7 days...simply not 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time.

[McQ]

My parents raised me to believe that the 7 days where God's days (Like 7,000 years or something like that).

That's why Noah lived to be like 900 or whatever, because God's days are longer or stuff things >_>

I wish I was raised by atheist parents -_-

Yep, have heard this kind of thing my whole life. Usually from people who have heard it from someone, who heard it from someone....on down the line. Problem is that it has no solid basis in the bible, and is pretty much used to try and bring reconciliation between christians and new scientific evidence for an old Earth and universe.

First time I ever heard it was from a girlfriend back in high school who was trying to justify her religious beliefs with things we were learning about geology then.

[yepimonfire]

I don't really understand how someone can be so in tune with the physical sciences AND believe that God created the world in 7 days.  

Are you sure the creation week he believes in is 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time?  I believe the fictional God created the universe in 7 days...simply not 7 consecutive 24 hour periods of time.




EDIT: Split from another thread - Tank

"and there was evening, and morning"......

the bible is referring to literal 24 hour days.
problem is a "day" is something WE created based on subjective reasoning. without the sun rising and setting, there is no day, and there is no morning or evening.

[yepimonfire]

Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information.  It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe.  The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas.  No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.

if this is the case, then nothing in the bible can be trusted. thats the problem i have with people trying to make bible verses something they aren't. if the bible is not presented as "fact", (aside from prophetic visions of course), then it cannot be accepted as a reliable source of information. you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.

[Sweetdeath]

Ugh, why do people take this poorly written book so seriously?

I found Homer's Odyssesy less confusing back in 8th grade.

[Sandra Craft]

you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.

I don't know, the host of problems only comes up when it is taken literally.  If it were agreed that it was one big metaphor,  a collection of myths and allegories, it would still have value for many people.  Myths and works of fiction often do, even when we know they aren't real.  Growing up, stories about King Arthur, Robin Hood and Zorro has a lot of meaning for me, and I think some influence on my thinking and character.

[Ateo]

Genesis 1 is often called a "creation hymn" because that's what it is: a hymn, a poem, a metaphor. It's not meant to convey literal, scientific information.  It was a poetic hymn honoring God for creating the universe.  The seven days do not relate to actual periods - they represent poetic stanzas.  No need to correlate it to science at all - it's a different genre of literature.

if this is the case, then nothing in the bible can be trusted. thats the problem i have with people trying to make bible verses something they aren't. if the bible is not presented as "fact", (aside from prophetic visions of course), then it cannot be accepted as a reliable source of information. you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.

yepimonfire,  Exactly .... you take it literally for what it says or it means whatever you want and has no value.

[yepimonfire]

you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.

I don't know, the host of problems only comes up when it is taken literally.  If it were agreed that it was one big metaphor,  a collection of myths and allegories, it would still have value for many people.  Myths and works of fiction often do, even when we know they aren't real.  Growing up, stories about King Arthur, Robin Hood and Zorro has a lot of meaning for me, and I think some influence on my thinking and character.

you're missing my point

you can't build a very solid religion if you take the whole bible as a big book of metaphors. christians all too often will take everything in the bible as fact, and the things that don't match up scientifically or logically automatically become non-literal, or metaphorical. i know, i used to be the one who did that. if you cant take the book literally, then it makes it hard to really figure out what you beleive in and it also makes the rest of the book questionable.

if the seven days of creation and the story of adam and eve is metaphorical or mythical, then maybe hell is a metaphor, perhaps a state of mind, maybe heaven is too. maybe jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that beleive.

[Ateo]

you either take it literally as it is or you dont, and if you dont, well then there is no point in even putting any value or meaning on it, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean, and that certainly causes a whole host of problems.

you're missing my point

you can't build a very solid religion if you take the whole bible as a big book of metaphors. christians all too often will take everything in the bible as fact, and the things that don't match up scientifically or logically automatically become non-literal, or metaphorical. i know, i used to be the one who did that. if you cant take the book literally, then it makes it hard to really figure out what you beleive in and it also makes the rest of the book questionable.

if the seven days of creation and the story of adam and eve is metaphorical or mythical, then maybe hell is a metaphor, perhaps a state of mind, maybe heaven is too. maybe jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that beleive.

If you don't mind, I'll use that whole reply as part of my response to "Why I'm an Atheist".  I would make one change to your last sentence ... "jesus only returns in the "hearts" of those that [have faith]"

[Heisenberg]

I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?

[Ali]

I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?

C'mon Heisenberg.  Everybody likes a lazy Sunday.

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?

Excellent question.  There is an excellent answer.  Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction.  So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.

C'mon Heisenberg.  Everybody likes a lazy Sunday.

Sunday? 

[Ali]

I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?

Excellent question.  There is an excellent answer.  Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction.  So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.

How about you just tell us what you think?  Seems a lot more condusive to conversation than this kind of cryptic "there is a really good answer, but I'm not going to tell you."

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm surprised no one has asked why it took this omnipotent being 6 whole days to create the universe. Unless this being had recently come into existence, it should have been planning our existence for quite a while. Creation should have been instantaneous, no? And why in FSM's name would it require a 7th day to rest?

Excellent question.  There is an excellent answer.  Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction.  So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.

How about you just tell us what you think?  Seems a lot more condusive to conversation than this kind of cryptic "there is a really good answer, but I'm not going to tell you."

To start debating a "creation week" you're automatically giving creationism some credibility. It seems to me, all of the points brought up by creationists are about academic questions, like this one, that prove nothing, go nowhere.

I have to quote or rather paraphrase Hitchens, 'there is no debate with creationism, it's over, it was over in the middle of the 20th century.'

Creationism lost, the debate is over.

Who really wants the answer?

[Ali]

Okay, or not.  *shrugs*  I just don't see that there is much to debate then.

[Heisenberg]

Excellent question.  There is an excellent answer.  Of course the deluded answer may be found in that piece of fiction.  So if you really are curious, it is there for the finding.

Every passage from the bible that I have ever read that didn't deal strictly with obvious issues of morality (like gems such as 'dont kill people' and 'honor your parents') I have found ridiculous. So no, I'm not going to read it. If you made a point about evolution that I disagreed with I wouldn't tell you to go read Origin of Species, I would tell you what I disagreed with. We are trying to have a discussion here, so if you want to back up your point I'll be waiting.