Kiss of death imo.

There is a verse in the NT that says the spirit is not to be bound by the letter. I'll post it if I can find it. Its in the CEV translation.

I suspect the creation stories were deliberately nebulous on God's part. He just wanted to state he'd done it. He knew all along we didn't have the science to fully understand it and wouldn't have it for a really long time.

We find God rather sketchy today. But if he'd confided how he'd done everything 4,000 years ago it would have looked like science fiction to them.

You pay a price either way: by too much specificity or the lack thereof therefore FAITH is required.

I'm glad you agree on the sketchiness of god. This is the only sentence within your post that makes any sense to me.

I believe you are saying it was nice of him not to overwhelm out ancient buddies with the truth, although that might have been a turning point in his sketchiness. A bit like parents telling their kids stalks delivered them onto their doorstep, is this what your getting at?

Its not a science text. Its the book of salvation.

I think he intended we focus on salvation a lot more than science hence we have moral and spiritual codes provided in great detail rather than scientific laws laid out like recipe books.

I found an explanation the other day that explained ancient Hebrew sacrificial practices and how Christ's sacrifice replaced them. Very interesting. I doubt most Christians have ever heard this parallel. We definitely have gaps in our knowledge. But were the gaps intended so we focus on the major thing being done?

i haven't really been following this thread, but your comment about day 7 being unfinished struck me as odd from a theist...wouldnt someone who takes the story literally (7th day is unfinished) be a deist? god set everything going, but is not off resting somewhere?

Nah, it's just inaccurate. "Fully literal" would imply a 24-hour "day". Which would have ended ~6000 years ago. He's trying to show off I think. It's sort of cute.

I think that what he is referring to, and he can correct me if I am wrong, is that it says that God rested on the seventh day from creating. Meaning that he is not longer still creating parts of the universe or life or anything else that was done in the previous "days".

There are many Christians that believe that we are currently in the 7th day. Not meaning that God is not doing anything but meaning that he is not currently creating anything new.

Why is it that in order to take the bible literally, you have to believe 7 24-hour days?

If you believe that the word Yom in this context meant "long period of time", then by taking the bible literally you would believe exactly what he just said.

So what you are saying makes no sense at all.

If I said "in the day of the dinosaur", am I literally saying that dinosaurs on lived for one day? No, I am literally referring to the time in which the dinosaurs lived.

Because that is what the word 'literal' means.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literal

Y'know, as opposed to 'figurative'.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/figurative

Enjoy!

seriously, do you even read what you write? saying "the day" and "first day, 2nd day, 3rd day, etc" are completely different.

Here are the multiple meanings of the word yom as used in the bible:

day, time, year

1. day (as opposed to night)
2. day (24 hour period)
1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b
3. a working day, a day's journey
4. days, lifetime (pl.)
5. time, period (general)
6. year
7. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow

Most people who study hebrew and the bible have agreed that "day" as used in genesis 1 refers to a 24hr period. Just because its used as a "time, period" in other places doesn't mean you can just assume it is in genesis 1 to fit your own interpretation and world view.

So, even though you disagree with theists from other religions, you still respect their moral system more than an atheist's simply because they made up a deity to dictate morals to them??

That is UTTERLY ridiculous.

There are many bible scholars that would disagree with you. And there is much evidence to support that the word Yom was NOT used to indicate a 24-hour period.

Do you do any research into what you are saying at all? Or do you just assume that you are right about everything and that when someone disagrees THEY are the one that is manipulating scripture to fit their world view?

I am sorry, does everything have to be spelled out for you like you are a child?

None of this matters because we are discussing a 'literal' interpretation. I suggest you use your new-found knowledge of that word's meaning to bring fresh insight to the issue.

Looks like it. Tell me like I was a six-year-old.

But we can agree that a great deal of conflict would go away if religion went away correct?

Again we agree that religion is divisive. This divisiveness leads to conflict... I'm assuming you think this conflict is necessary or God's will and I think its nonsense. Is this where we part ways?

I don't recommend exploring him further. He is a pretty influential religious person but there are worse characters.

Haven't most wars in the history of man been started in the name of religion? That really isn't something to shrug at even if religious wars came in second to territorial wars. It's a major source of conflict and I think you can agree.

On a side note... what do you think of leaders that pray for guidance when entertaining the idea of going to war. A perfect example would be Bush and Iraq:

source

Isn't this an instance of inspiration from God to start conflict? Iraq being a needless conflict?

Here is a short essay on the creation days. There are many many more to back up what I am saying.

CLICK HERE

Now tell me why he is so obviously wrong. And then please provide a link why the text must indicate 7 24-hour days.

Just because God is "resting" it doesn't imply that God is "sitting on his butt doing nothing." God "blessed" the 7th day, which is still an activity and a way of interacting with his creation.

When people read the Bible in ways that the author didn't intend, you can reach all sorts of screwy conclusions.

Is this what I have claimed? Stop being asinine.

doesnt this mean that the bible should be read in a literal fashion? because if we don't read it the way its written and we give it a subjective/figurative translation then we could get "screwy conclusions?"

the problem with a literal discussion is that the old testament is being translated from biblical hebrew to english. biblical hebrew hasn't been used since 500 bce.

biblical hebrew didn't use any vowels, which can make translating very difficult.

The author? As in singular? Who exactly do you think authored the Bible? And what do you mean by "read the Bible in ways that the author didn't intend". How exactly did this "author" of the Bible intend it to be read? Is it ok for it to be read using braille? I will assume you are referring to "misinterpretations" of the Bible as you understand them to be. Do you think that when writing the books and letters cobbled together in the old testament the various authors realised their writings would be included in the "Bible" and subsequently translated and often mistranslated and reproduced over centuries to come?

Aside from all of this who are you to tell anybody what way the Bible is to be interpreted or not? Surely those priests who founded the early organised sects of humanity believed in genesis as the literal world of God, that he really did abracadabra the world in 7 days. were they reading the Bible in the way the "authors" wished it to be read?

These issues and many more are all great reasons that modern societies should not base their world views and moral decisions on 2-3000 year old writings which reflect the knowledge and wisdom(or lack there of) of the authors at the time.

do you think humans would stop killing and raping each other if religion never existed?

We can agree that religious conflict would go away if there were no religion. This is like saying that there would be no knife stabbings if there were no knives.

Conflict is a consequence of man's sinful nature. Man's sinful nature is a statement of man's rejection of God and the reality that we were designed for. The original rejection of God by man: he wanted to "be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3). Since all that was created around man up that point was already good, this meant that man acquainted himself with evil in that action. He first knew conflict with God (by disobedience) and then created conflict with others (by blaming Eve), and so on.

"Religion" is also a consequence of man's sinful nature. If man had not rejected God, then there would be no reason for "religion." "Religion" is some attempt to figure out the meaning and purpose of our existence (if meaning and purpose even exist). But if we were in a right relationship with God, then we would not be asking that question because we would know the answer (since we would fully and properly know the One who created us).

This whole business about "God's will" probably lies more in your head than in the Bible. So we definitely part ways there. As for the rest of it, I hope I at least somewhat addressed your question by clarifying the terms "conflict" and "religion" a little bit.

And for the other comments, you're still playing the scapegoat game.

basically the point of that whole essay is that the things listed could not have happened in 24 hour periods (like plants sprouting). So basically, when its convenient for Christians for God to use his power to defy physics/logic/reason then it is so, otherwise it isn't. are you denying that its not possible for God to have done these things in 1, 24 hour period? Is the only reason you don't think that "yom" should be interpreted as 24hr periods is because the scientific evidence doesn't support it? So when do you decide to let science dictate your biblical interpretation and when do you not.

Finally, this whole site is made to show why one interpretation could be shown to support the old-earth creationist world view. Rich Deem is not an expert in Hebrew or anything related to that, so why would you trust his view point? Do you not find it interesting that the footnote that he references:

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
yôm yom (Strong's H3117) (Strong's H3117)

1. day, time, year
1. day (as opposed to night)
2. day (24 hour period)
1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Regardless, there is no way that you can argue that a STRICT LITERAL READING of Genesis 1 refers to days as 24 hr periods.