Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 04:49 PM Jan 2019

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

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.
207 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do the Quran and Bible Really Teach The Universe Was Created in 6 Days? (Original Post) guillaumeb Jan 2019 OP
That's one interpretation. trotsky Jan 2019 #1
But you get to define what an author "really meant"? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #2
Nope, I'm just saying that you don't either. trotsky Jan 2019 #3
Not only does Gil get to define it for them, he gets to define what you said Major Nikon Jan 2019 #16
Luckily his shtick has been exposed for everyone to see, long ago. trotsky Jan 2019 #165
Metaphorical or related readings lead to problems of their own. Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #38
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God's six days don't add up John Fante Jan 2019 #4
And this article makes the point that the 6 days are a metaphor. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #6
No, the Bible is literally true - every word. bitterross Jan 2019 #29
Agreed. Some theists old that view, as do some non-theists here. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #31
Why don't you explain how to tell the difference Mariana Jan 2019 #46
So a verse by verse explanation? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #51
If it's so easy then do it Major Nikon Jan 2019 #56
If you feel that is a realistic request, that is your belief. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #58
No, that's your belief, Gil Major Nikon Jan 2019 #60
An explanation of the method you use, Gil. Mariana Jan 2019 #90
If it's completely ridiculous and makes no sense, then it's metaphorical Major Nikon Jan 2019 #171
The nice parts are literal, the nasty parts are not. marylandblue Jan 2019 #173
Some medieval theologian decided marylandblue Jan 2019 #48
More than one. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #52
Who said that, gil? Major Nikon Jan 2019 #59
Every amateur here says they think the story is non-literal marylandblue Jan 2019 #78
Exactly, most non-theists in this group believe the earth was created in 6 days Major Nikon Jan 2019 #55
What you claim is nonsensical. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #57
Well, since we are going for nuance here marylandblue Jan 2019 #85
The first argument postulating the big bang was made circa 1100AD. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #92
In 1100, that was not a scientific proposal marylandblue Jan 2019 #95
And you decided that this was not science? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #97
See number 98, but also marylandblue Jan 2019 #100
They are called fundamentalists, Gil Major Nikon Jan 2019 #61
And the point of this article is to present another view. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #63
You must have failed at math, Gil Major Nikon Jan 2019 #70
Your "logic" escapes me. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #73
You just got cold hard busted lying again, Gil. Deal with it. Major Nikon Jan 2019 #84
Damn, that's deplorable. n/t trotsky Jan 2019 #166
It gets even better Major Nikon Jan 2019 #172
You're still wrong because you're an evil uppity atheist who disagrees with him. trotsky Jan 2019 #181
Why can't we just sit back and accept our sermons like normal people? Major Nikon Jan 2019 #183
Come on Gil, he set up the whole equation for you Lordquinton Jan 2019 #89
Perhaps he doesn't have enough beads to divide that many Major Nikon Jan 2019 #101
He would need several million Lordquinton Jan 2019 #109
Foiled again... Major Nikon Jan 2019 #110
Curses! Lordquinton Jan 2019 #111
Perhaps you should start a new thread Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #117
The choir is in harmony. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #131
Insults again. trotsky Jan 2019 #170
Observation and analysis. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #176
Indeed. trotsky Jan 2019 #182
There is no "other view" when it comes to facts, gil. trotsky Jan 2019 #168
Jewish scholars have no trouble reconciling the Torah and the Big Bang Gothmog Jan 2019 #5
Thank you for the links. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #7
Who cares? nt TwistOneUp Jan 2019 #8
Why did you click on the post? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #9
The cosmology was laughable even in ancient Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #10
Another literalist? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #11
Nope. As I said biblical cosmology was Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #12
My reply stands. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #13
But no need for the metaphor turd paint, right Gil? Major Nikon Jan 2019 #15
#5 guillaumeb Jan 2019 #19
You didn't answer the question Major Nikon Jan 2019 #20
It seems many athiests demand the Bible be interpreted literally gtar100 Jan 2019 #39
I do as well. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #42
I'd like to know how theists determine which parts they take literally Mariana Jan 2019 #47
You're not going to get a uniform answer. gtar100 Jan 2019 #115
Uh no. The point is that mashing modern physics Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #118
That turd is gonna need a lot more coats Major Nikon Jan 2019 #14
Are there any English translations that use a different word? MarvinGardens Jan 2019 #17
I have no idea. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #18
One of the dozens of inaccuracies edhopper Jan 2019 #21
The Genesis story is just that. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #22
so why try to say edhopper Jan 2019 #62
I have called it a creation story before this. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #64
Didn't you also post a thread edhopper Jan 2019 #65
Yes I posted about how I see Genesis as not incompatible with the big bang and evolution. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #67
Almost all origin stories edhopper Jan 2019 #88
It was intended to be a religious text. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #134
Except this whole exercise of yours edhopper Jan 2019 #137
My intention is to show that neither text guillaumeb Jan 2019 #138
Is it anything more edhopper Jan 2019 #139
Genesis is Bronze Age. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #140
Based on the edhopper Jan 2019 #141
Muslims accept the OT and NT as the revealed word of God. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #144
So edhopper Jan 2019 #145
Inspiration. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #148
Collective unconcious? edhopper Jan 2019 #149
Perhaps not a collective unconcious, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #150
But God edhopper Jan 2019 #151
Part of life is learning. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #153
Without any way of knowing edhopper Jan 2019 #158
Do we ever know if we made the best choice? eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #160
we can try edhopper Jan 2019 #161
Free will is meaningless if we are controlled by another. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #174
Free will edhopper Jan 2019 #177
But we understand it to mean that, in theory, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #178
The whole God wants us to have Free Will edhopper Jan 2019 #179
What is "evil"? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #184
Another edhopper Jan 2019 #185
Contained in a sentence. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #186
I don't know but it is evil as fork for a Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #187
Covering up predation is evil. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #188
For example by hiding behind "sanctity of the confession " Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #189
The issue is that Seal of the Confessional. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #192
It is also unlikely to be changed by the RCC. MineralMan Jan 2019 #193
Evidence, or the evidence that I have read about, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #194
Mandatory reporting is not about identifying predators before they act marylandblue Jan 2019 #195
The confessing anonymously explains one fatal weakness of the idea. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #197
Nobody said it was a "solution," since a that implies "problem solved" marylandblue Jan 2019 #199
And if predatory priests know this, and they will, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #200
Criminals confess to stuff all the time, even in public settings. marylandblue Jan 2019 #201
Some criminals do. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #202
"SOME criminals do"... "MOST predators do not" marylandblue Jan 2019 #203
Well this subthread is quite far from the actual topic. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #204
It is indeed. trotsky Jan 2019 #191
"Inspiration" could be and has been used to justify any and all narratives marylandblue Jan 2019 #169
here's the problem... qazplm135 Jan 2019 #130
To your last point: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #133
either the text is divinely inspired or it's simply man inspired qazplm135 Jan 2019 #135
Let us assume that it is divinely inspired. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #136
I literally told you qazplm135 Jan 2019 #142
The Bible is not a science book. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #146
God probably knows accurate science qazplm135 Jan 2019 #152
But to recognize the existence of God is not to BE God. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #154
then we are agreed qazplm135 Jan 2019 #155
The Bible is a collection of stories. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #156
the book written done by a woman was what again? qazplm135 Jan 2019 #157
I re-used electrons from other replies. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #159
What, didn't you just say the exact opposite? Lordquinton Jan 2019 #162
To be a part of means simply that. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #175
So you are intentionally contradicting yourself? Lordquinton Jan 2019 #196
No, you are misframing. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #198
You can't be serious Lordquinton Jan 2019 #205
I have that thought constantly in this Group. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #206
Probably when you're reviewing your posts Lordquinton Jan 2019 #207
Genesis 1:3-5 MineralMan Jan 2019 #23
If you had read the article, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #24
Actually, I did read the article, which was one person's MineralMan Jan 2019 #25
And I recognize that you are a Biblical literalist, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #27
Uh, no. I'm a Bible story-tellerist. MineralMan Jan 2019 #30
No, your own words reveal you as a literalist. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #32
Also Sprach Willy... MineralMan Jan 2019 #34
Ich spreche einige deutsch guillaumeb Jan 2019 #40
I speak very little German. I can be polite, ask directions, inquire as to MineralMan Jan 2019 #44
Speaking of politeness, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #45
Bill? Oy! Could never call you or refer to you as Bill. sprinkleeninow Jan 2019 #91
MM has his own way of showing things. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #96
Is Gill okay? I'm not sure what the 'u' does. marylandblue Jan 2019 #107
It is. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #113
Well, no; the article says nothing about that rather important 'evening and morning' construction muriel_volestrangler Jan 2019 #50
This: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #54
How did Augustine explain away the repeated 'evening and morning'? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2019 #75
From your source: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #77
Ha-ha! muriel_volestrangler Jan 2019 #83
I have always thought no one knows for sure just how long a biblical day is. appleannie1943 Jan 2019 #26
Literalists insist on a literal reading. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #28
Why would that be so? In our Solar system, MineralMan Jan 2019 #33
And, as the article points out, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #36
Campfire stories, Guy. MineralMan Jan 2019 #41
Comical is reading a demand for a strictly literal interpretation from guillaumeb Jan 2019 #43
Why did God need the Sun to tell time? marylandblue Jan 2019 #49
Diversion from the topic. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #53
No, it's a direct response to marylandblue Jan 2019 #66
Literalists see the "day" as a literal 24+ hour period. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #68
100% of atheists do not believe it ever happened. marylandblue Jan 2019 #69
One premise does not follow the other. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #71
Well that was a weirdly worded poll marylandblue Jan 2019 #72
Argue with the 8%. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #74
No point. I'm fine with the opinions of the 92%. marylandblue Jan 2019 #80
This percentage was proven false Lordquinton Jan 2019 #164
G-man was just being lazy Lordquinton Jan 2019 #163
That's not really true. VMA131Marine Jan 2019 #127
Yes. And the evening and the morning were still one day. MineralMan Jan 2019 #167
The big problem, then, is this PJMcK Jan 2019 #35
If you are asking for my view, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #37
You've suggested in the past that it's a metaphor for the Big Bang marylandblue Jan 2019 #86
See #5 guillaumeb Jan 2019 #93
If we start reading Genesis that way, it cease to be an actual metaphor marylandblue Jan 2019 #98
If one believes that the creation story is metaphor, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #99
Without the scientific method, there is no science marylandblue Jan 2019 #102
Rabbi Nahmanides guillaumeb Jan 2019 #103
Yes, because you don't understand how medieval Jewish literalism worked marylandblue Jan 2019 #104
This is speculation into the nature of existence. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #105
Not in as much specificity as traditional Judaism marylandblue Jan 2019 #108
Understood. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #114
Well, there's this. Turbineguy Jan 2019 #82
Because gravity and thermodynamics Turbineguy Jan 2019 #76
Newton invented gravity. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #79
Got it one! Turbineguy Jan 2019 #81
And why 6 days? If GOD is omnipotent Ferrets are Cool Jan 2019 #87
Metaphor. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #94
Fantasy. Ferrets are Cool Jan 2019 #106
Understood. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #112
So why are you so completely, dogmatically defensive Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #116
This message was self-deleted by its author Act_of_Reparation Jan 2019 #125
Well obviously 6 days refers to Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #119
They obviously do. Act_of_Reparation Jan 2019 #120
Definer! Major Nikon Jan 2019 #121
Understood. Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #122
So the Bible is mistranslated. And misleading. Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #123
Numerous times. MineralMan Jan 2019 #124
Does it really matter? Really? YOHABLO Jan 2019 #126
Seems to matter in this group, it comes up a lot marylandblue Jan 2019 #129
2peter:38 rampartc Jan 2019 #128
Agreed. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #132
whoever wrote genesis rampartc Jan 2019 #143
True. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #147
Doubtful. Act_of_Reparation Jan 2019 #180
So exactly what have you learned from Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #190

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
1. That's one interpretation.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 04:56 PM
Jan 2019

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

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
3. Nope, I'm just saying that you don't either.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 05:01 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
16. Not only does Gil get to define it for them, he gets to define what you said
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 06:52 PM
Jan 2019

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

See how that works?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
165. Luckily his shtick has been exposed for everyone to see, long ago.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:42 AM
Jan 2019

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

(970 posts)
38. Metaphorical or related readings lead to problems of their own.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:47 PM
Jan 2019

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

(3,479 posts)
4. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. If God's six days don't add up
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 05:15 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
6. And this article makes the point that the 6 days are a metaphor.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 05:21 PM
Jan 2019

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

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
29. No, the Bible is literally true - every word.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:25 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
31. Agreed. Some theists old that view, as do some non-theists here.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:30 PM
Jan 2019

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

(15,096 posts)
46. Why don't you explain how to tell the difference
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 03:30 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
51. So a verse by verse explanation?
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:22 PM
Jan 2019

No.

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

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
56. If it's so easy then do it
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:38 PM
Jan 2019

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

Very telling that.

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
60. No, that's your belief, Gil
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:43 PM
Jan 2019
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

(15,096 posts)
90. An explanation of the method you use, Gil.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:02 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
171. If it's completely ridiculous and makes no sense, then it's metaphorical
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 11:56 AM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
173. The nice parts are literal, the nasty parts are not.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 12:09 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
52. More than one.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:23 PM
Jan 2019

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

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
59. Who said that, gil?
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:40 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
78. Every amateur here says they think the story is non-literal
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:28 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
57. What you claim is nonsensical.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:39 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
85. Well, since we are going for nuance here
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:39 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
92. The first argument postulating the big bang was made circa 1100AD.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:20 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
95. In 1100, that was not a scientific proposal
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:23 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
100. See number 98, but also
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:42 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
61. They are called fundamentalists, Gil
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:45 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
63. And the point of this article is to present another view.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:54 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
70. You must have failed at math, Gil
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:15 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
73. Your "logic" escapes me.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:23 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
84. You just got cold hard busted lying again, Gil. Deal with it.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:38 PM
Jan 2019

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?

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
172. It gets even better
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 12:02 PM
Jan 2019

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

(49,533 posts)
181. You're still wrong because you're an evil uppity atheist who disagrees with him.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 02:04 PM
Jan 2019

That's the worst crime in his eyes.

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
183. Why can't we just sit back and accept our sermons like normal people?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 02:09 PM
Jan 2019

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

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
101. Perhaps he doesn't have enough beads to divide that many
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:54 PM
Jan 2019

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

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
109. He would need several million
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 10:01 PM
Jan 2019

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.

Voltaire2

(14,703 posts)
117. Perhaps you should start a new thread
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:43 AM
Jan 2019

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.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
182. Indeed.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 02:07 PM
Jan 2019

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

(49,533 posts)
168. There is no "other view" when it comes to facts, gil.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:34 AM
Jan 2019

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

(154,442 posts)
5. Jewish scholars have no trouble reconciling the Torah and the Big Bang
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 05:17 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
7. Thank you for the links.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 05:24 PM
Jan 2019

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.

Voltaire2

(14,703 posts)
10. The cosmology was laughable even in ancient
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 06:06 PM
Jan 2019

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

Voltaire2

(14,703 posts)
12. Nope. As I said biblical cosmology was
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 06:17 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
13. My reply stands.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 06:25 PM
Jan 2019

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

(36,900 posts)
15. But no need for the metaphor turd paint, right Gil?
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 06:33 PM
Jan 2019

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?

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
39. It seems many athiests demand the Bible be interpreted literally
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:50 PM
Jan 2019

to make their arguments. I find that interesting.

Mariana

(15,096 posts)
47. I'd like to know how theists determine which parts they take literally
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 03:33 PM
Jan 2019

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

(4,192 posts)
115. You're not going to get a uniform answer.
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 02:17 AM
Jan 2019

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

(14,703 posts)
118. Uh no. The point is that mashing modern physics
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 07:45 AM
Jan 2019

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

MarvinGardens

(781 posts)
17. Are there any English translations that use a different word?
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 08:09 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
18. I have no idea.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 08:13 PM
Jan 2019

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

(34,790 posts)
21. One of the dozens of inaccuracies
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 11:36 AM
Jan 2019

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.

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
62. so why try to say
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:51 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
64. I have called it a creation story before this.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:55 PM
Jan 2019

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

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
65. Didn't you also post a thread
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:00 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
67. Yes I posted about how I see Genesis as not incompatible with the big bang and evolution.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:05 PM
Jan 2019

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

(34,790 posts)
88. Almost all origin stories
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:53 PM
Jan 2019

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.

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
137. Except this whole exercise of yours
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 05:59 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
138. My intention is to show that neither text
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 06:01 PM
Jan 2019

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

(34,790 posts)
139. Is it anything more
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 06:03 PM
Jan 2019

than Bronze Age tribesmen grasping in the dark?

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
148. Inspiration.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 08:39 PM
Jan 2019

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.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
150. Perhaps not a collective unconcious,
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 08:47 PM
Jan 2019

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

(34,790 posts)
151. But God
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:00 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
153. Part of life is learning.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:03 PM
Jan 2019

Part of free will is making choices.

And texts can have multiple meanings.

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
158. Without any way of knowing
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:22 PM
Jan 2019

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.

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
161. we can try
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:49 PM
Jan 2019

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.

edhopper

(34,790 posts)
179. The whole God wants us to have Free Will
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 01:20 PM
Jan 2019

to explain evil is highly problematic.

I think we have had whole threads about it.

Voltaire2

(14,703 posts)
187. I don't know but it is evil as fork for a
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 06:38 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
192. The issue is that Seal of the Confessional.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:09 PM
Jan 2019

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

MineralMan

(147,574 posts)
193. It is also unlikely to be changed by the RCC.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:35 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
194. Evidence, or the evidence that I have read about,
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:41 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
195. Mandatory reporting is not about identifying predators before they act
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 03:55 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
197. The confessing anonymously explains one fatal weakness of the idea.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:09 PM
Jan 2019

One can and normally does confess anonymously.

So the proposed solution is not actually a solution.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
199. Nobody said it was a "solution," since a that implies "problem solved"
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:17 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
200. And if predatory priests know this, and they will,
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:19 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
201. Criminals confess to stuff all the time, even in public settings.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:27 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
202. Some criminals do.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:30 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
203. "SOME criminals do"... "MOST predators do not"
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:33 PM
Jan 2019

Thank you, you made the point.

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

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
191. It is indeed.
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 09:33 AM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
169. "Inspiration" could be and has been used to justify any and all narratives
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:00 AM
Jan 2019

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:50 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

(7,493 posts)
130. here's the problem...
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:26 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
133. To your last point:
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 05:09 PM
Jan 2019

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

(7,493 posts)
135. either the text is divinely inspired or it's simply man inspired
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 05:25 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
136. Let us assume that it is divinely inspired.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 05:28 PM
Jan 2019

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

(7,493 posts)
142. I literally told you
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 06:28 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
146. The Bible is not a science book.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 08:29 PM
Jan 2019

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

qazplm135

(7,493 posts)
152. God probably knows accurate science
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:02 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
154. But to recognize the existence of God is not to BE God.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:04 PM
Jan 2019

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

qazplm135

(7,493 posts)
157. the book written done by a woman was what again?
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:21 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
159. I re-used electrons from other replies.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 09:23 PM
Jan 2019

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

(7,886 posts)
162. What, didn't you just say the exact opposite?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 05:26 AM
Jan 2019
"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

(42,649 posts)
175. To be a part of means simply that.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 12:26 PM
Jan 2019
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

(7,886 posts)
207. Probably when you're reviewing your posts
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 11:51 PM
Jan 2019

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

(147,574 posts)
23. Genesis 1:3-5
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 12:39 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
24. If you had read the article,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:12 PM
Jan 2019

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

(147,574 posts)
25. Actually, I did read the article, which was one person's
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:16 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
27. And I recognize that you are a Biblical literalist,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:23 PM
Jan 2019

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

(147,574 posts)
30. Uh, no. I'm a Bible story-tellerist.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:29 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
32. No, your own words reveal you as a literalist.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:31 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
40. Ich spreche einige deutsch
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:52 PM
Jan 2019

Sprechen-zie auch deutsch?

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

MineralMan

(147,574 posts)
44. I speak very little German. I can be polite, ask directions, inquire as to
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:57 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
45. Speaking of politeness,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 02:01 PM
Jan 2019

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

(20,546 posts)
91. Bill? Oy! Could never call you or refer to you as Bill.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:06 PM
Jan 2019

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

😍

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
113. It is.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 11:29 PM
Jan 2019

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

(102,477 posts)
50. Well, no; the article says nothing about that rather important 'evening and morning' construction
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 04:47 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
54. This:
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 05:32 PM
Jan 2019
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.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
77. From your source:
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:28 PM
Jan 2019
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

(102,477 posts)
83. Ha-ha!
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:35 PM
Jan 2019

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

(1,303 posts)
26. I have always thought no one knows for sure just how long a biblical day is.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:22 PM
Jan 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
28. Literalists insist on a literal reading.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:24 PM
Jan 2019

Some are theists, some are not.

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

MineralMan

(147,574 posts)
33. Why would that be so? In our Solar system,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:31 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
36. And, as the article points out,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:41 PM
Jan 2019

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

(147,574 posts)
41. Campfire stories, Guy.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:53 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
43. Comical is reading a demand for a strictly literal interpretation from
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:55 PM
Jan 2019

one who wishes to attack the literalists.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
66. No, it's a direct response to
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:02 PM
Jan 2019

"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?

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
69. 100% of atheists do not believe it ever happened.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:13 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
71. One premise does not follow the other.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:17 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
72. Well that was a weirdly worded poll
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:22 PM
Jan 2019

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

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
164. This percentage was proven false
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 05:41 AM
Jan 2019

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

VMA131Marine

(4,646 posts)
127. That's not really true.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 02:55 PM
Jan 2019

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

(147,574 posts)
167. Yes. And the evening and the morning were still one day.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:28 AM
Jan 2019

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

PJMcK

(22,886 posts)
35. The big problem, then, is this
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:39 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
37. If you are asking for my view,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 01:45 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
86. You've suggested in the past that it's a metaphor for the Big Bang
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:48 PM
Jan 2019

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

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
98. If we start reading Genesis that way, it cease to be an actual metaphor
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:36 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
99. If one believes that the creation story is metaphor,
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:38 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
102. Without the scientific method, there is no science
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:02 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
103. Rabbi Nahmanides
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:05 PM
Jan 2019
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

(12,344 posts)
104. Yes, because you don't understand how medieval Jewish literalism worked
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:44 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
105. This is speculation into the nature of existence.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:51 PM
Jan 2019

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

(12,344 posts)
108. Not in as much specificity as traditional Judaism
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 09:26 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
114. Understood.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 11:31 PM
Jan 2019

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

Turbineguy

(38,373 posts)
82. Well, there's this.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:34 PM
Jan 2019

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.

Ferrets are Cool

(21,957 posts)
87. And why 6 days? If GOD is omnipotent
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 06:50 PM
Jan 2019

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

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
116. So why are you so completely, dogmatically defensive
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 05:50 AM
Jan 2019

About vague, variable, metaphorical, really indeterminable things?

Sounds like a contradiction

Response to Bretton Garcia (Reply #116)

Voltaire2

(14,703 posts)
119. Well obviously 6 days refers to
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 10:06 AM
Jan 2019

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

(9,116 posts)
120. They obviously do.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 10:08 AM
Jan 2019

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.

rampartc

(5,835 posts)
128. 2peter:38
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 03:02 PM
Jan 2019

"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?

rampartc

(5,835 posts)
143. whoever wrote genesis
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 06:39 PM
Jan 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
147. True.
Mon Jan 21, 2019, 08:32 PM
Jan 2019

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

(9,116 posts)
180. Doubtful.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 01:49 PM
Jan 2019

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

(14,703 posts)
190. So exactly what have you learned from
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:53 PM
Jan 2019

Genesis?

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Do the Quran and Bible Re...