Do the Quran and Bible Really Teach The Universe Was Created in 6 Days?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The word for “days” used in Arabic in the Qur’an is Ayyam, a plural for Yaum. In general, the word Yaum is translated as “a day”. However, the plural Ayyam is also meant for “periods of time”, and therefore is meant to indicate stages rather than a time period between sunrise and sunset (or sunrise to sunrise) on earth.
One might wonder what was the measure of a day before the earth was created? It could not have been the days as measured by the rotation of the (then-nonexistent) earth upon its axis. However, the Qur’an clearly speaks of measurements of days other than the earthly days as explained below.

To read more:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/02/breaking-news-the-universe-was-not-created-in-6-days/2/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49

Treating the word "ayyam" as having 2 meanings leads to the conclusion that 2 meanings can be intended. Bit to those who insist on a strictly literal meaning, and we can see that insistence among some few here, we will hear the familiar refrain that the account is nonsense.

[trotsky]

1. That's one interpretation.

You don't get to define religion for others. Some people believe that it was a literal 6 days. Deal with it.

[guillaumeb]

2. But you get to define what an author "really meant"?

Your logic is noted.

[trotsky]

3. Nope, I'm just saying that you don't either.

You spit "definer" as an insult at others, yet you allow yourself to define things as you like.

I didn't define anything. I merely pointed out that other people disagree, and you aren't allowed to tell them they're wrong.

[Major Nikon]

16. Not only does Gil get to define it for them, he gets to define what you said

If you call bullshit you are fighting against your own words.

See how that works?

[trotsky]

165. Luckily his shtick has been exposed for everyone to see, long ago.

If he wants to further drag himself and his religion through the mud, making each look worse every time, I'm more than happy to help him.

[Bretton Garcia]

38. Metaphorical or related readings lead to problems of their own.

Literal reading is bad. But many, metaphorical, multiple meanings is worse.

If "day" doesn't mean day, then 1) modern Bibles are wrong.

And 2) if day doesn't mean day, then up might mean down, and good might mean evil. And the Bible and religious stories dissolve into meaningless, indeterminate chaos.

[John Fante]

4. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God's six days don't add up

to that number, the Bible writers (and re-writers) were wrong.

[guillaumeb]

6. And this article makes the point that the 6 days are a metaphor.

What was intended, and what many understand, is that the word "days" also translates as "periods of time".

[bitterross]

29. No, the Bible is literally true - every word.

Days means literal days. God is all-powerful, he can do anything.



That's actually not too far off the response I got when I tried to propose to some litealists there could be room for evolution in the Bible using the logic that God's days may not be the same length as human days.

[guillaumeb]

31. Agreed. Some theists old that view, as do some non-theists here.

And accepting a non-literal view of the Bible can be read as far back as 1100 AD.

But the literalists on both sides prefer their own view for different reasons.

[Mariana]

46. Why don't you explain how to tell the difference

between the parts that should be taken literally, and the ones that shouldn't be?

[guillaumeb]

51. So a verse by verse explanation?

No.

Far easier to point to the few non-theists here who insist on a literal reading of every verse.

[Major Nikon]

56. If it's so easy then do it

As yet you haven't despite being asked multiple times to do so.

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

58. If you feel that is a realistic request, that is your belief.

[Major Nikon]

60. No, that's your belief, Gil

Far easier to point to the few non-theists here who insist on a literal reading of every verse.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=305883

You said it was easy, so do it. Bullshit has been called and yet again you have no answer.

[Mariana]

90. An explanation of the method you use, Gil.

You believe some verses/stories describe real events and some are works of fiction, yes? I'm ashing how you figure out which is which.

[Major Nikon]

171. If it's completely ridiculous and makes no sense, then it's metaphorical

You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

[marylandblue]

173. The nice parts are literal, the nasty parts are not.

Love your neighbor is literal. Dashing babies against rocks is figurative.

[marylandblue]

48. Some medieval theologian decided

what an anonymous author meant 2,000 years earlier?

[guillaumeb]

52. More than one.

But do you prefer to rely on the amateurs here who insist that only a literal interpretation is allowed?

[Major Nikon]

59. Who said that, gil?

You've been repeating this strawman bullshit over and over as if the purity of the bullshit is going to increase the more times you repeat it.

[marylandblue]

78. Every amateur here says they think the story is non-literal

I believe that both professionals and amateurs know what their own beliefs are.

[Major Nikon]

55. Exactly, most non-theists in this group believe the earth was created in 6 days

[guillaumeb]

57. What you claim is nonsensical.

and is not what I wrote. Which was:

Agreed. Some theists hold that view, as do some non-theists here.

And accepting a non-literal view of the Bible can be read as far back as 1100 AD.

But the literalists on both sides prefer their own view for different reasons.[/b]

Nuance counts. I never said that the non-theists believe that view, simply that they hold that view for the sake of arguing against it.

[marylandblue]

85. Well, since we are going for nuance here

The non-theists appear to be arguing that the anonymous author writing 3000-odd years ago MAY have intended it literally but we can't really know for sure because we don't know who he is and we have no other writings from that time and place. Furthermore, while it may have been meant metaphorically, lacking the cultural context, we can't know for sure what it is a metaphor for. However, we can know it is definitely not a metaphor for the Big Bang or evolution because nobody in that time period had a way to know about the Big Bang or evolution.

[guillaumeb]

92. The first argument postulating the big bang was made circa 1100AD.

So there is that. And there is the link that Gothmog provided in this exact post as well.

[marylandblue]

95. In 1100, that was not a scientific proposal

It was, at best, a different metaphor that bears a superficial resemblance to the big bang.

[guillaumeb]

97. And you decided that this was not science?

A person speculating on the origin of the universe?

[marylandblue]

100. See number 98, but also

If it's speculation, it also isn't a metaphor. It can't be everything and nothing, all things to all people, unless it's perfect, which makes it non-human, which isn't what you seem to be seeing, except when you are. Which is why it's hard to take you seriously, especially when you quote from Nachmanides and Aish HaTorah, who are both Biblical literalists, who you don't agree with.

[Major Nikon]

61. They are called fundamentalists, Gil

And those are just the most hard core. At least half the Christians in the US believe in young earth creationism which is a pretty literal interpretation of the literal time scale extrapolated from the bible.

[guillaumeb]

63. And the point of this article is to present another view.

As to your other claim, that "at least half" believe in young earth creationism:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

When I studied math, using stone beads as place markers, 38% was less than 1/2, while 57% was more than 1/2.

Unless you do not read this Gallup survey literally.

[Major Nikon]

70. You must have failed at math, Gil

You also kinda suck at comprehension so I can't imagine you did all that well with your other studies either.

My claim was, and I quote myself since you tend to fuck that up:

At least half the Christians in the US believe in young earth creationism.

Gallup is saying, quoted from your own posted text:

Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism

So we have 38% of all US adults, from which only 75% even identify as Christian. But lets assume all who identify as Christian actually are Christian as that will yield the most conservative estimate of how many Christians subscribe to young earth creationism.

US population in 2015: 321 million
US Christian population in 2015: 240 million (75% of total population)
Number of people in the US who believe in young earth creationism: 120 million (38% of the total population)

I'll let you do the rest of the math here, Gil. Try not to fuck it up again.

[guillaumeb]

73. Your "logic" escapes me.

All of your "explanation" rests on your own unsubstantiated statement. Feel free to post actual studies proving your totally unsubstantiated claim after you have finished with your gifs.


Good luck.

[Major Nikon]

84. You just got cold hard busted lying again, Gil. Deal with it.

1) You duplicitously claimed I said at least half of the US adult population subscribes to YEC when in fact I said half of Christians.

2) You then used your deception to make a half-fast condescension of my abilities with basic math when I proved I was exactly correct.

3) You then once again engaged in condescension by claiming my "logic" is somehow deficient.

4) Now you are trying to gaslight everyone who reads any of this by pretending I didn't substantiate my claim.

So why do you feel the need to lie in order to try to humiliate me, Gil? And now that I think about it, this isn't just with me, it's pretty much all the prominent atheist posters in this group. So why do you hate atheists, Gil? What is it about us that frightens you so?

[trotsky]

166. Damn, that's deplorable. n/t

[Major Nikon]

172. It gets even better

Eventually Gil admitted I was referring to all Christians, but my math was still wrong even though I was going by his own source.

Good ol' Gil. He is the definer of the rules and the decider of who is in compliance and when that still fails, then you are still wrong anyway because of reasons.

[trotsky]

181. You're still wrong because you're an evil uppity atheist who disagrees with him.

That's the worst crime in his eyes.

[Major Nikon]

183. Why can't we just sit back and accept our sermons like normal people?

You know, those that have been indoctrinated into accepting religion and suppressing the urge to apply critical thought.

[Lordquinton]

89. Come on Gil, he set up the whole equation for you

Use your math stones if you need to.

[Major Nikon]

101. Perhaps he doesn't have enough beads to divide that many

Do you think I should have made it easier on him?

[Lordquinton]

109. He would need several million

I mean you could have set up everything but the answer.

Of course the issue isn't the solution, He's found his own, gas powered way to interpret the data, not even straight up proof that he's wrong will dissuade him of his stance.

That's where faith leads you.

[Major Nikon]

110. Foiled again...

[Lordquinton]

111. Curses!

[Voltaire2]

117. Perhaps you should start a new thread

where you can defend your revised claim and pretend that is what you intended. But it would probably be an embarrassing disaster where you would repeat the same blunder.

[guillaumeb]

131. The choir is in harmony.

[trotsky]

170. Insults again.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

Why are you like this?

[guillaumeb]

176. Observation and analysis.

The scientific method.

[trotsky]

182. Indeed.

I have been able to draw a conclusion after observing and analyzing your behavior.

You insult, attack, judge others, and dispense "eye for an eye" justice.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

[trotsky]

168. There is no "other view" when it comes to facts, gil.

You don't get to present "alternative facts."

"Half of all Christians" is different than "half of all Americans."

You are being deceitful and dishonest.

[Gothmog]

5. Jewish scholars have no trouble reconciling the Torah and the Big Bang

There are some amazing works by Jewish scholars reconciling the Torah and the Big Bang. See http://www.aish.com/atr/Creation-and-The-Big-Bang.html and https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reading-modern-science-into-genesis/ and https://jewishaction.com/science-technology/kabbalah-science-creation-universe/

I personally have enjoyed reading these and some other similar articles. I have not problem reconciling the Torah and the big bang/evolution

[guillaumeb]

7. Thank you for the links.

I recently read an article about an 11th century Rabbi who stated that all of creation started as a speck and exploded outward.

I will look for the article.

And I have no problem reconciling the Bible or the Koran with the Big Bang and evolution.

[TwistOneUp]

8. Who cares? nt

[guillaumeb]

9. Why did you click on the post?

And did you read the article?

If so, what are your thoughts?

[Voltaire2]

10. The cosmology was laughable even in ancient

times. You can’t just paint that turd with metaphor paint and claim it ain’t a turd.

[guillaumeb]

11. Another literalist?

There are so many here, and they have one thing in common.

[Voltaire2]

12. Nope. As I said biblical cosmology was

primitive even in ancient times. Attempts to layer modern cosmology over ancient myths and claim that was the original intent are intellectually dishonest. And pathetic.

[guillaumeb]

13. My reply stands.

But I understand the need of some for this position. And the associated need to paint opponents I the way that you did.

[Major Nikon]

15. But no need for the metaphor turd paint, right Gil?

For literally two thousand years nobody was buying what you are selling, yet now you get to decide what they really meant and need has nothing to do with it?

[guillaumeb]

19. #5

This post.

[Major Nikon]

20. You didn't answer the question

I can certainly see your need to refuse.

[gtar100]

39. It seems many athiests demand the Bible be interpreted literally

to make their arguments. I find that interesting.

[guillaumeb]

42. I do as well.

It does allow them to paint theists using one color.

[Mariana]

47. I'd like to know how theists determine which parts they take literally

and which they dismiss as fiction. For example, most Christians would say they believe Jesus existed and was literally crucified and literally resurrected. How does a Christian decide that these stories about Jesus really happened, but these other stories in the Old Testament didn't?

[gtar100]

115. You're not going to get a uniform answer.

If you want orthodox opinion, you'll have to research the various church documents. The more organized a religious body is, the more likely that information will be available. But every individual has to decide for themselves how they view the religious scriptures and documents. How can it be otherwise.

[Voltaire2]

118. Uh no. The point is that mashing modern physics

onto genesis and claiming that was the original intent of the authors is ridiculous horseshit.

[Major Nikon]

14. That turd is gonna need a lot more coats

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

[MarvinGardens]

17. Are there any English translations that use a different word?

There were 4 translations of the Bible I remember from various times growing up, as we attended church at a few different denominations. I remember it being discussed in church and youth group that "day" might mean some other length of time, yet the Bibles always said "days".

Does anyone know if any translations use a different word?

[guillaumeb]

18. I have no idea.

But even in the Bible, there are Hebrew sources of commentary that present a similar view as expressed here.

So the idea that the word "day" also refers to an unspecified period of time has existed, by my reading, at least as far back as the 11th century.

[edhopper]

21. One of the dozens of inaccuracies

in the Genesis myth.
You can have your "not really 6 days". Doesn't improve on how wrong Genesis is in relation to the actually history of the Universe and Earth.

[guillaumeb]

22. The Genesis story is just that.

A story about how life began.

[edhopper]

62. so why try to say

it didn't gett everything wrong and explain things like the "6 Days"


it's an origin myth no more true than any others.







i

[guillaumeb]

64. I have called it a creation story before this.

And all of these stories are, and were, an attempt by primitive people to explain the world around them.

[edhopper]

65. Didn't you also post a thread

to show how Genesis also describes the Big Bang and Genesis doesn't conflict with modern science?

[guillaumeb]

67. Yes I posted about how I see Genesis as not incompatible with the big bang and evolution.

But again, that post and this one start from the position that the story is metaphor.

I also posted about the meaning of the names Adam and Eve in support of a non-literal interpretation.

[edhopper]

88. Almost all origin stories

say the world "started". If you dismiss the content, they all agree with the Big Bang.

But Genesis directely conflicts with the origin of the Universe, the Solar System and life on Earth.

What "6 days" means is the least of it.

[guillaumeb]

134. It was intended to be a religious text.

And science as we know it was not even a discipline.

[edhopper]

137. Except this whole exercise of yours

is to give it some validity. Saying it doesn't conflict with the Big Bang or evolution, when it clearly does.

Or is it as fictional as the origin of Middle Earth or tales of the Hyborian Age?

[guillaumeb]

138. My intention is to show that neither text

can be taken as literally true regarding the origin of the universe.

My further intention is to show that my view is not unique, nor is it modern.

[edhopper]

139. Is it anything more

than Bronze Age tribesmen grasping in the dark?

Did your God have anything to do with what is in Genesis?

[guillaumeb]

140. Genesis is Bronze Age.

The Koran is much newer.

[edhopper]

141. Based on the

Bronze Age story, or did they get new information before writing their origin story?

[guillaumeb]

144. Muslims accept the OT and NT as the revealed word of God.

And the Koran as the final word.

[edhopper]

145. So

Bronze Age stories.

Do myou think God revealed this and helped write these stories?

[guillaumeb]

148. Inspiration.

That is what is commonly held.

If one accepts that we are all a part of the Creation,

and the Creator is an inseparable part of that creation,

and that we are thus part of the Creator,

inspiration becomes more like a shared narrative on one level.

But how we understand and interpret that inspiration is another matter.

[edhopper]

149. Collective unconcious?

Jung would agree.

Neuroscientists would not.

[guillaumeb]

150. Perhaps not a collective unconcious,

perhaps more a tendency to recognize on an unconscious level what we cannot prove. Perhaps a hard wiring of the process of sentience that generally leads to a recognition of what we call god.

[edhopper]

151. But God

if he is a sentient entity, doesn't mind them getting it wrong or so ambiguous to be meaningless.

Got it.

BTW metaphores usually have a precise meaning, not impenetrable vagueness.

[guillaumeb]

153. Part of life is learning.

Part of free will is making choices.

And texts can have multiple meanings.

[edhopper]

158. Without any way of knowing

which meaning is correct.

So we are back to a Universe that is the same with or without a God.

And a Bible with so many meanings it is meaningless.

[guillaumeb]

160. Do we ever know if we made the best choice? eom

[edhopper]

161. we can try

but it seems God, who should know and help us, doesn't.

Because there is no way to know of two opposite meanings for a metaphor, which one God meant.

[guillaumeb]

174. Free will is meaningless if we are controlled by another.

[edhopper]

177. Free will

is an ambiguous and ultimately meaningless concept.

[guillaumeb]

178. But we understand it to mean that, in theory,

we make decisions freely.

[edhopper]

179. The whole God wants us to have Free Will

to explain evil is highly problematic.

I think we have had whole threads about it.

[guillaumeb]

184. What is "evil"?

Is it situational?

[edhopper]

185. Another

whole thread.

[guillaumeb]

186. Contained in a sentence.

[Voltaire2]

187. I don't know but it is evil as fork for a

global institution to protect thousands of sexual predators as its standard practice.

[guillaumeb]

188. Covering up predation is evil.

As is the initial predation.

[Voltaire2]

189. For example by hiding behind "sanctity of the confession "

[guillaumeb]

192. The issue is that Seal of the Confessional.

And it is an issue for the RCC as it decides how to deal with sexual predation.

[MineralMan]

193. It is also unlikely to be changed by the RCC.

So, the child sexual abuse will continue, and the guilty will speak of it in the confessional, where it will be kept a secret. This is what we are objecting to. Do you object to it?

[guillaumeb]

194. Evidence, or the evidence that I have read about,

shows that predators do not stop.

And as far as I am aware, there is no real way to identify predators prior to them committing acts of predation.

And if the seal were to be removed, my view is that the predators would simply not confess.

[marylandblue]

195. Mandatory reporting is not about identifying predators before they act

There is no crime of being attracted to children, there is only a crime of acting on it. So that would not be reported.

As a society, we have already made the decision that person who does confess child abuse to a psychologist, physician etc. must be reported, even if such confession rarely occurs.

We know that some children do tell a trusted adult, such as a teacher or therapist about abuse. This too must be reported. If that child decides to tell a priest during confession, why should this not be reported?

If someone wants to confess anonymously, they can go to a church where nobody knows them and confess there, unseen in the confessional booth. They wouldn't have to say they are a priest. You don't have to report that an unknown person you can't describe confessed to child abuse. If there is no actionable information, there is no reporting requirement.

So I don't see that any of these objections hold water.

[guillaumeb]

197. The confessing anonymously explains one fatal weakness of the idea.

One can and normally does confess anonymously.

So the proposed solution is not actually a solution.

[marylandblue]

199. Nobody said it was a "solution," since a that implies "problem solved"

It's just a part of the protections for children we already have, that has in fact resulted in criminals being caught. If the church or an individual wants to guarantee anonymity, they can. But not all confessions are anonymous, so if the priest does know who it is, they have to report.

[guillaumeb]

200. And if predatory priests know this, and they will,

my point remains. This is more public relations than anything else.

[marylandblue]

201. Criminals confess to stuff all the time, even in public settings.

Trump has apparently confessed to obstruction of justice by tweet. They've also confessed in many other settings, even when there was no other evidence to convict them. It's not nearly as black and white as you are making it. Not even close.

And it's not just about the priest, as you keep ignoring. Children may tell a priest in the confessional. Children have strange ideas. They may believe that's the best place to report the abuser, whether priest or not.

[guillaumeb]

202. Some criminals do.

But as the MeToo movement and the group SNAP shows, most predators do not, even when caught.

[marylandblue]

203. "SOME criminals do"... "MOST predators do not"

Thank you, you made the point.

Also, I noticed you keep ignoring the point about children confessing.

[guillaumeb]

204. Well this subthread is quite far from the actual topic.

which concerns the creation story.

[trotsky]

191. It is indeed.

Learning that predation has happened compels one to inform the authorities in all cases, I think.

But you're "unsure" if that's the case. You want exceptions for religious beliefs.

That's the difference between you and me.

[marylandblue]

169. "Inspiration" could be and has been used to justify any and all narratives

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2019, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

True or false, good or evil. It's all "inspired." I'm inspired to.say this makes no sense. It's a truth I got directly from the Great Nothing, a metaphorical name for God.

[qazplm135]

130. here's the problem...

it's not hard to describe the Big Bang in such a way that makes it clear and obvious you are talking about the Big Bang and yet would speak well enough to the people of the time.

The universe was nothing...and then BOOM, a big explosion happened and God brought all the stars in the sky and planets into existence. He placed stars all throughout the heavens, and around each star, he placed planets, and around a very special star, he placed Earth. Then over millions of years he worked to create life leading up to the creation of man, the pinnacle of his creation.
(Oh by the way what you are on is a big ball of stuff you call the Earth that circles a bigger ball of stuff you call the sun).

See, that's not hard. It's accurate enough. It's understandable to a child, and certainly would have been understandable 3000 years ago.

What we have instead is not accurate, and really, if it's divinely inspired it should at least get some of that right.

I'm agnostic because my definition of God is probably broader and encompasses more nuance than others might agree with, but most certainly none of the religions of Earth have any divine truth because if they did, they would get the basics of science right.

[guillaumeb]

133. To your last point:

I would agree if, a large if, the point of the religious text was to serve as a scientific explanation.

But, as my examples of the names Adam and Eve show, there is a metaphorical meaning beneath the literal, word for word meaning.

[qazplm135]

135. either the text is divinely inspired or it's simply man inspired

if it's the latter, then I would expect and forgive scientific inaccuracy...you can't know what you don't know, what in fact, no one knows.

If it's the former, then I would expect a certain degree of scientific accuracy accounting perhaps for the need to simplify.

You assert that somehow there is a dichotomy between that and metaphor.

There isn't. You can have both.

[guillaumeb]

136. Let us assume that it is divinely inspired.

What would you say to a Bronze Age person about the big bang?

What would you say about evolution?

What would you say about the age of the universe?


Were there even words for the concepts and terms that we take for granted? No.

[qazplm135]

142. I literally told you

I'm not going to repeat myself.

How is the actual truth of the big bang or evolution or age of the universe any more fanciful than God made Adam from dust and Eve from the rib of Adam???

We teach kids about all three of those things. You can explain it at it's basic to a five year old. Each of them.

Yes, there were words and concepts. They understood "a long time" and "Explosion" and "Expanding" and "related to" and something being "at the center" and "rotation"

[guillaumeb]

146. The Bible is not a science book.

At least not as we define the term. I believe that it was seen as a means of approaching and knowing God.

[qazplm135]

152. God probably knows accurate science

just saying...so to know God, would, by definition, be to know accurate science.

At the very least, there shouldn't be outright errors.

[guillaumeb]

154. But to recognize the existence of God is not to BE God.

So again, as theists, we attempt to know God.

[qazplm135]

155. then we are agreed

the Bible is just a book written by a bunch of men.

[guillaumeb]

156. The Bible is a collection of stories.

And it was written down by a variety of people.

[qazplm135]

157. the book written done by a woman was what again?

Book written by men. Books have stories. You literally wasted electrons typing that then forced me to waste more electrons.

[guillaumeb]

159. I re-used electrons from other replies.

I do that to save electrons. Often I cut and paste, which does wear out the metaphoric scissors, and uses up the metaphoric paste.


As to goddess religions, I have read very little.

[Lordquinton]

162. What, didn't you just say the exact opposite?

"148. Inspiration.

That is what is commonly held.

If one accepts that we are all a part of the Creation,

and the Creator is an inseparable part of that creation,

and that we are thus part of the Creator,

inspiration becomes more like a shared narrative on one level.

But how we understand and interpret that inspiration is another matter."

Which is it?

[guillaumeb]

175. To be a part of means simply that.

But to recognize the existence of God is not to BE God.

So again, as theists, we attempt to know God.

and that we are thus part of the Creator,

[Lordquinton]

196. So you are intentionally contradicting yourself?

Your platform falls apart all on it's own.

[guillaumeb]

198. No, you are misframing. eom

[Lordquinton]

205. You can't be serious

This has got to be international Poe day or something.

[guillaumeb]

206. I have that thought constantly in this Group. eom

[Lordquinton]

207. Probably when you're reviewing your posts

If I've learned anything in this group about theists it's that they cannot answer a straight forward question honestly. You reinforce that every exchange.

[MineralMan]

23. Genesis 1:3-5

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Priest: "The Word of the Lord."
Congregation: "Thanks be to God."


The word "Day" is used in all English translations I could find. The evening and the morning marked the first day. The word is translated consistently in other verses as well.

So, Guy, what was the word used in the Old Testament that was translated to "day?" What word did the itinerant goatherders use when they told this mythological story of Creation? Do tell...

[guillaumeb]

24. If you had read the article,

you would have your answer.

So my suggestion is to read the article, and then read about the uses of metaphor in the Bible.

To help, I posted about just that subject last year.

[MineralMan]

25. Actually, I did read the article, which was one person's

opinion about something. I have my own opinions, Guy. some guy on a blog's opinions will not necessarily replace the ones I hold.

Of course, if semi-random bloggery serves your needs, who am I to tell you to look elsewhere? Read on...

[guillaumeb]

27. And I recognize that you are a Biblical literalist,

and one who refuses to admit the existence of metaphor in the Bible.

And you have your agenda, and your reasons for insisting on only a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So that makes your countless assertions in this group perfect illustrations of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Thank you for the illustrations.

[MineralMan]

30. Uh, no. I'm a Bible story-tellerist.

Campfire stories for nomadic goatherds in the desert. Nothing more; nothing less.

[guillaumeb]

32. No, your own words reveal you as a literalist.

Thus my invocation of the no true Scotsman fallacy regarding your position.

[MineralMan]

34. Also Sprach Willy...

[guillaumeb]

40. Ich spreche einige deutsch

Sprechen-zie auch deutsch?

But, except for few occasions with German friends, I have not spoken it for many years.

[MineralMan]

44. I speak very little German. I can be polite, ask directions, inquire as to

the price of things, and read street signs and instructional signs. I can understand answers to my questions, as long as the speaker recognizes that my knowledge of the language is small. I can do that in a number of languages. Wherever I have traveled, I have learned the language at least to that degree. I am better in French, Spanish, and Russian, and can participate in general conversation in those. German, Italian, Turkish, and Danish, I am able to get along, but am far from being fully conversational. I can read a newspaper, however, in many languages, if I proceed slowly and think about what I am reading.

However, this thread is not about language skills, is it, Willie?

[guillaumeb]

45. Speaking of politeness,

Willie is the diminutive I believe. My actual frist name is Guillaume, but I also answer to Guill and non-francophones call me Bill.

I prefer Guill.

[sprinkleeninow]

91. Bill? Oy! Could never call you or refer to you as Bill.

Guillaume is so...is so....
romantic. In a sense and sensibility way.

😍

[guillaumeb]

96. MM has his own way of showing things.

And does it so often.

[marylandblue]

107. Is Gill okay? I'm not sure what the 'u' does.

[guillaumeb]

113. It is.

The "u" fills the space between the "G" and the "i". Literally. I cannot think of an English word that approximates the gui sound, or the French g in my name.

The name Guy in English rhymes with buy, but the same name in French sounds like the Gui of Guillaume.

And that is the best that I can do.

So yes, Gill is fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Well, no; the article says nothing about that rather important 'evening and morning' construction

which does tie the 'day' to 'a 24 hour period'. It's use for all 6 days in Genesis 1. In fact, the article says nothing about Hebrew words at all - just the Arabic in the Quran. Never mind, here's a literalist who does, and makes a more convincing argument for the use in the bible:

The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does yom mean in Genesis 1:5–2:2 when used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.

All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.
...
For instance, according to Exodus 20 –11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. Our view, based on our interpretation of the Bible, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

[guillaumeb]

54. This:

All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.

As early as Augustine, there are 2 theories.

And yes, your "definition/explanation" from a literalist source does insist on a literal interpretation. All while acknowledging that other interpretations are possible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. How did Augustine explain away the repeated 'evening and morning'?

It's not vague.

[guillaumeb]

77. From your source:

At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.

Metaphor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Ha-ha!

Well, that's ... convenient.

Yes, obviously the whole bible can be a metaphor. I think it's a metaphor for a power structure that desires to control people and impose often twisted morals on a populace the writers and priests despise as sheep. Hence the frequent metaphor of 'sheep' in the New Testament, in which the character of Jesus is used as the shepherd who keeps a flock of ignorant animals, while slaughtering the members as needed.

If we can dismiss anything we like in the bible as 'metaphor' when it's awkward to examine it, then we should admit the whole thing is a pile of fetid dogturds that we should no more look to for moral guidance than the accounts of a brothel.

[appleannie1943]

26. I have always thought no one knows for sure just how long a biblical day is.

For all we know it is thousands of modern day years.

[guillaumeb]

28. Literalists insist on a literal reading.

Some are theists, some are not.

I was taught the same thing as what you wrote, even at the primary level.

[MineralMan]

33. Why would that be so? In our Solar system,

the length of the day for Planet Earth has been pretty stable since many millions of years before humans evolved into existence. What would have made the day longer, do you think?

[guillaumeb]

36. And, as the article points out,

how long was the day in this, or any solar system prior to that system forming?

How long did it take for the earth to rotate around the sun when neither body existed?

[MineralMan]

41. Campfire stories, Guy.

Myths. Legends. All of it. Depending on where you are born, you hear the local ones.

Foolishness from Iron Age storytellers. Suitable for the Iron Age. Comical today.

[guillaumeb]

43. Comical is reading a demand for a strictly literal interpretation from

one who wishes to attack the literalists.

[marylandblue]

49. Why did God need the Sun to tell time?

[guillaumeb]

53. Diversion from the topic. eom

[marylandblue]

66. No, it's a direct response to

"how long was the day in this, or any solar system prior to that system forming?"

It's an absurd defense of the argument that the story is meant metaphorical or not. We know it didn't happen. So if the entire story is metaphorical, what's the difference if they are metaphorical days or literal days?

[guillaumeb]

68. Literalists see the "day" as a literal 24+ hour period.

58% of Christians do not read it literally.

[marylandblue]

69. 100% of atheists do not believe it ever happened.

100% of atheists also believe it is just a story and has no connection to any divine beings. Therefore 100% of atheists do not care how 58% of Christians read it.

[guillaumeb]

71. One premise does not follow the other.

Given that approximately 8% of atheists are unsure about the existence of a deity, that 100% is doubtful.

[marylandblue]

72. Well that was a weirdly worded poll

And 10% of all people have an untreated mental illness, so I don't put much faith in things that poll under 10%.

[guillaumeb]

74. Argue with the 8%. eom

[marylandblue]

80. No point. I'm fine with the opinions of the 92%.

[Lordquinton]

164. This percentage was proven false

Even your own thread about it you messed it up. So like, stop saying it maybe?

[Lordquinton]

163. G-man was just being lazy

It wasn't saying the question about good was a diversion...

[VMA131Marine]

127. That's not really true.

The Earth's rotation is slowing down; it is giving up some of its rotational energy to the Moon, which is receding from the Earth.
600 million years ago, an Earth day was only 21 hours.

[MineralMan]

167. Yes. And the evening and the morning were still one day.

I mentioned the variability of the length of the day over time.

[PJMcK]

35. The big problem, then, is this

How does one know which parts of the Bible are metaphors and which parts are literal?

It cannot be both because the book becomes too vague to have meaning.

[guillaumeb]

37. If you are asking for my view,

a view that was taught at University level, and a view that my own readings suggest, I would say that Genesis is metaphor. The very names Adam and Eve suggest that.

And this metaphoric reading has been spoken of as far back as 1100AD.

Each book of the Bible can be looked at this way.

Psalms obviously is poetry.

[marylandblue]

86. You've suggested in the past that it's a metaphor for the Big Bang

So even assuming it is a metaphor, how can it be a metaphor for something they didn't know about?

[guillaumeb]

93. See #5

[marylandblue]

98. If we start reading Genesis that way, it cease to be an actual metaphor

and because a simplified scientific explanation which could only have a divine origin. Okay fine, but if we read further, the story does not line up with any science. Land plants appear before the sun, land animals appear before fish, and so on.

[guillaumeb]

99. If one believes that the creation story is metaphor,

postulating that there is a different explanation leads to science. And these Rabbis, these teachers, were theorizing far in advance of any capability to prove the theories.

[marylandblue]

102. Without the scientific method, there is no science

So they could be speculating, but they couldn't be theorizing in the scientific sense. Furthermore, as I mentioned elsewhere, Nahmanides was a literalist, as were all medieval Jews and Christians. So he didn't claim to be theorizing, he claimed to be giving a very close but literally true meaning.

[guillaumeb]

103. Rabbi Nahmanides

Here is Nahmanides’ description of initial moments of the creation:
…At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard… From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred.

http://www.quantumtorah.com/big-bang/

So for a literalist, Rabbi Nahmanides had an interesting way of showing it.

[marylandblue]

104. Yes, because you don't understand how medieval Jewish literalism worked

It's not something the Jesuits at the University were really up on. But suffice it to say that he believed every single letter of the Pentateuch was literally dictated by God to Moses and all Nachmanides thought he was doing was drawing non-metaphorical hidden but 100% true meanings from the text.

You can find a related reference to the literal letter by letter dictation belief in the New Testament, when Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Because the Rabbis of his day would derive legalistic interpretations based on single letters in the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

105. This is speculation into the nature of existence.

And this can also be called theoretical science.

And these hidden meanings to which you refer is speculation into the intent of the Creator. The idea that some messages are hidden, and require work to decipher. Thus the use of the names Adam and Eve in Genesis. The truth is hidden beneath the literal story.

And yes, Jesuit thought recognizes Jewish philosophy.

To your ending, lawyers do much the same thing, as do philosophers today.

[marylandblue]

108. Not in as much specificity as traditional Judaism

Which is why they still hand copy Torah scrolls the same way it was done 2,000 years ago and if they later find a single mistake, they have to fix it before they can use it again, or throw the whole thing out. I don't know of any lawyers or Christians who would throw their expensive books because of an obvious typo.

Anyway, my point is not what the Jesuits thought Medieval Jewish philosophers were doing it's what medieval Jewish exegetes thought they were doing. Nachmanides did not think he was a philosopher.

[guillaumeb]

114. Understood.

How Nachmanides would have described himself is an interesting question. Perhaps he was content with teacher.

[Turbineguy]

82. Well, there's this.

The writers knew nothing about physics, but knew a lot about human character and behavior.

That's the bit the evangelicals get backwards. They think the Bible teaches magic tricks.

[Turbineguy]

76. Because gravity and thermodynamics

hadn't been invented yet.

[guillaumeb]

79. Newton invented gravity.

Prior to Newton, things fell away from the earth.

[Turbineguy]

81. Got it one!

[Ferrets are Cool]

87. And why 6 days? If GOD is omnipotent

why not do it in one second...and why did he need to rest on the 7th? Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

[guillaumeb]

94. Metaphor.

The article.

[Ferrets are Cool]

106. Fantasy.

My thoughts.

[guillaumeb]

112. Understood.

But what is fantasy and what is reality?

[Bretton Garcia]

116. So why are you so completely, dogmatically defensive

About vague, variable, metaphorical, really indeterminable things?

Sounds like a contradiction

[Voltaire2]

119. Well obviously 6 days refers to

The first 6 identified epochs of the universe, encompassing the first second from the singularity.

I mean that’s obvious, right?

Of course there was another 8 or 9 billion years before earth shows up, but who’s counting?

[Act_of_Reparation]

120. They obviously do.

Because if they didn't, we'd have had a fuck of a lot more priests, imams, and rabbis making that argument before the rise of modern cosmology. But alas, this "six days as a metaphor" dipshittery didn't come about until they were forced to reckon scripture with the obvious. It is post hoc rationalization, an invention as modern as it is dishonest.

You want to lie to yourself, that's your business.

[Major Nikon]

121. Definer!

[Voltaire2]

122. Understood.

[Bretton Garcia]

123. So the Bible is mistranslated. And misleading.

[MineralMan]

124. Numerous times.

The translations, anyhow. Countless times for the misleading.

[YOHABLO]

126. Does it really matter? Really?

[marylandblue]

129. Seems to matter in this group, it comes up a lot

[rampartc]

128. 2peter:38

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

do we really have to argue if peter meant that as an equation? 1 day = 1000 years?

[guillaumeb]

132. Agreed.

But some here, mainly non-theists it seems, insist on a literal interpretation.

[rampartc]

143. whoever wrote genesis

i figure that they were pretty wise guys who really did not know the answer to the questions of curious children.

a book does not have to be literally true to contain quite a bit of wisdom. more people know of henry 5 from shakespeare than from history. we know that he won at agincourt, and gave a pretty rousing apeech to his army, but i wouldn't want to bet that he talked about "st crispin's day."

[guillaumeb]

147. True.

And a belated welcome to DU, and the conversation.

My view is that the Bible should be taken as one way to know God.

[Act_of_Reparation]

180. Doubtful.

Genesis is a syncretism of Babylonian creation myth and Jewish oral traditions predating the Captivity. By the time anyone got around to actually writing Genesis, I imagine the story was taken quite literally.

We don't know the intentions of the people who created these stories. All we can say for certain is for 2,500 years they were largely considered to be literally true, and that this didn't fall out of vogue until the science of modern cosmology could no longer be denied. Ain't that convenient.

[Voltaire2]

190. So exactly what have you learned from

Genesis?

By the way Shakespeare is not a good source on British History.