Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 1:11:01 GMT
I prefer the logic of Dr. Jonathan Safati. If you are unaware of him or his work, he has a PhD in biological spectrophotometry so he’s no dummy. In addition, he is a cultural Jew who is also a Christian and a young earth creationist. As a Jewish scholar, he says that the Israelite word “yom” specifically and only refers to a 24 hour day - even back “in the good old days”. The ancients did have other words to indicate other periods of time and knew how to use them. To me, this makes more sense than Dr. Hugh Ross’s claim to the contrary. Dr. Sarfati has also written several books on young earth creationism and a refutation of some of Ross’s work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 20:33:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 2, 2020 3:15:13 GMT
I prefer the logic of Dr. Jonathan Safati. If you are unaware of him or his work, he has a PhD in biological spectrophotometry so he’s no dummy. In addition, he is a cultural Jew who is also a Christian and a young earth creationist. As a Jewish scholar, he says that the Israelite word “yom” specifically and only refers to a 24 hour day - even back “in the good old days”. The ancients did have other words to indicate other periods of time and knew how to use them. To me, this makes more sense than Dr. Hugh Ross’s claim to the contrary. Dr. Sarfati has also written several books on young earth creationism and a refutation of some of Ross’s work. Sarfati sounds like a genius, and he's not someone I would want to challenge in a subject he's much more conversant with. Keep in mind that brilliant people can argue virtually anything to the point they sound convincing. That being said, I don't think a linguistic argument that "day" must refer to a 24-hour period holds water. A word always is determined by its use *in context.* That has been proven again and again. Furthermore, the argument is that even a word that commonly refers to a 24 hour day can still be applied metaphorically to a much longer period of time. It can be used synonymous with "age." For example, consider "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." If the Scriptures indicated God made 6 categories of creation in 6 different days, then it would be contradictory for them to say He made the whole creation in just 1 day (Gen 4.2). That is, it would be unless the word "day" can refer to a general category of time, and uses what normally is a 24-hour day for a general period of time. Sarfati is a good person to reference with respect to his caliber and work. However, I have no idea how much of a linguist he is, or translator. As far as I know, he's just good at using his scientific know-how to argue what he thinks is defending the literalness of God's word. Does he realize that reading modern scientific meaning back into ancient documents may not have been the intent of the author of Genesis? If the author was not, in fact, arguing for or against a Young Earth Creation, then it is useless to use the word "day" to argue the case. What really matters is how the words used fit in the mind of the author. 6 days of creation likely had no application to literal days except to say that they represent categories of creation that can be applied in Hebrew religious observances over a period of 6 literal days. The 6 days of creation referred to *categories* of creation, and were to be applied, under the Law, as 6 literal days where work was practiced, before observing a 7th day of Sabbath rest. Hugh Ross may be more qualified to argue, as a scientist for an old earth than Sarfati may be qualified, in his field, to argue for a young earth. Either way, arguing on the basis of a particular expert depends on what they know on the relevant questions, and how they address those questions. I suggest you read something by Hugh Ross or by some others in the same vein.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 2, 2020 3:48:49 GMT
Yes, I enjoyed Sarfati in this interview. Thanks! Obviously, I enjoy the fact we have an intellect defending Christianity and Intelligent Design. I did notice he hesitated a bit in his association with the ID people who, quite often, are Old Earth adherents. I wish he would meet up with them and come up with some kind of consensus. But that's for them to pursue...or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2020 15:08:18 GMT
Randy, it’s as if you read all of Dr. Sarfati’s con list and repeated it verbatim. Sorry but I’ll stick with the YEC gang that I am more comfortable with.
And yes I have read one of Hugh Ross’s books, although I’ve forgotten the name of it. I even critiqued it for a friend who was sitting on the fence. He came over to our side.
Mostly what I got from Ross’s book was this insufferable attitude of his that exudes “God made a mistake and I’m here to correct it.” That’s what I got out of that book. I never bothered reading any more.
on the good side, - at least I hope it’s on the good side - I strongly suspect that this is not a Salvation issue. Believe what you will on origins.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 2, 2020 16:57:13 GMT
Randy, it’s as if you read all of Dr. Sarfati’s con list and repeated it verbatim. Sorry but I’ll stick with the YEC gang that I am more comfortable with. And yes I have read one of Hugh Ross’s books, although I’ve forgotten the name of it. I even critiqued it for a friend who was sitting on the fence. He came over to our side. Mostly what I got from Ross’s book was this insufferable attitude of his that exudes “God made a mistake and I’m here to correct it.” That’s what I got out of that book. I never bothered reading any more. on the good side, - at least I hope it’s on the good side - I strongly suspect that this is not a Salvation issue. Believe what you will on origins. Yes, until I get better info that's what I believe. The linguistics argue against the "literal-day" idea. And being a chemist is impressive, but so is being an astrophysicist. I don't believe Moses, the author of Genesis, intended to date the age of the earth or the universe. His intention seems to have been to indicate, by revelation, that there are 6 distinct categories of creation, each provided with the bookends, "an evening" and "a morning." These do appear to be metaphorical uses, since the description of creation events cannot be explained using conventional applications of these words. I respectfully disagree with Sarfati, and prefer Ross' position largely because he uses actual science, which has dated the earth as approx. 4.5 billion years old, and the universe much, much older--perhaps 14 billion years old. No, what we believe here is not a matter of Salvation--to say so would be extremely judgmental. Salvation is a matter of appropriating Christ internally, and choosing to live exclusively by his life. It would be good if we don't make peripheral matters, requiring extensive education, to be matters of spiritual brotherhood.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 2, 2020 17:40:29 GMT
Nice to read that you both agree that this is not a Salvation issue, although I have heard of those who insist that it can affect one’s belief in The Bible. To me one needs to read Scripture intelligently in order to allow The Holy Spirit to instruct us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2020 23:15:57 GMT
I have heard that too. And, for the little I know of it, it seems to be a "secondary" issue insofar as many people who used to have a strong belief in the Bible now don't believe at all because this so-called "science" has taken over their lives and they can't reconcile the two belief systems together. I have also heard that a lot of people who do fall away, do so when they enter college or soon afterward. Maybe this being away from home plus having some very radical left wing teachers might have something to do with it? And, sometimes, what they are trying to reconcile isn't religion and science but rather religion and junk science (think about religion vs astrology here)
A couple of movies that express this part rather well are God Is Not Dead parts I and II. In the first one, Kevin Sorbo plays a hard core bad-to-the-bone ex-Christian who tries to convince all of his students that God doesn't exist. And, for a believer, he does a pretty good job of it too.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 3, 2020 3:25:51 GMT
I have learned that there is a difference between having faith and been born again. When a person claims that they have faith, at some time their faith will be challenged. A cleaver challenge will bring confusion and doubt if the claim to faith is based only on religious beliefs. On the other hand, when one has come to Christ and is born again, their faith is based upon their personal relationship with The Lord Jesus. They are filled with The Holy Spirit who is the giver of Truth, consequently they can weather all challenges. Like you gator, I also can recommend God Is Not Dead, a great evangelical movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 4:34:47 GMT
God Is not Dead part II came out a couple of years ago and it too is a wonderful movie for Christians. It also shows the uphill battle that Christians have to face in society. I recommend both of them.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 4, 2020 8:26:49 GMT
Anyone have a good solid Christian movie to recommend?
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Jan 5, 2020 0:52:01 GMT
Anyone have a good solid Christian movie to recommend? Courageous is a great one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 4:01:41 GMT
Expelled by Ben Stein.
It’s not exactly a “Christian” movie as such but it does show the depravity of the left when they try to stifle alternate ideas to their agenda ( such as Creation rather than evilution ).
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Jan 5, 2020 4:44:25 GMT
Expelled by Ben Stein. It’s not exactly a “Christian” movie as such but it does show the depravity of the left when they ty to stifle alternate ideas to their agenda ( such as Creation rather than evilution ). That was a good one too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2020 21:41:22 GMT
And this is where Dr. Sarfati would disagree with you. In several of his books, he does mention that the Israelite word "yom" refers specifically to a 24 hour day - sunrise to sunrise if you will. The ancients did have other words to describe various periods of time that were either more or less than a 24 hour period of time.
And this is even a point of contention. IN CONTEXT is such an illusive term. It would seem that the only time that it is referred to by the long agers as being anything other than a 24 hour day is in Chapters 1-11 of the Book of Genesis. In any other part of the Bible, they are quite content to allow that it means a 24 hour day. So, why is there a change of attitude? I really don't know other than to offer the opinion that y'all are still trying to push pseudoscience into the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 6, 2020 16:21:19 GMT
And this is where Dr. Sarfati would disagree with you. In several of his books, he does mention that the Israelite word "yom" refers specifically to a 24 hour day - sunrise to sunrise if you will. The ancients did have other words to describe various periods of time that were either more or less than a 24 hour period of time.
And this is even a point of contention. IN CONTEXT is such an illusive term. It would seem that the only time that it is referred to by the long agers as being anything other than a 24 hour day is in Chapters 1-11 of the Book of Genesis. In any other part of the Bible, they are quite content to allow that it means a 24 hour day. So, why is there a change of attitude? I really don't know other than to offer the opinion that y'all are still trying to push pseudoscience into the Bible.
Yea, it's arguable. That's the way words work, and that's what linguistics deals with. There may be differences from one language to another. Generally, I find that the word "day" does refer to a 24 hour day. However, when it is used in a metaphorical sense, it does not have to refer to a 24-hour day. That's what a metaphorical use allows for, if indeed this is the case. The reason that "day" is viewed as metaphorical in the early chapters of Genesis is because the normal process of time and existence cannot exist in the same way as it does normally. As I said, you cannot have a 24 hour day before the sun even exists! So in what order creation actually progresses is open for debate, and I prefer to use "day" in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, I see Sarfati's argument as being completely irrelevant. If he wants to argue that the typical use of "day" is as a 24 hour day, nobody would argue with that. But it is in fact arguable whether "day" has to be used in a non-metaphorical sense. It is absurd, in my thinking, to believe that words are prohibited from being used in a metaphorical sense, or that "day" cannot be used metaphorically for a category or age. That is, in fact, how we use it normally in English. There are other places, besides Genesis, where "day" appears to be used as an "era," and not strictly as a 24 hour day. If you wish to see an example of a discussion on this subject consider: evidencetobelieve.net/genesis-days-or-ages/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 19:16:08 GMT
Randy, I am not referring to the English word “day” but rather the Israelite word “yom”. Even though the English word “day” does have several different meanings, this is apparently not the case with the word “yom”. It means a 24hour day and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 11, 2020 8:42:34 GMT
Randy, I am not referring to the English word “day” but rather the Israelite word “yom”. Even though the English word “day” does have several different meanings, this is apparently not the case with the word “yom”. It means a 24hour day and nothing else. I assure you I was referring to the Hebrew word "yom," as well. What I'm saying is that the Hebrew word "yom" has, in the Hebrew language, metaphorical uses. And I gave you some examples of that, via the hyperlink. Check it out and get back with me, if you will? You can scan down to where you will find some examples of "yom" used outside of a 24-hour period. Since the word normally refers specifically to a 24-hour period, this indicates it can be used in metaphorical fashion. An example in English would be the phrase "morning and evening." In English this phrase normally refers to a literal 24 hour period. However, used metaphorically it can refer to an extended period of time. For example, I could say "it was morning and evening in the empire," referring to the beginning and the end of an empire, which is obviously more than a 24 hour day. Perhaps I need to explain more, and will add this. It appears you're approaching this like we do in dictionary definitions. We have different uses of the same word, definition #1, #2, and #3. If definition #1 for the word "yom" is a 24-hour day, it does not have a definition #2 and #3. It *always* means a 24-hour day. But this is not the point I'm making. Granted, the dictionary definition for "yom" is a 24-hour day, the literal meaning of the word has no bearing when using that word in *metaphorical fashion.* So, even though the word "yom" always refers to a 24-hour day, it means something quite different when applied as a metaphor. When used as a metaphor a word is not confined, narrowly, to its literal definition. The word "yom," though always referring to a 24-hour day in the context of its *literal use,* does not apply in the same way when having a *metaphorical use.* Metaphorical applications, by definition, are used outside of their normal literal application to suggest something quite different. A "day" then can be used to express an "era." The Hebrew word "yom" can be used, metaphorically, for an "era." It has nothing to do with what "yom" means literally, but everything to do with how it is being applied *metaphorically!* And as the link I gave you shows you, "yom" is indeed used in this way. It can indeed be used in *metaphorical fashion.*
|
|