than being a twat?

---

yes, but how else would the rest of us know about the special underwear brigade and the 40,000 years on the ark theory, especially in light of the 6,000 year old earth and new definitions of heaven?