The Age of the Universe

[KitNyx]

Bridge and Jenyar - I apologize for the misquote, I'll try to pay more attention to details.

Back to the point - I just want to clarify, the Bible is literally the word of God, but it is not meant to be read literally? If that is the case, how do you know what is the best interpretation, or is that for each of us to decide? What if your interpretation is not what God meant? Do any of you speak Aramaic or even Hebrew? Do you have a first edition Bible? No? So let me get this right. We are suppose to come up with our own interpretation to a Book (that has been translated and revised to how many languages God knows how many times) that is composed of many men's already interpretted version of God's word? Then we are suppose to live our lives and fashion our beliefs from the knowledge we glean? Does anyone ever remember playing the telephone game?

- KitNyx

 

[Balerion]

Ok, so let me get this straight...

the purpose isn't to establish an archaelogical record (what use would that have?), but to establish a structure. The structure and order of creation was imposed and systematic, just like the "7 day week" structure of time in our calendars is imposed. It has no natural basis for existing.

...God didn't mean six days? Then why does it say six days? And why did he tell us that we should keep the seventh holy? After all, that was the day he rested, wasn't it? I don't see the purpose of connecting six solar days to the creation when it doesn't really mean six days. And why would we keep the seventh day holy? Why not attribute it to how long it "really" took? I mean, God is never ending, so if it took 8 billion years, why not tell us to keep the 8 billionth year holy?

You say that it has no natural basis for existing, yet it was God's word. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to believe that six days was intended to mean anything other than six days. And part of my reasoning behind that is, again, that we are told by God himself to keep the seventh day holy. Specifically the seventh day. Not the sixth, but the day he rested.

JD (Not a theist)

 

[KitNyx]

JD - Good point. That was so blaringly obvious that I never even thought about it...

- KitNyx

 

[Bridge]

KitNyx,

You have a valid point. At least on the interpretive questions. As for the translations and revisions, I really don't think anything drastic has changed. The Bible is not only biggest best seller ever but also the most scrutinized book ever. Sure, you'll find varying opinions on its contents, no surprise there. It isn't like most rational people think God just extended his arm down from the sky and laid a copy of the King James version down and belowed "Here ya go, here's the Bible!"

If you want to get a little overview of some the interpretive differences between different groups of Christians I suggest you read this brief primer.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_inte.htm

 

[KitNyx]

Yes, but the vatican is has documents, artifacts, artwork, etc. that should be the property of man as a species, locked away in their vaults. The vatican will gladly show you old versions of the Bible, but only the ones they want us to see. New books are found and if they cannot be locked away the vatican calls them heresy.

So I agree, the Bible has been scrutized by countless people over the centuries, but I still hold firm in my belief that the vatican will only show what it wants people to believe.

- KitNyx

 

[Bridge]

Yes, but the vatican is has documents, artifacts, artwork, etc. that should be the property of man as a species, locked away in their vaults. The vatican will gladly show you old versions of the Bible, but only the ones they want us to see.

I don't think the Vatican has a problem with showing older versions of the Bible. They certainly have a vested interest in keeping some of their other documents, like the personal files and letters of the Popes and high ranking church members under lock and key.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by KitNyx
... I still hold firm in my belief that the vatican will only show what it wants people to believe.

Is it based on anythything?

 

[KitNyx]

"Biblical scholar Anthony Tambasco, a professor of theology at Georgetown University in Washington, was eager to explore the site, given that the church highly restricts access to the library, even for scholars. His initial impression was that the site was difficult to navigate and its offerings were frustratingly limited.
For instance, only one page from the rare "B" version of the "Codex Vaticanus" Bible is available online. And although much of the site is in English and other languages, large portions of it -- including an enticing section called "Vatican Secret Archives" -- are only in Italian.
"This is not of much use to scholars," he said. "It's more like a museum exhibit.""
- http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2002/11/01.html

http://www.vatican.va/library_archi...ocs/documents/vsa_doc_10121999_regeng_en.html

I just ran a quick search and found these, I'll see what else I can find. Also, I would like to tone down the comments I made about the Vatican and the Church I was letting my personal feeling and biases influence objective thought. Thank you for setting me straight. On the Vatican site mentioned above I also found a PDF file that was a legal disclosure informing would be researchers that "documents marked with a single * are available to researchers, ducuments marked with two ** are not." If they are so secure in their correctness, why would they not make all documents available to the public?

Other interesting sites:

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Forged.html
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/infal.html

- KitNyx

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by KitNyx
Back to the point - I just want to clarify, the Bible is literally the word of God, but it is not meant to be read literally? If that is the case, how do you know what is the best interpretation, or is that for each of us to decide? What if your interpretation is not what God meant? Do any of you speak Aramaic or even Hebrew? Do you have a first edition Bible? No? So let me get this right. We are suppose to come up with our own interpretation to a Book (that has been translated and revised to how many languages God knows how many times) that is composed of many men's already interpretted version of God's word? Then we are suppose to live our lives and fashion our beliefs from the knowledge we glean? Does anyone ever remember playing the telephone game?

Some things are open to interpretation, others are not. Like JD says: the Bible meant the seventh day to be the day of rest, not the "seventh era" or something. That's from a Biblical perspective. But the Biblical intention might or might not fit with the archaelogical perspective.

There is no "first edition" of the Bible - it consists out of collected documents from Judaism, the apostles, disciples and early Christians. Most versions of the Bible have only been translated once. I have no affiliation with the Vatican, and the Bible in my native language has been translated by scholars using the oldest, most accurate extant manuscripts and modern translation techniques available. I've never seen a King James Bible anywhere other than the internet.

Interpretation is not based on the words alone. The Jewish tradition is alive and well, and that informs the Old Testament quite well. Christianity is based on a living faith - it did not arise out of scripture, but from the life of the man Jesus. There is not danger that a mistake might have slipped in. Everything important is avaliable from different books in the Bible, from different perspectives, and under different circumstances. The more you read, the more you understand - but it stops there if you don't make it part of your life and thoughts.

The Bible itself is just the first and the last word in a Christian's life. Everything inbetween determines whether you really are in a relationship with God or not. The Bible or Laws don't replace the its intention: to make you aware of God and start living in a proper relationship with Him. The Bible itself is not God, and neither are we. We need God and we need guidance - and we have both.

 

[Jenyar]

originally posted by JDawg
...God didn't mean six days? Then why does it say six days? And why did he tell us that we should keep the seventh holy? After all, that was the day he rested, wasn't it? I don't see the purpose of connecting six solar days to the creation when it doesn't really mean six days. And why would we keep the seventh day holy? Why not attribute it to how long it "really" took? I mean, God is never ending, so if it took 8 billion years, why not tell us to keep the 8 billionth year holy?

You say that it has no natural basis for existing, yet it was God's word. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to believe that six days was intended to mean anything other than six days. And part of my reasoning behind that is, again, that we are told by God himself to keep the seventh day holy. Specifically the seventh day. Not the sixth, but the day he rested.

You'll remember that I said "I only "know" what the Hebrew scholars understand from the words - that with "days" it means "days", and therefore agree with you that there is no other interpretation but the literal one. But the literal meaning for our benefit. Does it make a difference whether God took 7 seconds, 7 weeks or 7 billion years? Would we be able to comprehend it anyway? But we can comprehend a 7 day week, with light and darkness separating the days, and every seventh day dedicated to God, like He dedicated the first six to us. God didn't need to rest, but He did - as another act of creation. And it has shaped our lives to this day. A "week" of 8000 years would hardly have affected our lives, or much represented God's authority over time and creation. God did not create the universe in seven days for His own convenience - He could have taken as much time as He wanted to. What would be "holy" (dedicated to God) about "every 8 billion years"?

Don't forget that people even now can't really comprehend 8 billion years. We couldn't even figure out a working calendar until quite recently, what to say "keeping" every x thousandth year. The week was a practical institution. I said it has no natural basis for existing, no astrological or even logical basis - its only basis is God's word which is only understandable by reasoning, not science. You can't scientifically prove a week exists, yet it does.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
You'll remember that I said "I only "know" what the Hebrew scholars understand ...

What pretentious hypocrisy! With which Hebrew scholars are you familiar?

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
The week was a practical institution. I said it has no natural basis for existing, no astrological or even logical basis - its only basis is God's word which is only understandable by reasoning, not science.

Really?

Seven played an exceptionally important role in antiquity. It was sacred to Semitic and other peoples, including the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, and the Vedic folk in India. Its importance is often derived from the worship of the seven heavenly bodies: the sun, moon, and the five planets. It is also pointed out that the seven-day week was approximately a quarter of the lunar month (29 1/2 days), and that the Pleiades (Amos 5:8) were thought to comprise seven stars. Others see the origin of the number's prominence in the fact that it is composed of the sacred numbers three and four, or in the "unrelated" character of seven in the series one to ten. Like the Sumerians, the biblical writers often add seven to a large number to indicate a very big figure. U. Cassuto writes: "It clearly follows that the chronology of the Book of Genesis as a whole is also founded on the dual principle of the sexagesimal system and the addition of seven" (From Adam to Noah, in bibl., 259).

- Encyclopaedia Judaica

Jenyar-of-the-70-Books, you continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[Balerion]

Jenyar,

Consequentatheist just whooped your ass. But I'm gonna have to reply anyway.

But the literal meaning for our benefit. Does it make a difference whether God took 7 seconds, 7 weeks or 7 billion years? Would we be able to comprehend it anyway?

No, it makes no difference how long it took. What matters is what the Bible says. If the Bible said 7 seconds, weeks or billions of years, it would make no nevermind. But if it says 7 seconds, why would you interpret it any other way? If it said 7 weeks, why would you interpret it differently? If it said 7 billion years, why would you even consider a different number?

You take the life of Christ as only described in the Bible as you guide to life. You don't question his miracles, or his words. But somehow, you question the 7 days of creation. This appears to be another case of selective faith, which is something that all theists I've known have been guilty of. Which is it, Jenyar: 6 days or something else?

And I say that because I want you to think hard, and use your common sense, and tell me how many people you think questioned the 6 day creation story before the evidence of the earth's age came to light?

I've said it 7 billion times (or was it 7 hundred?)and I'll say it again, that you really don't know much of anything about your own religion. You had no idea about the importance of the number 7 to those people, or where JUST MAYBE the story origionated.

JD

 

[Jenyar]

origninally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What pretentious hypocrisy! With which Hebrew scholars are you familiar?

I based my assertion on the following quote by Prof. James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." (1984)

originally posted by JDawg
... tell me how many people you think questioned the 6 day creation story before the evidence of the earth's age came to light?

I don't know, the Egyptians believed in a 23 000 year history of gods and men - my guess is many people questioned it, yet still believed God created everything on his own terms. Look, I'll reduce my previous posts to a length you can follow: "[.I] agree with you that there is no other interpretation but the literal one". It is such an arbitrary number, that any other interpretation is just preference.

But there are arguments that indicate that the "day" yom also means a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours (How long an Evening and a morning), and especially The days of Genesis for those who can't read Hebrew. My position is that to be fanatical either way is to miss the point. The map is not the territory.

I've said it 7 billion times (or was it 7 hundred?)and I'll say it again, that you really don't know much of anything about your own religion. You had no idea about the importance of the number 7 to those people, or where JUST MAYBE the story origionated.

I know the significance seven had, thank you. I'm not naive enough to believe the Bible came from the Bible, but from culture and religion. The Hebrews did not worship the Pleiades or any heavenly bodies, they were forbidden to - they worshipped the Creator. But it still boils down to this: there is no scientific basis for the use of a seven-day week, yet despite everything we now know, we still keep one.

Actually, there are four views of the Biblical creation account. Knowing my faith, and knowing everything that has ever been said on a subject are two different things.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
I based my assertion on the following quote by Prof. James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford: ...

Based? Past tense? Or did you do a quick Google search afterwards?

Originally posted by Jenyar-of-the-70-Books
... there is no scientific basis for the use of a seven-day week, yet despite everything we now know, we still keep one.

So what? And what, if anything, does this have to do with your absurd assertion that "its only basis is God's word which is only understandable by reasoning, not science. "?

 

[atheroy]

so, jenyar, seeing you've perhaps commited to 6 days of creation, where does evolution, dinosaurs, the rest of the universe and anything else in nature fit into the biblic view of a week of creation? this should be in a different thread, but a reply here would be nice none the less (a reply fullstop to this question would be nice).

 

[Jenyar]

Oh, come on. Please read my posts again, slowly.

 

[ProCop]

RE: Cris

Even more confusing is why he would create all this history that includes all the evdience needed to show that it all arose from evolution.

If God created the world 6.000 years ago then "all this history" gives an individual the freedom not to believe in God - If God didn't give people the posibility of an alternative "creation" you would have been forced to believe in him.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: RE: Cris

Originally posted by ProCop
If God created the world 6.000 years ago then "all this history" gives an individual the freedom not to believe in God - If God didn't give people the posibility of an alternative "creation" you would have been forced to believe in him.

That explanation is a bit simplistic. In my opinion, "history" is what happened, but there are different approaches into finding out and describing what happened. We can discover everything and still not find God, so people like to use their constructed history against the Biblically constructed history - because the Bible is the most exposed target.

But God is not trapped in the Bible. It isn't a little box containing all that He is. Differing from the Bible might teach us something about what we know and don't know, but it doesn't touch God. The Bible doesn't say anything about early hominids, but does that mean God didn't know about them, or that ancients didn't know about them? We are reminded every day how far out of reach God is from our understanding. Genesis describes six days of creation so that we have some idea of how God created. From God's perspective, it was six days, and He wanted it to be understood that way - I won't be surprised if I find out one day that it was the most accurate way of describing an otherwise incomprehensible process. I think of it as a model - we just aren't certain what the scale is, 1:1 or 1:6 billion. It shouldn't matter. We should have a vested interest in finding and describing the truth of things - not in attacking different views and opinions.

The Bible has proven itself as a valid source of hope and guidance, it describes many encounters with God by truthful and honest people. That I can be a rational, truthful and honest person by being brought up and raised by its principles and message is to me confirmation enough that it protects something that should have been protected without it.

God is not in His creation and will never be. He is its creator who rules over and through it.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

We should have a vested interest in finding and describing the truth of things

And herein lies the essential difference between religionists and non-religionists; how does one determine what is truth and what is not? The informed non-believer looks predominantly to science, but the religionists cannot use science since that discipline doesn’t prove what they want.

But the theists have no interest in finding truth since they believe they have already found it; they call it God.

not in attacking different views and opinions.

Why not? If I strongly believe you are wrong then I will oppose you. You are looking for the idealistic condition of universal consensus. It isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

The Bible has proven itself as a valid source of hope and guidance,

I’m not sure that the word ‘valid’ is appropriate. Until you can show that what the bible says is true then it may well be a source of false hope and misguidance.

it describes many encounters with God by truthful and honest people.

Correction: Claimed encounters. We don’t know that such events are not just simple delusions.

 

[Balerion]

The Bible doesn't say anything about early hominids, but does that mean God didn't know about them, or that ancients didn't know about them?

"The Ancients?" Are you saying that "The Ancients" and Hominids were around at the same time? See, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like you just said hominids were not a predecessor to modern human.

I won't be surprised if I find out one day that it was the most accurate way of describing an otherwise incomprehensible process.

No, what it describes is the universe being created in six days. Period. Tell me, what part of calling 6 bajillion years "6 days" is accurate? And how is telling the truth incomprehensible? First of all, we're dealing with God here - the ulitmate incomprehensibility - and you're considering that he's making things easy on those who heard his story? Please!

think of it as a model - we just aren't certain what the scale is, 1:1 or 1:6 billion. It shouldn't matter.

Why shouldn't it? It's supposedly the word of God, so how does it not matter? In an earlier post, you called the actual timeframe of Creation "a matter of preference," but I can't see it. Either you believe you or don't. It says 6 days, so what makes you think he meant anything other than 6 days? Don't call it preference, because if you decide that one of God's words can be taken whichever way you like, then what's to stop you from taking all of his words which ever way you like?

Maybe when he said "Thou shalt not kill," he was only referring to the people in that region? Who's to say?

The Bible has proven itself as a valid source of hope and guidance

...for weak-minded people. If your family and friends aren't enough hope, or you can't draw guidance from the people around you who know more than you do, then you are flat-out ignorant. Weak, ignorant people.

it describes many encounters with God by truthful and honest people.

I want to know how you, a man/woman living in the year 2003, has any idea whatsoever of the merit of the men who wrote the passages of the Bible! How do you know? How can you have any idea at all of thier intentions? How do you, personally, know that they were honest people?? I want an answer, Jenyar!

That I can be a rational, truthful and honest person by being brought up and raised by its principles and message is to me confirmation enough that it protects something that should have been protected without it.

Well, I know many people who are truthful, honest, and rational without the principles of God at any point in their life. And as for you being rational...well...you're not.

God is not in His creation and will never be. He is its creator who rules over and through it.

Is that a threat?

JD