Did not! Did not!

Oh wait. Cain did you double stamp it?

Man, it's tough to win an argument when you trump me every time by just saying you did prove it.

Could you teach me that technique of debate? Like, what do I have to do to pull that one out of my hat? I'll try practicing.

Here's my attempt.

Cain, I proved there wasn't. You haven't proven anything, as is typical for you.

Hey....It does make it quite easy to win debates now. (Triple stamp it!)

As usual, when your arguments are destroyed, you resort to ad hominem.

I'll just declare victory now.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:22, Sun 29 Dec 2013.

So what else were you going to do to humiliate me further? Use ALL CAPS to declare it proven? ;) <- see, semi colon bracket to let you know when there's a joke. ;)

I don't have to humiliate you.  You do a fine job of doing that to yourself.

MODERATOR POST:

Grandmaster Cain, post #53 violates the forum constitution. Do not make direct attacks against other members. Please remove or modify it within the next twenty four hours or it will be removed for you.

Grandmaster Cain and Trust in the Lord, I can see that this conversation is getting very hot. If either of you do not feel you can be civil, please take a break from the thread until you can be.

Thank you.

I haven't read much of the latest argument, but here is my two cents:

The "six days" in the original Hebrew means something more like "periods of time," not actual days; it has just been translated that way.  So six "eras" is just as accurate.  The Hebrew use a "figurative day" in their speech, as much of the language is figurative.  The same is true of people living long lifespans.  The most exact translation of what is called "day" in English is "a space of time defined by an associated term"

The term is "yowm," and it has many meanings, including:  day, days, some time, life, at the same day, at present, and a few others, one of which I find particularly interesting:  "a period of light which is not darkness."  The ancient Hebrews did not define it by hours or "days," but by "natural phenomena," which is why a "period of time" or "era" is just as accurate a translation.

Couple that with Peter and Psalms:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday"
when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

"... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."

Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8.  (There, also, a thousand years is used figuratively, like we might use a "million.")

Many linguists state that the word "yowm" is the root word that developed into the word "Aeon" in Greek, indicating that the ancients thought of it more as an "eon" than a "day."

Someone took the most accurate translation into English and it turns out something like this, which seems the most accurate to me:

"Then said God,
Let be light and was light.
And saw God the light that good (it was)
and separated God between the light and the darkness.
And called God the light Day. and the darkness He called Night;
and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one."


The "mixing" comes from 'ereb and "breaking forth" from boqer, which indicates transverse threads of cloth or mingling or mixing of things, which is commonly translated as "evening" and "morning" because it is when things become blurry until they are made unblurry by the day.  An alternate translation that is also is accurate, is "from chaos/disorder to order..."

So "the mixing and breaking forth" or "chaos/disorder to order" then occurs in the first "time period/era/eon" (yowm).

The only problem with that concept is that in genesis it literally describes a day as being day and night, a literal 24 hour period in Genesis chapter 1.

I do understand that the word was used for more than one meaning, however, the reason for a 24 hour meaning is because it describes it in use in Genesis 1 as 24 hour days.

Wait, you're saying Genesis actually says the day was 24 hours long?  I think that'd be a pretty strong piece of evidence in your favor if it were true.  Can you point to the verse that says the "days" in question were 24 hours long?  Or are you assuming that because it involved a "day and a night" that it had to be 24 hours long?

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis1:31 And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it completely. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

So the argument is that the word day could have another meaning. But morning, and evening do not have another meaning. They are day and night. Unless the argument is being presented that morning, and evening were longer than 24 hours back then, the evidence suggests that a 24 hour day is the more reasonable of the responses.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 61):

Ah, gotcha.  While I tend to agree with you that a 24 hour day is the most reasonable reading of the intending meaning, that's a big step from saying it says days meant 24 hours.  It'd be a pretty open-and-shut case if it said "24 hour days," but if the debate is over whether the days are metaphorical or not, I don't think it's all that convincing to say that it had to be 24 hour days since they had "mornings" and "evenings".  Again, I stress that I tend to agree with you that the people who wrote this actually believed this all happened in 6, literal,  24-hour days (though obviously we disagree on whether they were correct in believing that).

I'm more likely to avoid such discussions these days, since I've had them enough times to know that its not a question of evidence for people.  Everyone interprets this book so that it matches with their beliefs about 2 things:  the perfectness of the bible, and the findings of the sciences regarding deep time.  There's 3 basic positions that tend to show up:

1.  Those who believe the bible is God's perfect word, and cannot be wrong, and that the world is young.  They tend to take the 24 hour days literally (because that fits their other views)
2.  Those who believe the bible is God's word, but also believe the findings of science.  These tend to take the "days as a metaphor" point of view, because that's the only way to really square those two beliefs.
3.  Those who believe the bible isn't a work of God, and believe the findings of science.  These people seem more indifferent about the metaphor or literal interpretation of "days", since they don't think it's true either way.

Interestingly, if one is in the first camp, and is arguing with folks in the 2nd camp, there is the danger of convincing them that you're right about the days being literal, but that causing them to switch to the 3rd camp, rather than the first.  If they're convinced that science has shown that the earth is much older than 6k years, and you then also convince them that Genesis was intended literally, they only conclusion they can reach is that the bible isn't actually the infallible word of God.  Put another way, if you tell them they have to pick either the findings of science, or the literal interpretation of Genesis, they might just go with the findings of science.  That seems like the correct thing, in my view, but I assume it'd be a rather pyrrhic victory for someone in camp 1.

That is incorrect.  It does not even say "day and night" in Hebrew, as my post above demonstrates.  To engage in a debate with me, you'll need to be more specific with references and the definitions of the ancient Hebrew used, not the English "translations."

Actually, yes they do have another meaning.  This is what my post points out very clearly in looking at the ancient Hebrew.  The literal translation is:

"the mixing and was the breaking forth time one"

It is not "morning or night" or even "day;" that is just how it was translated for King James and has stuck with the translations.

The Hebrew words and their actual definitions are:
yowm = a time period (not necessarily a day but is instead the root of the word "eon")
ereb = mixing (typically translated as "night" because it is when things are mingled, obscured and unclear -- i.e., chaos)
boker = breaking forth (which is typically translated as morning because that is when things are made unblurry)

So the literal translation means something like this:  "The chaos/blurriness and the subsequent breaking clear and formation was the first eon."  (Not literally: "The evening and the morning were the first day." which is the typical figurative translation.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:34, Fri 03 Jan 2014.

Actually, that would be incorrect. You are maintaining the word Yome, which is meant for day, and also other meanings such as age.

But I also referenced evening, and morning
‛ereb
eh'-reb
From H6150; dusk: -  + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: -  (+) day, early, morning, morrow.

Which do not have multiple meanings, and are repeated multiple times in Genesis 1 which supports a 24 hour day.

Those actually do have multiple meanings, and they were used figuratively quite often in that age.  I don't know how else to say it but to say that you are simply mistaken.

Similarly, for example, we might say "It dawned on me..."  That doesn't mean that the sun suddenly rose over my head, but that I understood something.  The Hebrew is not too dissimilar from that type of usage.

So far, I think I'm finding TitL's view more convincing here.  While it's possible that it was meant to be taken as a metaphor, I can't really see any reason why one should take it that way.  I don't think anyone even really questioned that it was to be taken literally until Hutton introduced the idea of deep time.  The only real reason I can see to take it as a metaphor is so that you can simultaneous accept it as "true" in some sense, and accept the findings of science as true.  This seems to put me and TitL in the unusual position of agreeing on this one, since I'm okay with saying that Genesis is wrong, and he's okay with saying the scientists are wrong.  Neither of us feel the need to be able to say "they're both true!"

No, Tycho, those words were not used as only "night" and "day."  I think you are believing what he is saying without independent research.  Those same words are used throughout the Old Testament to mean many things that are not "night" or "day."

So if it means what TiTl says, the Old Testament itself would not make sense in many areas where the same words are used but are translated differently in English.

Also, there is a ton of evidence suggesting that the ancient Hebrews used exaggerations and figurative language.  That's why people lived hundreds of years:  because it was part of their figurative "long life."

I think your error here is that you are merely taking the time period between a few centuries A.D. to the 1700s.  You are not looking at the ancient Hebrew or Israelites, but rather at the Catholic/Protestant interpretations that persisted for about 1500 years.  That has no bearing on what was written thousands of years B.C., on their culture, or on whether their language was figurative.  Even the Torah was not written until the 5th Century.

Here is another link showing how the Ancient Israelites did not mean it as more than a figurative understanding of the creation by God and our place in creation:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...lieve_about_creation

Oh, I'm not saying that it could only be interpreted literally.  As I mentioned before, it looks to me like it could be metaphorical, I just don't see any evidence to suggest that it was, other than the findings of science disagreeing with it.

Yes, the ancient Hebrews used exaggerations and figurative language, but that doesn't mean we should assume absolutely everything they wrote down was intended to be read as a metaphor.

You are correct that I was thinking of the christian interpretations of Genesis, rather than the ancient Hebrew interpretation.  But I guess that's because we have records telling us that before Hutton Christians all took it literally, but don't have records (at least that I know of, if we do they should clearly be brought up) that indicate how the ancient Hebrew's interpreted it.

I guess for me, I'd need to be shown some reason that it was meant to be taken metaphorically, and so far none has been given.  All that suggested is that it could be metaphorical.  It's like if you say "hey, I'm going to the store to get some milk."  You could be speaking metaphorically, but I'm going to assume you mean it literally until I get some other clue telling me otherwise.  Someone saying "Oh, but Heath often exaggerates and uses metaphors" wouldn't really sway me much, though I might well accept that you do use them.

Ok, here's the thing.  If it were literal, the two creation accounts would contradict themselves.  If the six day myth is indeed a metaphor, then the contradiction resolves itself.  That, plus the language used according to Heath (who does read ancient Hebrew, as opposed to Titl, who googled modern Hebrew) is sufficient to lend credence to the metaphor model.

No, as I pointed out from historians, it's not a conflict, since the second account is a close up on day 6 in the garden of eden.


And note, Heath didn't actually show those words had multiple meanings, he just denied that the hebrew words only had one meaning.

I used a hebrew english dictionary, and showed it's translation of just one word.

I'll show you.

H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

H6153
ערב
‛ereb
eh'-reb
From H6150; dusk: -  + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

H1242
בּקר
bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: -  (+) day, early, morning, morrow

As you see, yome does have multiple uses, but adding the other details of morning and evening, which have only one meaning brings everything together for clarification.

So, I understand you think Heath countered my argument, but he only denied it, and made a claim that evening and morning have other meanings. But that's not true. (Nor did he support his claim by showing the many meanings of morning and evening.)

Dybbuk, is this something you feel qualified to weigh in on? I notice we have two English-speaking Christians talking about Hebrew Jewish writings.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 73):

They all have multiple meanings.  You just have truncated or looked up a general dictionary definition.  For example, 'ereb also has another definition that means "foreigners" or "strangers."  The term was used to demonstrate things that were separate, apart, confused or chaos.  Your "yohm" definition actually seems to concur with me.

You see, the ancients used common references to apply to larger events that were hard to comprehend.  So day and night were used commonly for any division of time or era because that was the easy way to visualize it.  This actually conforms to what Tycho is saying about Hutton -- they knew there were longer divisions of time but characterized them by imagery the commonplace person could understand, which is how these sayings come to being, particularly if they are not specific spans of time (like number of years or days).

I should also point out that, if it were literal, things would not exist in proper order.  The earth and water would exist before light existed.  And God didn't create the stars and the sun, the night and the day, until the Fourth Day, after he created the earth, the waters, the firmament, and plant life.

And isn't it strange that he creates the "day" and "night" after three days had already passed?  (I.e., "day" and "night" were not created until the Fourth Day!)

So we need to look at some internal consistency of the language.  I just don't see how that can be read literally.

That's actually your problem.  You're using a modern Hebrew dictionary to attempt to disprove someone who can read in ancient Hebrew.  At any event, you still haven't resolved the contradiction I've sent you (Other than to repeatedly say "Nuh-Uh!") within the literal framework.  Your point-- that the second creation story is an expansion-- only works if the first story is metaphorical, and proves my point.