The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

looksee · 13-02-2017 10:29PM

J C wrote: »

Although quite bad for the people caught up in these events ... none of the above incidents threatened the end of all life ... or were in a world where every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time ... as in the days of Noah.

Can I tentatively ask if you intend that the reference to the 'thoughts of the human heart' is literally true, or do you believe that people think with their brains?

Then moving on to the evil thoughts. We are to understand that all the population, including children, aul grannies etc, all spent all their time thinking evil. I am just trying to figure out what they might have all been plotting that they were all evil all the time. What constitutes evil? Was the entire world trying to design a better condom? Was there a craze for bacon butties? What were they all thinking about that was so bad?

And then out of the entire world, all five continents, just one man and his family were pure goodness. Amazing that all the offspring of this man managed to find the only good people in the world to marry. And assuming they were all middle eastern, that asian, caucasian, negroid etc people sprang from the loins of this one family.

Its amazing.

J C · 13-02-2017 10:55PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that with all the debauchery that was going on that there wasn't a single pregnant woman? Do you just make up your excuses as you go along? :rolleyes:

If she was pregnant, it would seem to have been by the Nephalim and the so-called 'sons of God' ... who were evil personified.

Genesis 6 New International Version (NIV)

Wickedness in the World
6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

... when evil starts to prevail ... the first victims are the weak and defenseless ... and fertility rates plummet ... possibly to the point of no Human children being present, when the Flood kicked off.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:02PM

J C wrote: »

If she was pregnant, it would seem to have been by the Nephalim ... who were evil personified.

Genesis 6 New International Version (NIV)

Wickedness in the World
6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Wasn't jesus "gods" only son (even though he was really himself)?

Nephilim lol, angels/aliens/giants whatever.

J C · 13-02-2017 11:07PM

looksee wrote: »

Can I tentatively ask if you intend that the reference to the 'thoughts of the human heart' is literally true, or do you believe that people think with their brains?

It's a turn of phrase ... although interestingly, the heart contains a 'mini-brain' such is the sophistication of its enervation ... and there are intriguing 'flashbacks' recorded by heart transplant recipients ... who start thinking like their heart donors.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory-affirms-yes-247498
http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients-vol-19-iss-1.html

looksee wrote: »

Then moving on to the evil thoughts. We are to understand that all the population, including children, aul grannies etc, all spent all their time thinking evil.

That seems to have been the case.

looksee wrote: »

And then out of the entire world, all five continents, just one man and his family were pure goodness. Amazing that all the offspring of this man managed to find the only good people in the world to marry. And assuming they were all middle eastern, that asian, caucasian, negroid etc people sprang from the loins of this one family.

Its amazing.

It truly was amazing.:)

J C · 13-02-2017 11:11PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wasn't jesus "gods" only son (even though he was really himself)?

Nephilim lol, angels/aliens/giants whatever.

The 'sons of God' ... seems to be a reference to the Fallen Angels.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:17PM

J C wrote: »

The 'sons of God' ... seems to be a reference to the Fallen Angels.

So yet another thing that the all seeing/knowing "god" couldn't forsee :rolleyes:

J C · 13-02-2017 11:24PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So yet another thing that the all seeing/knowing "god" couldn't forsee :rolleyes:

Why do you say this? ... He did forsee both the Fall of angels and of man ... but the good outweighs the bad ...
... for example, you and I wouldn't exit if God didn't persevere with His Creation ... despite the fact that He knew that some of His Creation would rebel against Him.:)

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:27PM

J C wrote: »

Why do you say this? ... He did forsee both the Fall of angels and of man ... but the good outweighs the bad ...
... for example, you and I wouldn't exit if God didn't persevere with His Creation ... despite the fact that He know some of His Creation would rebel against Him.:)

Some? According to you (and the bible) 99.99999% odmf creation rebelled against him so he murdered them!

J C · 13-02-2017 11:45PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Some? According to you (and the bible) 99.99999% odmf creation rebelled against him so he murdered them!

99.999999% of people at time of the Flood were permanently evil in all their thoughts ... with a lot less since and before.

... and God didn't murder them, He sentenced them to death.

drdidlittle · 13-02-2017 11:51PM

hinault wrote:

You're applying the measurement of the Gregorian calendar that determines how a long a year is, to a time when the writer had no access to the same calendar.

Can some one please explain the linear time of the bible. Years are not years in the time after Noahs ark. How does this tie into the 10,000 year theory. Looks like words are literal when needed and gospel all other times. Same as in Adam and Eves time years are not years but still claim the the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

J C · 13-02-2017 11:57PM

drdidlittle wrote: »

Can some one please explain the linear time of the bible. Years are not years in the time after Noahs ark. How does this tie into the 10,000 year theory. Looks like words are literal when needed and gospel all other times. Same as in Adam and Eves time years are not years but still claim the the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

The years are years ... who told you they weren't?

hinault · 14-02-2017 12:29AM

drdidlittle wrote: »

Can some one please explain the linear time of the bible. Years are not years in the time after Noahs ark. How does this tie into the 10,000 year theory. Looks like words are literal when needed and gospel all other times. Same as in Adam and Eves time years are not years but still claim the the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

First of all, the age given to Noah is not an article of (Catholic) faith.
We are not required to believe that Noah lived for 900 years. Whether Noah did live for 900 years or not is not subject to doctrine.

The 6,000 years theory in part comes from a biblical exercise done by Ussher.

Ussher read the Bible and where the Bible referred to years, Ussher applied the standard measurement used to measure a solar year (a solar year is the number of days it takes Earth to circumnavigate the Sun = 365 days) to each of the books contained in the entire Bible.

The Gregorian Calendar is based on solar calendar year and that calendar was first instituted in 16th century.
Applying the measurement of a (Gregorian) calendar year to the term "year" written in a document literally centuries before by Genesis is problematic.
The writer of Genesis wouldn't have had a Gregorian calendar to refer to.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 12:49AM

J C wrote: »

It is a 'turn of phrase' to express God's deep revulsion at what Mankind had become.
He didn't literally regret that He had created Man ... as Noah and his family weren't part of the dissolute Humanity all around them.

The Genesis account says "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled"
You are now saying that this is not a true account. He did not regret creating man like it says in the Bible.
So here you are interpreting what the bible says, because it contradicts other stuff you say.

JC, you can't have it every way. It is either true, as you usually say, or it is not, as most of us believe.
If you have to interpret any part of the Bible then all of it is up for grabs, as we have been saying for years.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 12:50AM

J C wrote: »

The years are years ... who told you they weren't?

Another believer actually! See tonights latest postings.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 12:53AM

hinault wrote: »

First of all, the age given to Noah is not an article of (Catholic) faith.
We are not required to believe that Noah lived for 900 years. Whether Noah did live for 900 years or not is not subject to doctrine.

The 6,000 years theory in part comes from a biblical exercise done by Ussher.

Ussher read the Bible and where the Bible referred to years, Ussher applied the standard measurement used to measure a solar year (a solar year is the number of days it takes Earth to circumnavigate the Sun = 365 days) to each of the books contained in the entire Bible.

The Gregorian Calendar is based on solar calendar year and that calendar was first instituted in 16th century.
Applying the measurement of a (Gregorian) calendar year to the term "year" written in a document literally centuries before by Genesis is problematic.
The writer of Genesis wouldn't have had a Gregorian calendar to refer to.

Yes but the writers of the bible were inspired by God, who knew the Gregorian calender was going to be introduced.

hinault · 14-02-2017 12:58AM

Safehands wrote: »

Yes but the writers of the bible were inspired by God,

The writers of the books in the Bible were inspired by God.

However they were not aware of the Gregorian calendar when they wrote what they wrote.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 12:58AM

J C wrote: »

If she was pregnant, it would seem to have been by the Nephalim and the so-called 'sons of God' ... who were evil personified.

Remember we spoke about logic JC? Just sayin, that's all.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 12:59AM

hinault wrote: »

The writers of the books in the Bible were inspired by God.

However they were not aware of the Gregorian calendar when the wrote what they wrote.

But God was!

hinault · 14-02-2017 01:14AM

Safehands wrote: »

But God was!

And God is presumably aware of all of the different calendars which man devised throughout history. Which calendar were the writers using?

Are biblical years measured on a Gregorian calendar basis? Says who?

What about years measured on a French Republican calendar basis?
Or the measurement of years in the Hebrew calendar?

Absolam · 14-02-2017 04:45AM

J C wrote: »

Quote:-

"A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10^50[1] although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.

In some cases that arise in Gedanken experiments in thermodynamics, the probabilities can be approximately 10Avogadro's number, that is, 10^10^23, give or take a few billion orders of magnitude."

The Universal Probability Bound at 10^150 is another measure of a statistical impossibility.

Sure, so... low probability events, like I said. Which is to say, definitively not impossible...

Peregrinus · 14-02-2017 04:58AM

hinault wrote: »

And God is presumably aware of all of the different calendars which man devised throughout history. Which calendar were the writers using?

Are biblical years measured on a Gregorian calendar basis? Says who?

What about years measured on a French Republican calendar basis?
Or the measurement of years in the Hebrew calendar?

A year is a year, people. It's the time taken by the earth to complete a revolution of the sun, and it can be observed in many natural phenomena - the cycle of the season, the shifting location of sunrise/sunset, the waxing and waning of the length of the day.

The Gregorian calendar, the French republican calendar, the Hebrew calendar offer different bases for counting years, and different ways of dividing them into shorter periods like months or weeks. But the years they are counting, and the years they are dividing, are the same in all cases. And you don't need to know, or know about, any of these calendars in order to talk about years.

There is no doubt that the "years" referred to in the Hebrew scriptures are, well, years.

hinault · 14-02-2017 05:44AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

A year is a year, people. It's the time taken by the earth to complete a revolution of the sun, and it can be observed in many natural phenomena - the cycle of the season, the shifting location of sunrise/sunset, the waxing and waning of the length of the day.

The Gregorian calendar, the French republican calendar, the Hebrew calendar offer different bases for counting years, and different ways of dividing them into shorter periods like months or weeks. But the years they are counting, and the years they are dividing, are the same in all cases. And you don't need to know, or know about, any of these calendars in order to talk about years.

There is no doubt that the "years" referred to in the Hebrew scriptures are, well, years.

Are they though?

We don't know what a "year" is a measurement of, in the context of the older books of the Old Testament. We're applying our modern version of time measurement to words and phrases such as year and day, used in the Bible.

For the older texts in the Bible, there is no reference as to what calendar is used to measure a day, or a year.

But lets say that a year, as described in the early books of the Old Testament, is in fact the measurement of time that it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun.

therefore in order to measure the passage of time, there would have to be the Sun and the Earth - without either the Earth or the Sun, it would be impossible to measure time.

On "day 4" according to Genesis, God created the Sun.

How then could days 1, 2 and 3 respectively be measured if there was no Sun? There is no way to measure what duration a "day" is, without the Sun.

The other problem is retrospectively applying a modern measurement for the duration of a day, to the biblical reference for a day.

Peregrinus · 14-02-2017 06:13AM

Even the older books of the OT were written long after the periods that they deal with. They were written by people who were certainly familiar with the Hebrew calendar.

They don't refer to any particular calendar because they don't need to. We don't have years because we have calendars; rather, we have calendars because we have years, and we need to count them, to analyse them and to have ways of talking about them.

The early Hebrews farmed. They knew all about years - the planting, the growing, the harvest, the fallow - and their concept of "year" was pretty much the same as ours.

As for "day", for obvious reasons their concept of "day" was pretty much the same as ours. Yes, in Genesis 1 there is talk of "days" before the creation of the sun, which from a literalistic point of view makes no sense. Nevertheless we still know exactly what is meant by "day" in Genesis 1, because the text is unambiguous; "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day". Obviously the days in Genesis 1 can't be literal days, for the reason you point out, but there's no ambiguity or uncertainty about the literal meaning of the word "day".

Safehands · 14-02-2017 11:04AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even the older books of the OT were written long after the periods that they deal with. They were written by people who were certainly familiar with the Hebrew calendar.

They don't refer to any particular calendar because they don't need to. We don't have years because we have calendars; rather, we have calendars because we have years, and we need to count them, to analyse them and to have ways of talking about them.

The early Hebrews farmed. They knew all about years - the planting, the growing, the harvest, the fallow - and their concept of "year" was pretty much the same as ours.

As for "day", for obvious reasons their concept of "day" was pretty much the same as ours. Yes, in Genesis 1 there is talk of "days" before the creation of the sun, which from a literalistic point of view makes no sense. Nevertheless we still know exactly what is meant by "day" in Genesis 1, because the text is unambiguous; "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day". Obviously the days in Genesis 1 can't be literal days, for the reason you point out, but there's no ambiguity or uncertainty about the literal meaning of the word "day".

Trying to analyse Genesis at this level is akin to analysing the story of Cú Chulainn in Irish folklore. These are stories, very much like the stories of Cú Chulainn, when people chase magical birds and heroes are able to defeat whole armies, single handed. They are folklore, not literally accurate stories.

drdidlittle · 14-02-2017 11:08AM

Safehands wrote:

Trying to analyse Genesis at this level is akin to analysing the story of CÃº Chulainn in Irish folklore. These are stories, very much like the stories of CÃº Chulainn, when people chase magical birds and heroes are able to defeat whole armies, single handed. They are folklore, not literally accurate stories.

But some people don't see the OT that way. To some its is literal.

Safehands · 14-02-2017 11:19AM

drdidlittle wrote: »

But some people don't see the OT that way. To some its is literal.

Yes and when you point out that it really can't be taken that way, they try to parse and analyse it so that it can make sense to them. Clearly the creation account is a story from folklore. I know that some very genuine people have been brought up to believe that it's true and they cannot accept that it is anything other than reality, no matter what evidence is produced. Most Catholics don't take it literally. In lots of cases it is a really good example of brainwashing.

hinault · 14-02-2017 11:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even the older books of the OT were written long after the periods that they deal with.

We have no basis for knowing when in antiquity Genesis was written.

There is no credible basis for knowing when Genesis was written. Nor do we know how what was written was communicated to the author of Genesis.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't refer to any particular calendar because they don't need to.

We do need a calendar if we're trying to interpret what Genesis is trying to tell us in terms of the longevity of peoples lives (in Genesis).

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for "day", for obvious reasons their concept of "day" was pretty much the same as ours. Yes, in Genesis 1 there is talk of "days" before the creation of the sun, which from a literalistic point of view makes no sense. Nevertheless we still know exactly what is meant by "day" in Genesis 1, because the text is unambiguous; "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day". Obviously the days in Genesis 1 can't be literal days, for the reason you point out, but there's no ambiguity or uncertainty about the literal meaning of the word "day".

A day cannot be measured where the Sun doesn't exist. And Genesis tells us that the Sun did not exist until "day 4". So how does Genesis denominate that there were 3 separate days where no Sun existed.

And we're expected to treat all the other chapters of Genesis as "literal"?

As I say Noah's age is not an issue of doctrine. Catholicism doesn't require that people believe that Noah lived for 900 years.

Peregrinus · 15-02-2017 02:26AM

hinault wrote: »

We have no basis for knowing when in antiquity Genesis was written.

Yes, we do. Obviously we can't tie it down to a date or an hour, but we can narrow it down through a number of factors. First, it obviously wasn't written before the Israelites acquired literacy. Even if you argue that God could have inspired otherwise illiterate people to write the scriptures, what would be the point of doing so, since nobody could have read them? And there will be historical and archaeological evidence to point to the era when the Israelites acquired literacy. Secondly, the works can't have been written before the latest of the events which they narrate. Even if you accept that many of the events in the Pentateuch are mythical, many are certainly not. Thirdly, there'll be linguistic evidence; language evolves, and a text can be approximately dated simply by looking at the language used and comparing it with other texts. Fourthly, there'll be extrinsic historical and archaelological evidence - the text we are trying to date may be referred to in other sources whose date is know; it must have existed at that time. Fiftly, if you take the conservative Jewish view that the Pentateuch, or most of it, was written by Moses, obviously it was written after all the events which precede the birth of Moses in the narrative contained in the Pentateuch itself.

For what it's worth, scholars generally reckon that the Pentateuch as we know it was compiled in the fifth century before Christ. It's a synthesis of already-existing (but no longer surviving) texts, and they in turn embody stories that were previously handed down orally. It dates from long after the period it describes.

If you reject that view and adhere to the religious tradition that the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, that still means it was composed long after the events described in Genesis (including the Flood).

hinault wrote: »

We do need a calendar if we're trying to interpret what Genesis is trying to tell us in terms of the longevity of peoples lives (in Genesis).

No. We need a calendar if we are trying to date them - to say when they lived. But we don't need a calendar to known their longevity, how long they are said to have lived - the answer is right there in the text - e.g. "Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone" (Deut 34:7). No calendar needed to understand that.

hinault wrote: »

A day cannot be measured where the Sun doesn't exist. And Genesis tells us that the Sun did not exist until "day 4". So how does Genesis denominate that there were 3 separate days where no Sun existed.

What that tell us, hinault, is that the word "day" is not being used in a literal sense in that passage.

hinault wrote: »

And we're expected to treat all the other chapters of Genesis as "literal"?

No. Who expects you to do that?

hinault wrote: »

As I say Noah's age is not an issue of doctrine. Catholicism doesn't require that people believe that Noah lived for 900 years.

I agree. But I don't think we need to explain this by saying that when the author of Genesis said that he did, he was using the word "year" to indicate a period of other than 365 days. The word "year" meant to him and his readers what it means to us. He was employing a literary convention familiar to his readership in which the attribution of an improbably long life is understood to indicate that person's virtue and favour in God's sight.

hinault · 15-02-2017 03:19AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thirdly, there'll be linguistic evidence; language evolves, and a text can be approximately dated simply by looking at the language used and comparing it with other texts.

In that case, you'll be able to tell us what other text is written at the same time as Genesis - and you'll be able to date when that other text, or any other text from the "Genesis" era was written? Please name the corresponding text(s)?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fourthly, there'll be extrinsic historical and archaelological evidence - the text we are trying to date may be referred to in other sources whose date is know; it must have existed at that time.

Again, identify extrinsic historical and archaelogical evidence which provides the date when Genesis was written?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fiftly, if you take the conservative Jewish view that the Pentateuch, or most of it, was written by Moses, obviously it was written after all the events which precede the birth of Moses in the narrative contained in the Pentateuch itself.

For what it's worth, scholars generally reckon that the Pentateuch as we know it was compiled in the fifth century before Christ. It's a synthesis of already-existing (but no longer surviving) texts, and they in turn embody stories that were previously handed down orally. It dates from long after the period it describes.

I agree that Moses might have written Genesis. That is certainly a possibility.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. We need a calendar if we are trying to date them - to say when they lived. But we don't need a calendar to known their longevity, how long they are said to have lived - the answer is right there in the text - e.g. "Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone" (Deut 34:7). No calendar needed to understand that.

No. We need a calendar to understand what (time) scale the writer of Genesis is using when he/she refer to days, years.

Moses could have lived to 124 years of age. What we don't know is how 124 years were measured. And we certainly know that 124 years does not apply refer to the Gregorian Calendar scale because that scale was devised until centuries later!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Y
What that tell us, hinault, is that the word "day" is not being used in a literal sense in that passage.

Exactly. But we're expected to accept the literal use of the word "day" in all other parts of Genesis? Says who?

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Who expects you to do that?

You do, apparently.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. But I don't think we need to explain this by saying that when the author of Genesis said that he did, he was using the word "year" to indicate a period of other than 365 days. The word "year" meant to him and his readers what it means to us. He was employing a literary convention familiar to his readership in which the attribution of an improbably long life is understood to indicate that person's virtue and favour in God's sight.

I'll give you my theory.

Genesis in terms of describing the creation of the Universe and how creation was "segmented" to various days is not a literal chronological description. I would suggest that use of describing different bits of creation on sequential days is done to denote order.

What I mean by this is that the author wanted to convey several messages.
One message is that God is the source of all creation. Another message is that creation is ordered in that it is segmented in to days.

Another very subtle message is that chronology hints at the fact that God took several days before creating humanity. Maybe the author is hinting that God took a little bit more time to fine tune the human creation which Genesis teaches bears His image and likeness??? In other words God willed a special creation in humanity and taking a bit more time about it was evidence of His special favour and regard for humanity out of everything else He created?
Again this is just a guess on my part.

Language is problematic at the best of times. If I said to you "it's raining cats and dogs", I would not expect you to accept the literal meaning of that statement (namely that cats and dogs were falling down from the clouds upon us). However the statement "it's raining cats and dogs" is truthful because it conveys a message that it is pouring rain, even though the statement cannot be literally true.

Besides as I said earlier, it is not a requirement of faith for a catholic to believe that Moses lived for 124 years or that Noah lived for 900+ years or that Flood lasted X amount of time. What is far more important is the message that Genesis conveys about what Moses and Noah did in their actions and words.

Of course the sceptics on this site will always use any excuse to not accept the testimony given.
If you say to Safehands that it is raining cats and dogs, he/she counter that this can never happen while drowning in a rain shower.:rolleyes:

Peregrinus · 15-02-2017 05:00AM

hinault wrote: »

In that case, you'll be able to tell us what other text is written at the same time as Genesis . . . identify extrinsic historical and archaelogical evidence which provides the date when Genesis was written?

Hinault, I'm not the biblical scholar. All I'm saying is that scholars of the ancient world do have techniques that they can apply to identify the period from which an ancient text dates, and those techniques can be and have been applied to date scriptural texts. Therefore it's not true to say that we have no idea when they were written.

For what it's worth, religious traditions also seek to identify when and how the texts were written, and offer answers (e.g. "written by Moses").

And, whether you apply the techniques of academic historians of the period or accept the religious traditions, you'll reach the same conclusion; the text of Genesis dates from long after the events described in Genesis.

hinault wrote: »

I agree that Moses might have written Genesis. That is certainly a possibility.

Not a very great possiblity, maybe. But, if it's a possiblity at all, then Genesis is not contemporary with the events it narrates.

hinault wrote: »

No. We need a calendar to understand what (time) scale the writer of Genesis is using when he/she refer to days, years.

No, we don't.

Days and years are not arbitrary periods of time, and they are not culturally determined. They are naturally-occurring, easy-to-observe, hard-to-ignore cycles of considerable practical importance to agricultural societies. The Hebrew word for "day" means a day. The Hebrew word for "year" means a year. How could it be otherwise? An agricultural culture that cannot identify a year with reasonable accuracy is doomed to early collapse and extinction.

hinault wrote: »

Moses could have lived to 124 years of age. What we don't know is how 124 years were measured. And we certainly know that 124 years does not apply refer to the Gregorian Calendar scale because that scale was devised until centuries later!

Which kind of makes my point. The Gregorian calendar was devised in the sixteenth century, but it didn't involve a new concept of "year"; all it did was to devise a new way of counting years, given the established concept of "year".

The length of a year is a fact of nature; you can identify it with more precision through more precise scientific observation (it's actually more like 365.2425 days) but you can't change it by decree any more than you can tell the sun to rise in the west or the rivers to flow uphill.

hinault wrote: »

Exactly. But we're expected to accept the literal use of the word "day" in all other parts of Genesis? Says who? . . . You do, apparently.

No, I don't. The word "day" is frequently used in analogical, idiomatic, etc sense in the bible just as in our day (see what I did there?) we use it in idioms, analogies, figures of speech, etc. That doesn't mean that its literal sense, for the Israelites, was any different to its literal sense for us.

hinault wrote: »

I'll give you my theory.

Genesis in terms of describing the creation of the Universe and how creation was "segmented" to various days is not a literal chronological description. I would suggest that use of describing different bits of creation on sequential days is done to denote order.

What I mean by this is that the author wanted to convey several messages.
One message is that God is the source of all creation. Another message is that creation is ordered in that it is segmented in to days.

Another very subtle message is that chronology hints at the fact that God took several days before creating humanity. Maybe the author is hinting that God took a little bit more time to fine tune the human creation which Genesis teaches bears His image and likeness??? In other words God willed a special creation in humanity and taking a bit more time about it was evidence of His special favour and regard for humanity out of everything else He created?
Again this is just a guess on my part.

Language is problematic at the best of times. If I said to you "it's raining cats and dogs", I would not expect you to accept the literal meaning of that statement (namely that cats and dogs were falling down from the clouds upon us). However the statement "it's raining cats and dogs" is truthful because it conveys a message that it is pouring rain, even though the statement cannot be literally true.

Besides as I said earlier, it is not a requirement of faith for a catholic to believe that Moses lived for 124 years or that Noah lived for 900+ years or that Flood lasted X amount of time. What is far more important is the message that Genesis conveys about what Moses and Noah did in their actions and words.

I don't disagree with any of that, hinault. But none of it offers any reason at all for thinking that the Israelites didn't know what a "year" was, or that they had a different notion of "year" than we do. The fact that they sometimes use the word in a literal or figurative or symbolic sense doesn't mean that they ascribe a different literal meaning to it. Indeed, the symbolic significance of ascribing a very long life to Moses (or whoever) would be entirely lost if "120 years" wasn't a very long life.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments