R
RobbyEarl
Guest
Well Tin many say that Behemoth is a Rhino have ever seen on TV a Rhino fighting of Lions they are no match for the Rhino. Then they say that Leviathan is a Crocodile which has a tail like a cedar tree.
getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well Tin many say that Behemoth is a Rhino have ever seen on TV a Rhino fighting of Lions they are no match for the Rhino. Then they say that Leviathan is a Crocodile which has a tail like a cedar tree.
T
Tintin
Guest
I've heard those explanations before, but they still don't fit the descriptions we're given.
thanks for the well-wishes, and also with you... but, the rest of your sentence implies that I'm not currently letting the text bring me joy.
I see it differently... the story looks simple to me if read literally... a simple story with miracles.
I'm ok with reading the genesis stories as symbols... but to be consistent, one would want to read the rest of the bible as symbols, or potentially symbolic... imo...
W
William86
Guest
These are illusions to Babylonian mythology, essentially Tiamat from the Enuma Elish creation story which closely parallel the biblical creation account, as is well known to real biblical scholars. When God's wind swept over the face of Deep, the Hebrew name loosely translated Deep is literally borrowed directly from the word for the watery dragon Tiamat. Leviathan is merely evidence that these legends were well known to the biblical authors and made their way into Jewish culture. These are depictions of monsters just as you see commonly in other religions of this region immediately prior to the time period of these writings and ignoring this context is just sloppy biblical scholarship. There is no reason to believe these were references to dinosaurs.
W
William86
Guest
Oh I didn't mean to imply that it does not bring you joy! Just that it brings me great joy.
I can definitely see why you'd interpret it that way though and it's a reasonable way to read these passages.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that it does not bring you joy! Just that it brings me great joy.
I can definitely see why you'd interpret it that way though and it's a reasonable way to read these passages.
the story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life... do you read that as symbolic, also?
W
William86
Guest
Well genre is also important to consider, the gospel writers were specifically recording stories about the life of Jesus so a purely symbolic interpretation is not very applicable here. I think it is worth noting though that the miracles of Jesus and many of his parables or teachings seem very closely related to apocalyptic descriptions of the messianic kingdom. Here the notion of the dead rising from the grave is a foretaste of the resurrection of the dead that was to take place during the end times. I think one needs to be careful applying a symbolic interpretation to texts of course, but when a literal reading does not make sense while a symbolic one would a good case can be made for symbolism, especially in poetic or apocalyptic texts.
if one didn't have access to mainstream science, would one say that the genre of genesis clearly makes it symbolic? or that a literal reading does not make sense?
many people believe on some level that the bible must be interpreted in light of mainstream science. to me, that may be a possibility, but... then one is using the product of human reasoning to evaluate something of supernatural origin.
but maybe I should ask first, do you see the bible as something of supernatural origin?
W
William86
Guest
To your first question, I think the time period the reader lives impacts how they see the genre of the text in this case. A particular genre also doesn't necessarily make everything contained with in it purely symbolic, symbolism is just one literary technique among many that can be used to get your message across. For modern readers even the translation you're using matters, as in is it a translation from the masoretic text or septuagint? It affects how the first line is interpreted and I can see how "In the beginning" in English can make one expect a straightforward account of the creation as it happened. Also are we including knowledge of Ugaritic or Babylonian or Sumerian literature as derived from mainstream science because these can affect how we view its genre as well. It is clear that the intended audience the author(s) are writing to did not have access to what we now know about science and that definitely needs to be taken seriously. How is the word modern to be interpreted? Those passages that seem to indicate that the structure of the world we live in consists of a solid dome shaped barrier that holds back waters above us and the earth below holding back waters below us, where the world is essentially a flat circle aren't given a straightforward literal reading and people don't seem to have any problem with this (unless it's Spherical). Do these accounts make sense on their own? That's kind of a personal call, does it make sense to have two creation accounts that are meant to be taken totally literally which seem to conflict on some points? Here again a lot of YEC are willing to deviate from a straightforward reading to make sense of this, I think that's necessary on some level.
What would the people at the time of this writing make of it? That's what really matters, I think, if we want to arrive at the intended meaning of the Genesis creation account. We have reason to believe that certain creation myths, and I'm using this word in a narrowly defined way, from this general region of the world were widespread at this time. Here by myth I mean basically stories being used as vehicles for communicating some truth in a way analogous to the parables of Jesus. There are real similarities that suggest that it was common to take an earlier myth and incorporate it into a new myth while changing it substantially. A good example would be the story of Atrahasis being recycled in the story of Gilgamesh, where Atrahasis can be linked to the character Utnapishtim, and a parallel can be drawn to the story of Noah as well. I think the biblical audience at this time period as well as the authors were well acquainted with these stories. Not only that they represented competing religious ideologies for the Jews who were keen on distinguishing themselves from the Canaanite religion still present in the area. For this reason, it is not the similarities that really matter, I'm not accusing these authors of plagiarism, but instead the huge differences you see along with the similarities. I think this was a strategy to use motifs and themes common in Babylonian and related Semitic religions to tell their own creation myth in a way that clearly distinguishes it from other ideas about human and divine origins. This may also have been a strategy to win converts from these religions. In the case of the creation account in Genesis these parallels occur with Enuma Elish and related stories, which I think don't just happen to present an identical model of the structure of earth. I think this is evidence that even ignoring scientific problems this story creates for a literalist, a typical Jewish listener would recognize this immediately and understand that this is a creation myth similar to others they've likely heard before so the genre is fairly clear here.
Do I see the bible as supernatural in origin? I tend to see it as a very human collection of writings that present the Jewish and later Chrisitian views of the nature of God, though when God is literally quoted I think there's a case to be made that it's supernatural in origin. Do I believe that "sin entered into the world through one man"? I think the Genesis account of the fall of man is fundamentally about the origin of sin in the world so on that level yes. I just don't consider Adam to be a historical person, or even a proper name since it just means man.
ahh, ok... you tend to see the bible as a very human collection of writings. no sense then, imo, in trying to find ways to match it (or un-match it) with science, since humans back then had little idea of what we call science.
the gen stories could just be the musings of someone thought of as a prophet sometime in the past...
but oddly, since there's no need for it to be literally true, why not read it in a straightforward fashion? it sounds like the writer thought God made the world in about a week.
*************
if you don't believe that sin entered the world through one man, what is your view of Jesus as the second adam (or man)?
W
William86
Guest
Yes I generally agree with all of that, from my perspective it's not very important whether the bible agrees with modern science or not. My problem with YEC is mainly that people often try to present it as a scientific theory so they can spread Christianity through the public school system. I consider it to clearly be a religious claim and outside of the domain of science and so to me this violates constitutional law that demands separation of church and state, which I feel is an important provision to enforce. To me this is primarily a political issue, other than that I have no problem with people thinking this, as long as they do not judge people who for various reasons hold to OEC. Though I think it is misguided they're free to think that, diversity of opinion is important and I am sure they are very competent and intelligent people as well. It seems a bit disingenuous to me though to criticize others for allowing science to inform their interpretation because I think to some extent we all do this, Spherical being the only exception here I can think of because he supports a literal flat earth theory. When we read passages that say the earth is a circle, we don't take these literally. Whether or not we are conscious of it we interpret this another way because we know it's a sphere.
I do though see Genesis as being much more than musings, I think there is deep truth within it and it's a beautiful and important text that is central to the overarching theme of the bible. I think that most of the time a straightforward reading of a text is appropriate, and this is generally how I try to read them. Consider this however, YEC say they are reading the text in a straightforward way but if we took the text completely literally the entire idea of the serpent in the garden being satan would no longer be justifiable. The text never says this here, it merely says it is an especially clever animal basically, but many still hold to this interpretation anyway. I am just saying that there are different perspectives that can be taken when reading the text, the plain reading is always a good place to begin. There may be more to a passage however than is obvious during such a reading, especially if relevant historical circumstances are not known and this can be significant because we are so far removed in time from these writings.
Another example is the gospel accounts, the most natural way to read is straight through from beginning to end and how most read it, that is a good thing to do. It might be useful as well to compare each gospel and see how each portrays events and so do a more horizontal reading. Both are helpful and complement one another, they are simply different ways to approach the text. I do think you're right that the writer thought it perfectly reasonable for God to have made the universe in 6 days fairly recently, whether they intended it to be a literal history though is harder to know. The story also clearly has a very structured order, the first 3 days match up perfectly with the last 3 days, constant hidden patterns involving 7 appear throughout and to me this seems unlikely if it's a purely historical account and better explained as a literary style choice.
To the question about my view of Jesus as the second adam, I don't think my beliefs about whether or not to accept Genesis as historically accurate really impact my opinion of this. I think Jesus allowed humanity a fresh start and clearly preached an apocalyptic message (to me His central message) of a future kingdom where humans again live in harmony and obedience to God just as in the Eden story, hence the idea of a 2nd adam. The world we live in is not inherently problematic or evil, evil is introduced by our own decisions to break away from the will of God, whose creation was perfectly good. I truly believe the forces of good will prevail and that the corrupt structure of the world we live in will be crushed and replaced by a morally just structure. Hope that makes sense.
T
Tintin
Guest
Behemoth is not an allusion (not illusion) to Ugarit mythology, but Leviathan SOMETIMES is. The other times where Leviathan is described as if it was known and the author had personally encountered it, like in Job. Same with the Behemoth.
T
Tintin
Guest
Scripture (God's inspired and authoritative Word) interprets Scripture. We should use clearly understood Bibles passages and verses to try to understand those that are less clear. It would seem that many biblical theologians and scholars would prefer to interpret Scripture based on Ancient Near Eastern pagan mythologies, rather than via other Scripture. It would also seem that they would prefer to interpret clearly understood Bible passages and verses as something else using the less clearly understood passages and verses. Finally, while there's plenty of figurative language in the Bible, that which isn't figurative and should be read plainly, is generally easy to determine based on context. After all, context is key. Because context determines meaning.
T
Tintin
Guest
William, I'm not surprised in the least that you have no respect for the Bible. It clearly shows in the way you interpret it. I will say this though. The Jewish people would have been stark-raving made to incorporate pagan mythologies (or godly versions of them) into the Torah (and later the whole Tanakh). Clearly, they were familiar with the mythologies of their pagan neighbours, but they wouldn't have been caught dead including them in the Tanakh. Even as a polemic.
As for the universe and how it's described, you guys present a straw men understanding of biblical creationism. We believe the Bible uses figurative language and often. In those cases, God's nature is the focus and details about His creation (while existent) are secondary.
As for the universe and how it's described, you guys present a straw men understanding of biblical creationism. We believe the Bible uses figurative language and often. In those cases, God's nature is the focus and details about His creation (while existent) are secondary.
W
William86
Guest
Yes I know the difference it was just a typo. I agree that behemoth is not a direct allusion to any figure in Ugaritic or ANE mythology, I do still see it as a sort of force of chaos that's similar to the monsters slain just prior to creation in many of these myths since Leviathan and Behemoth are related in the text with Leviathan in the sea and Behemoth a similar creature existing on the land. It is still disingenuous to pretend these must be dinosaurs, Leviathan breathed fire which is not widely regarded as a characteristic possessed by any dinosaur.
It's actually mad not made in this case, just kidding
. And where exactly did I indicate I had no respect for the bible? You're one to talk about straw men! Not sure where I argued against biblical creationism either, or how I am arguing against a straw man version of it? That would be an odd thing to do as a creationist. The fact is we have many reasons to think that the structure of the universe described in the bible is the same as other local religions, it just happened to be wrong. That is not a straw man argument against YEC, they really do ignore this aspect of the bible while swallowing hook line and sinker other similarly incorrect ideas people had back then about the universe. Also I know very well YEC interprets much of the bible figuratively as I indicated many times in what I've written, even your argument that I am attacking a straw man is itself a straw man. I'm not even going to attempt to untangle the mangled knots of pseudologic that your position amounts to. You have not even attempted to argue against any of my main points or show how they're flawed, merely stating that they are wrong and you are correct. Talking to you reminds me of the argument sketch from monty python, this is not even an argument we are having.
W
William86
Guest
I'd also like to add that I was referring to Babylonian mythology not Ugaritic mythology. Parallels do exist though of course there as well since Ugaritic mythology was heavily influenced by Babylonian and Sumerian myths.
W
William86
Guest
I'm also not sure that an argument by authority is the firmest of foundations for an entire system of belief. This position seems to have led to the decline of the fundamentalists who emerged after the great Presbyterian split of fundamentalism vs modernism during the 20s and 30s in the field of biblical scholarship. At this point YEC conflicts with practically every major field of study related to science and even biblical scholarship itself, which is a field dominated by Christians who have dedicated their lives to an in depth study of the text. Every year all of these fields become stronger amassing more and more evidence in favor of their position while YEC seems to forever remain essentially the same as it was in the 1970s. It would seem that you are not knowledgeable enough of this field to be able to judge their methodology and come to a conclusive position on the issue. This is not a good sign for the future of the system of propaganda that you have grown attached to.
W
William86
Guest
YEC in a nutshell:
[video=youtube;zKhEw7nD9C4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4[/video]
[video=youtube;zKhEw7nD9C4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4[/video]
A
AboundingGrace
Guest
The op is a few months old now, but the thread is still recent, so.. It's my conviction that the Bible doesn't clearly state how old the cosmos or our solar system, or our earth is., therefore the calculation of it being no more than 6,000 years solely based on adding up the years and ages of those that lived pre-flood, is an inaccurate method of dating the age of the earth. In view of the list of those mentioned are not for the purpose of telling us the earth's age. The direct genealogy only covers the line of Adam and his immediate descendants up to Noah., their names telling the gospel story. After that, if I'm not mistaken, the descendant list becomes indirect in it's lineage as it does concerning the genealogical list concerning Jesus.
And also in view of the few first verses in Genesis that indicate an unknown gap of time between a preadamic earth, the after effect of destruction resulting in a prenoaic flood and the earth being without form and void.. which happened before the arrival of any on the calculated 6,000 year list.
Such a catastrophic occurrence would I believe account in some cases for the million year dating, as well as the cases of samples being dated at much younger ages. I believe that the differences are due to the mixture of older soil, rock, bones with the younger soil, rock, bones during the two known of flood catastrophes,.. like clothing tossed in a dryer, none of the soil layers are strictly sequential.
Since God could have but didn't give any clear indication of the age of His creation, it is then considered a mystery that the various schools of education take upon themselves to search it out, if possible, or at least make an educated guess.
But I believe that specifics will remain unknown until we're in heaven, all sitting in our schoolrooms being taught by those who've gone before us and endeavor to catch us up... that is, if the knowledge has any significance to anyone of us there at that time. Personally, I'd be a most interested student in that heavenly classroom watching the provided educational movies of the actual events as they occurred. Either that, or the Eternal God will travel us back to that time so that we may observe for ourselves as the panoramic events unfold.
And also in view of the few first verses in Genesis that indicate an unknown gap of time between a preadamic earth, the after effect of destruction resulting in a prenoaic flood and the earth being without form and void.. which happened before the arrival of any on the calculated 6,000 year list.
Such a catastrophic occurrence would I believe account in some cases for the million year dating, as well as the cases of samples being dated at much younger ages. I believe that the differences are due to the mixture of older soil, rock, bones with the younger soil, rock, bones during the two known of flood catastrophes,.. like clothing tossed in a dryer, none of the soil layers are strictly sequential.
Since God could have but didn't give any clear indication of the age of His creation, it is then considered a mystery that the various schools of education take upon themselves to search it out, if possible, or at least make an educated guess.
But I believe that specifics will remain unknown until we're in heaven, all sitting in our schoolrooms being taught by those who've gone before us and endeavor to catch us up... that is, if the knowledge has any significance to anyone of us there at that time. Personally, I'd be a most interested student in that heavenly classroom watching the provided educational movies of the actual events as they occurred. Either that, or the Eternal God will travel us back to that time so that we may observe for ourselves as the panoramic events unfold.