I'd agree that the words as used mean 24 hour periods as opposed to other lengths of time.  However, that's the way metaphors work.  The question (in my mind, at least) isn't if "days" was mistranslated, and actually should be "long periods of time," but rather whether the days were meant to be taken literally or metaphoricly.

If I say "he has a heart of gold," the word gold actually means the metal, but intent of what I'm saying is something else.  Mistranslation of a word is a separate issue from whether it was intended to be taken literally, or as a metaphor.

Another example is Jesus saying "this is my blood, this is my body."  Did he mean it litterally, as in the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood (as catholics believe) or is it a metaphor?  Clearly Jesus really said flesh and blood, but what he actually meant is the question.

Here's my rebuttal:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html

This is based on the Hebrew meaning and usage of a metaphoric "day."  To sum up, a "day" is an "age."
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:50, Mon 18 Sept 2006.

Day, can mean age, but there are other just a credible scholars that say day means day espically in the context of the passage.

And using that important passage in Exodus, it redoubles the day = day account.  God didn't want his people to work for 6 ages and rest on the 7th.

This one verse really sticks out as indicating a symbolic, rather than literal, account of Creation.  The separation of light and dark, as described here, only makes sense if you do not understand where light actually comes from in the universe.  Sure, it could refer to a literal process of God balling up all the light into stars which then radiate it everywhere else, but then he wouldn't just call it "day" like the next verse says.  The way it's written suggests a story created by humans to explain their world, the same as every other ancient culture.  The specific people who came up with the story may have believed it was given to them by God, but it's still just symbolic; we've known for quite some time now that there is no literal separation of light and dark in the manner suggested in Genesis.

This is where the once a day Sabbath mirrors the symbolic seventh day of rest.

Bump.  This is similar to a discussion rising in the other thread about the beginning of Genesis.

That's a really neat page.  I'm going to be spending some time going over its claims.

You'll find that I like to go back to the original Hebrew usage and colloquial usages before stating anything about the meaning of the Old Testament.

The same is true of people living hundreds of years.  While possible, I suppose, colloquially they'd use those terminologies like we'd say "not in a million years", and some argue that there is transposition so that it's not really saying what it's translated as saying.

Saw this today, and figured it might generate some conversation.  It's Pat Robertson telling people that the world is more than 6000 years old, and that Bishop Usher "wasn't inspired by the Lord" when he came up with that number.  He says that dinosaurs existed "before the time of the bible" and that christians should try to "cover it up" and "make like the whole thing happened in 6000 years."  When even Pat Robertson is speaking against young earth creationism, is it a sign that view is dying out?

Just noticed one this thread and i would like to put my opinions in here and ask a few questions.

First YES creationism is dying out and i refuse to believe otherwise it.

The Seven Days have to be Metaphorical. After all how can you use time to create something if time itself didn't exist at that point. The first sun rise and set could easily have taken more than 24 hours after all it does on other plannets so whats to say that god would obey our earthly laws.

but that brings up the point of how could you take one day to create the universe if the concept of a day didn't exist before you created it.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:55, Wed 28 Nov 2012.

I used to think it was metaphorical but now I believe it was literal.

There are more kinds of creationism than young-earth creationism, PushBar.

I have met people who believe the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not one of them, but I would still classify myself as a creationist, since I believe God created the universe.

I would just like to clarrify that the Belief that god created mankind isn't what i have a problem with. Its the belief that everything written in the bible is literally the truth and to go against it is to destroy your soul.

People Who belive that god creted the universe i have no problem with that is your belief

People who Openly go against all scientific aregumetns and logic because thats what a book written 2000 years ago says differently i do have an issue with.

Is it beyond comprehension that gods lessons were tought to those that couldn;t handle complex concepts as esy and so they were dumbed down, explained in a way that people at the time could understand.

No one can understnd gods plan right. But over time we have become smarter so like any textbook it will become outdated.

Maybe god was the big bang? may be Edam And eave was the story of Sea cretures taking their first steps on land.

Generally I have found that Young Earth Creationists defend their stance by stating that God only makes it "look" like the earth is old.  As if making God out to be a big fat liar is a good way to work around the issue ;)

In reply to PushBarToOpen (msg # 11):

Moderator Post:

Insulting other beliefs or followers of those beliefs is contrary to our forum's constitution. Please edit the offending post to bring it in line with forum rules. If the post isn't updated in 24-hours, it may be modified or deleted by a moderator to bring it in line.

If there are any issues, please contact us in a private thread so we can discuss.

Thank you.

From the perspective of the ancient Israelites and authors of the Old Testament, we have to look at their culture.  Their culture and language was very metaphorical in nature.

For example, we might say, "I've said that a million times..."  Fast forward thousands of years, and will people think we were being literal?  A day can mean "age" and people often used high numbers related to people's age, in fact, to indicate their righteousness.  So those hundreds of years they lived are also most likely metaphorical in nature.

I have never seen any value to a Young Earth philosophy other than trying to fit ancient words into a preformed idea that one refuses to give up, even though it is not really relevant to spiritual matters.

I think it's fair to mention that arguing that the bible is stating that the earth was literally created in six 24 hour days is counter-productive.  We have factual evidence to the contrary.

At least if you propose that it's metaphorical (6 "god days" or each day being many million years), there is a chance that it can actually be true.

What sort of factual evidence? Do you have a witness? a video? Perhaps we've seen another planet formed over millions of years?

Many of those who hold to a young earth (and perhaps literal days) belief tend to believe that what we see on earth is merely a result of God making it look that way on purpose (or essentially making it LOOK like the earth is old, but it's really not)

It seems completely at odds with believing in a God that is honest and true, and yet there are those who seem to live with both of those beliefs as a part of their belief structure.

Yeah, that's why I don't even consider that possibility.  Making the earth "seem" to be 4.5 billion years old when it's not would be counter-productive and blatant deception.  If you want people to believe in something, you don't manipulate and falsify the evidence to indicate the opposite of something you've said.  That makes it even less likely for someone to believe.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:16, Mon 21 Jan 2013.

Devising new scientific methods depends on a degree 'reasonableness', relying on other scientific beliefs as a baseline. If you expect the answer to be '4 billion years', you are going to automatically toss out any answer which suggests six thousand years. The result is a self-reinforcing, common 'answer' to the question, based on a mix of science and personal bias.

There certainly is some of that in science. I have an interest in bronze age low chronology, and some reputable scientists who accept the established chronology only publish carbon dating results which agree with the established chronology. (Yes, the pro-low-chronology side has a lot of crackpots in it, so it has even more bias issues. But I still believe that low chronology has merit, despite the reputations of its proponents.)

I think, though, that a counterpoint to katisara is that the scientific establishment didn't go into it original with a preconceived notion of 4 billion years. That number was derived from evidence that contradicted their intuitions that the Earth was younger than that, and the 4 billion year figure had to undergo skepticism before it was accepted.

It's possible that time telescopes as we go backwards, that cycles we see (such as the precession of the pole or the flip of the Earth's magnetic field or even the rates of radioactive decay) do not have constant periods but have been getting longer and longer as time goes on. This seems unlikely to me, since these various long time scale processes are in sync with each other, and if their rates were all changing, the idea of them all lengthening at the same rate to stay in sync seems very farfetched. So I have to assume that these cycles are indeed period, and the Earth is as old as these cycles tell us it is.

I think you're overstating things here.  You make it sound like science only ever gets the answer its expecting, and tosses out anything that disagrees with the accepted answer.  You make it sound like the answer that science comes up with is no more valid than any man-on-the-street's opinion.  Having worked in science (I'm no longer doing research, but it wasn't too long ago that I was), I can tell you that scientists don't delight in getting the accepted answer, but rather in showing that the accepted answer is wrong.  That's what makes you a big name in science: overturning the accepted view.  Coming up with results that are consistent with the accepted view helps your career a bit, but if that's all you ever do, you'll just be one of the rank and file, so it's not what people working in science are aiming for.

As hakootoko points out, science didn't expect '4 billion years' to be the answer.  When Hutton came up with the idea of (and presented the evidence for) deep time, scientists all expected a few thousand years to be the answer.  It was the evidence that led them to the new answer, not their personal biases.  And that evidence has been strengthened by look at many different areas, and they all come to more or less the same answer.

Are there some specific examples you're thinking of when you say that scientists 'toss out' answers that suggest 6 thousand years?  If so, perhaps we should discuss those, rather than the more general question of whether science is just opinion largely disconnected from facts.  I think we won't get much beyond "Is not!" "is too!" unless we talk about specific examples.

*sigh*

The bible actually lists two creation stories in genesis, which while not exactly contradictory, they do differ on details.  Now, my supposition is that they were two separate oral traditions, which were merged together to form the first part of genesis.

More to the point, the two stories only truly contradict each other if you take them both literally.  The seven day account makes it clear man was made last, while the Adam and Eve myth says Adam came before everything else.  This isn't a serious problem if you think of the seven days as a metaphor.

Does anyone here actually believe in the young earth theory, or we all arguing the same side of the equation?