Happy 4 billionth birthday humanity! For Creationism

[Ausinus]

According to simple logic; god could not have created the earth in seven days.There is evidence to prove the age of the earth, which is 4 billion years.

If this were true, then humanity would be 4 billion years minus six days old. This is utterly impossible.

[ajk]

How do you think we got the 7 day week then? It wasn't just picked at random.

[Ausinus]

It was a babylonian idea. and a hindu and chinese one. CHristianity is not original.

[ajk]

Can you prove that?

[MrBirdy]

probably...

[Ausinus]

Lets see.

-In the ramanaya, from about 500 BCE, they used a seven day week.
-The Babylonians used a seven day calendar, each named after a specific god.

It is well known that the Babylonians heavily influenced Middle Eastern cultures. The Hebrews adpoted the idea from them, which spread to christianity. Cultures arent as insular as you think.

My source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week#Origin_of_the_seven-day_week

[General Septem]

As I've said before, I doubt the seven days told about in Genesis literally means seven 24-hour revolutions of the earth.

[Ausinus]

Then pray tell, what is each day referring two?

The person who wrote genesis would have meant what he said; the earth was created in seven terrestrial days.

[General Septem]

Then pray tell, what is each day referring two?

Who the hell knows? It's called a metaphor. I don't know what the literary style is, but you get the idea. I don't think anyone reasonable would think the seven days hypothesis was to be taken 100% literally. It could have meant seven periods of time. Time has little meaning to God; it's a thing of the physical world.

[thememan]

The original hebrew word used in the original Genesis texts was not actually "Day", as in the Calender day as being 24 hours. More closely translated, it means "period of time", and is actually indefinate. Only when mistranslated(as many parts of the Bible were when translated from hebrew to latin, and later to other languages due to language differences and exact translations among languages are often difficult, if not impossible). So, really, all it really means is that the Earth was created in 6 indefinate periods of time.

Also, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as there are several Christian sect whom embrace both, and use Genesis more metaphorically than literally, as it is rather vague if viewed in the right light.

Also, one must note, that most literalists have the idea that God created all of things that make the earth seem extremely old as a way to "test" the faithful. This, however, is not exactly common, and is only viewed as true by the most literal of literalists.

This coming from an agnost.

[thememan]

Who the hell knows? It's called a metaphor. I don't know what the literary style is, but you get the idea. I don't think anyone reasonable would think the seven days hypothesis was to be taken 100% literally. It could have meant seven periods of time. Time has little meaning to God; it's a thing of the physical world.

And the seven periods of time is only strengthened by the fact that the original texts used a word more closely related to "period of time" than "day".

[thememan]

Then pray tell, what is each day referring two?

The person who wrote genesis would have meant what he said; the earth was created in seven terrestrial days.

And the person whom wrote Genesis didn't actually mean seven terrestial days. It was a mistranslation, which occurred largely due to language often not having words which are exact translations(Especially between two mostly unrelated languages, such as Hebrew and Latin. Hell, for a good example, do a quick search for "Engrish". You'll see what I mean.)

[Ausinus]

And long how do you suppose that said period of time was? The bible is a work of humans, not a bloody fax from heaven.

[thememan]

And long how do you suppose that said period of time was? The bible is a work of humans, not a bloody fax from heaven.

It is indefinate. The word used is yom, which DOES translate to "day" technically speaking, but when one reviews the texts as a whole, it is quite clear that it does not mean "24 Hour period". The reason why is simple:

In Hebrew, the definate period of time "the First Day"(24 hour period) is expressed as hayyom harison. However, this is NOT what is written in the original texts of Genesis. Instead, the indefinate form, yom ehad is used, which translates to "Day One", which in English may APPEAR to be definate 24 hour cycles, but in hebrew is actually used for an indefinate period of time. In order to understand the meaning of what is written, you must first understand how a language works. "Day One" in Hebrew does not refer to the first 24 hour period(Which is definate), but instead to "the first period"(Which is indefinate). If the writers of Genesis really meant "The First Day"(Meaning a 24 hour period), they would have written hayyom harison, which would be the definate period of time. However, that is not the case, as yom ehad is used, which is actually indefinate.

[Ausinus]

Very well. It seems you have just given evidence as to whythe world was not created in seven days.

THANK YOU:D

[thememan]

Very well. It seems you have just given evidence as to whythe world was not created in seven days.

THANK YOU:D

Indeed. I have no problem with Religion at all, even though I am agnostic(Similar to Atheist for those whom aren't in the know). But I'd rather people understand their own religion before making giant leaps of faith(Religion is all about leaps of faith, however it is easier to lead the blind astray than the seeing, so to speak). I started my quest to understanding Christianity a great deal more after I stopped being an Atheist prick(which was after I lost my faith, so to speak), and I find that in order to debate anything, even Theology, you need to have at least a basic understanding of what you are debating. Although, I do not like debating whether or not a Religion is true or false, as it is a matter of faith, which is up to the individual, I will debate on particular issues.

[Ausinus]

Meh. I like being an atheist prick:D . Moreover, I love being both an empiricist and epicurean as well.

[freakazoid]

According to simple logic; god could not have created the earth in seven days.There is evidence to prove the age of the earth, which is 4 billion years.

If this were true, then humanity would be 4 billion years minus six days old. This is utterly impossible.

Where does it say that those days were back to back, all in a row and only a week long, one day right after another?

[thememan]

Where does it say that those days were back to back, all in a row and only a week long, one day right after another?

Eh, it depends on who you ask. Most literalists believe in the "7-24 hour periods back to back", whereas most other Christians believe in a variant that is more compromising with an older Earth. Really, Religion is highly interpretational, and no two people agree 100% on everything that their religion says.

Also, science and Religion are not mutually exclusive, and one cannot use Religion to disprove science, just as one cannot use Science to disprove Religion. They are two seperate fields of thought, that explain two very different things. Science explains the natural, Religion the supernatural. As they do not try to explain the same ideas, it is not an either/or system, with Science at one end of a spectrum and Religion on the other, as the two can be mixed rather nicely in any number of ways.

[General Septem]

A similar misinterpretation comes from the story of the Great Flood as well. There's not enough water in the world to cover the entire planet, even with the polar ice caps, but there is more than enough water to flood the land, being what we now call the Mesopotamian plain. At the time that's the only place humans even lived, so to them it would have been the whole world. On top of that, a closer translation of the word used in the passage for "earth" would be land. If you read the passage that talks about the Great Flood and substitute "land" for "earth", you can begin to get the impression that the Flood was basically a local phenomenon.

However it would not be against what the Bible says, because the judgment would have still been global, seeing as how all humans were in the same place. The reason Noah had to take animals with him was partially because of the indigenous species of the area, and also because other animals would not have migrated to the area even after the waters died down.

[thememan]

A similar misinterpretation comes from the story of the Great Flood as well. There's not enough water in the world to cover the entire planet, even with the polar ice caps, but there is more than enough water to flood the land, being what we now call the Mesopotamian plain. At the time that's the only place humans even lived, so to them it would have been the whole world. On top of that, a closer translation of the word used in the passage for "earth" would be land. If you read the passage that talks about the Great Flood and substitute "land" for "earth", you can begin to get the impression that the Flood was basically a local phenomenon.

However it would not be against what the Bible says, because the judgment would have still been global, seeing as how all humans were in the same place. The reason Noah had to take animals with him was partially because of the indigenous species of the area, and also because other animals would not have migrated to the area even after the waters died down.

Indeed. Actually, the Great Flood is rather interesting, because the story shows up in ancient texts, approximately 600 years before it was written down by the Jews, which were found in the ruins of Ninaveh. It is written as part of the Tales of Gilgamesh. I don't have enough time to go into detail, right now, though.

Also, other misinterpretations include Jesus being born in an Inn(The word for "Inn" in hebrew is very close to the word for "Upper room", which is a part of a house in this region that the people stay in, the lower room is used for animals, and is basically a manger). It doesn't make a great deal of sense for Joseph, who's ancestral home is Bethlehem and had family there, to go to an inn(An inn in those times was basically a circlular encampment that was surrounded by a tall wooden fence, that was mostly in open air, that was populated usually by shifty characters such as theives, whom would rob travelers). Not only would an inn be the last place you would take a pregnant woman, but it would have been extremely disrespectful to NOT stay with family if you had family in a village or town.

[Ausinus]

I agree. Some scientists did have a theory it was the flooding of the Black sea that started the 'great flood' myths, but that has been disproven. Interesting to note, nearly every mythology has a 'great flood' myth.

The Gilgamesh story goes something like, Gilgamesh met a man who was building a boat and taking animals with him, as the god Enki had told him there would be a flood.

The historicality of jesus is another interesting topic. Did you know jesus would have spoken Koine greek during his sermons and lectures? That area had been under greek rule before the romans took it over and the common language between the cultures there was greek.

[General Septem]

Actually it's been said that Jesus could speak Greek, Hebrew, and also Latin. I didn't know that would've been His primary language during sermons though.

[Ausinus]

I think if it was directed at people in general, he would have spoken greek, or pehaps hebrew. I dont think he would have spoken latin during his sermons, regardless of his ability to speak it.

[thememan]

Actually it's been said that Jesus could speak Greek, Hebrew, and also Latin. I didn't know that would've been His primary language during sermons though.

As an aside, his original hebrew name was not a "Jesus", but "Yahushua"(Or Yeshua, and Joshua later on), which was mistranslated into latin(Iesous), which in turn was mistranslated into "Jesus". "Yahushua" actually means "Yahweh is Salvation", and an interesting note is that the letter 'J', nor the sounds it make, does not appear in regular alphebets until only a few hundred years ago. Quite interesting.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

As an aside, his original hebrew name was not a "Jesus", but "Yahushua"(Or Yeshua, and Joshua later on), which was mistranslated into latin(Iesous), which in turn was mistranslated into "Jesus". "Yahushua" actually means "Yahweh is Salvation", and an interesting note is that the letter 'J', nor the sounds it make, does not appear in regular alphebets until only a few hundred years ago. Quite interesting.

yes, horrible how much we change our own history isn't it?

[Ausinus]

As an aside, his original hebrew name was not a "Jesus", but "Yahushua"(Or Yeshua, and Joshua later on), which was mistranslated into latin(Iesous), which in turn was mistranslated into "Jesus". "Yahushua" actually means "Yahweh is Salvation", and an interesting note is that the letter 'J', nor the sounds it make, does not appear in regular alphebets until only a few hundred years ago. Quite interesting.

I agree:D . Similarly, Yaweh was translated into Jehovah.

[General Septem]

As an aside, his original hebrew name was not a "Jesus", but "Yahushua"(Or Yeshua, and Joshua later on), which was mistranslated into latin(Iesous), which in turn was mistranslated into "Jesus". "Yahushua" actually means "Yahweh is Salvation", and an interesting note is that the letter 'J', nor the sounds it make, does not appear in regular alphebets until only a few hundred years ago. Quite interesting.

I wouldn't call it a mistranslation but more of a Latinization of the original name. "John" went through a similar translation: Yochanan (Hebrew), Iohannes (Greek), Ioannes (Latin), Johannes (German), John. I wouldn't call it mistranslation but just how words tend to evolve as they go from language to language.

[Ausinus]

It was actually a hellenization. The bible was in greek before latin.