toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

[keypurr]

How do we know that the light he created came from the sun.
The sun came latter. That seems like a big assumption to me.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You saying six billion years proves you don't believe him.

I think of this when people say they are Christian, then say God is a liar in the same breath.


Matthew 12:34

34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.




Ignorant of that the iphone would be invented one day. But much more knowledgable of everything else.



It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. That is my point.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

It proves nothing of the sort. I believe created every bit as much as you do, we differ on the time scale. Besides, you don't take every word in the bible literally either so quiet being a jerk when people don't agree with your interpretations.

By the way, please provide your scriptural support for claiming that somebody who does not believe in a six day creation is unrepentant and unsaved.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Same question. How does a particular style of writing rule out the historicity of the contents?

I gave one example. A parable isn't meant to be historical. A metaphor isn't meant to be taken literally. Christ didn't literally mean that the men he called vipers were snakes, by way of one example.

Same question. Parables have explanations that come along with the parables.

Sure, but my point wasn't that they didn't.

Their details are directly mappable onto teaching concepts. How do the details of Genesis map onto clear teaching concepts. If God does not mean the following items as they are presented, what do they mean instead?

As a means of illustrating that creation was the direct result of divine will, that God is the author of law and being.

Genesis 1

1. The earth was without form, and void.
2. Darkness was on the face of the deep.

1. 
   What do you think that means? How can the earth be without form and exist? What is the deep? We didn't see it created in this telling but there it is.
   
   

   [*]The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
   [*]God divided the light from the darkness.

   Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be comingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.
   
   

   [*]God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
   [*]God called the firmament Heaven.
   [*]The waters under the heavens .. gathered together into one place
   [*]God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.

   Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.
   
   

   Evolutionists don't just get to assert their opinion as if a weird idea has the same value as understanding the plain teaching of the bible. The bible is explicit, creation took six days.

   I'm not approaching this considering the proposition of evolution. I'm approaching it from a literary perspective. It doesn't look like a literal set out to me. It looks like a poetic illustration of the hand of God in the formation/creation of all that is.
   
   

   If the evolutionist wants to insist that six days means something else,

   I don't see that you'd have to be an evolutionist to believe that six days aren't literal, but I can certainly understand why someone who believed in evolution as methodology would need to see it otherwise.
   
   

   he has to give good reason. And that good reason has to come from scripture.

   It does in the existence of non literal literary devices that underscore essential truths and principles. In this case, that everything that is owes its existence and willful formation to the authority and desire of God.
   
   

   The only other rational (in a limited sense) path to take is to reject the plain teaching of the bible.

   That's a conclusion in search of an argument, because it doesn't just follow.
   
   

   So, please. At least be rational.

   I think that's a reasonable request.
   
   

   Then when shown good reason, you might be convinced rather than having other arguments to hide within.

   You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt...not the best selling point, especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading. In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.

 

[resurrected]

You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt...not the best selling point, especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading. In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.

Maybe Stripe's not all that concerned with your foppish opinion and overrated estimation of your abilities :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

I assume Sod is doing the charge at my back sort of thing...if so, would that you had been that brave when you knew I could read you. :chuckle: If not, my apologies. You've surprised me.

But I wouldn't bet the house on having to apologize. You need a new obsession...the truth, maybe. :thumb:

 

[resurrected]

I've got you on ignore, I've got you on ignore, I do, I do, I do :baby:

What a weak little mess you are :nono:

 

[Town Heretic]

Sod/ resodded:

Same bet. I didn't address you and gave up reading you when all you'd post was insulting, childish nonsense. This last post note following on the heels of my bet gives me to believe I was right the first time and you're just spewing.

EDIT: took you off again to see if I owed the apology or was right. I should have bet money. But from here on out I'm going to keep you visible and report every trolling bit you do.

EDIT 2: No, probably not. That would mean spending too much time on it.

Stripe:

Any time you want to discuss this further I'm curious/interested. I'm not even hostile to a literal interpretation, given I believe in the miraculous. I just don't see the need to read it that way or the threat to Christendom from seeing it as poetic license with a real underpinning.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

I gave one example. A parable isn't meant to be historical. A metaphor isn't meant to be taken literally. Christ didn't literally mean that the men he called vipers were snakes, by way of one example.

Which is to say exactly nothing in response to me. Jesus spoke with meaning and intent and He clearly explained that meaning and intent.

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 12:34
Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 23:33
Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? ​

We know the Pharisees and Sadducees weren't animals because the meaning of the passage is clearly explained. Where is the clear meaning of Genesis 1 if not in the words plainly given?

If Genesis 1 is to be read in the same way, what do its details mean if they do not mean what they exactly say. What do these mean:

Genesis 1

1. The earth was without form, and void.
2. Darkness was on the face of the deep.
3. The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
4. God divided the light from the darkness.
5. God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
6. God called the firmament Heaven.
7. The waters under the heavens .. gathered together into one place
8. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.
9. the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.
10. God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
11. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.
12. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
13. God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.
14. God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
15. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
16. God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Pick a number. Tell us what it really means and tell us why it doesn't mean what it plainly says like "brood of vipers" doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Sure, but my point wasn't that they didn't.

Sure, they did.

Matthew 13:18
[ The Parable of the Sower Explained ] “Therefore hear the parable of the sower:

Matthew 13:36
[ The Parable of the Tares Explained ] Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

Mark 4:13
[ The Parable of the Sower Explained ] And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?

Mark 4:34
But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

Luke 8:11
[ The Parable of the Sower Explained ] “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.​

Jesus explained what He meant when He spoke in parables. What does Genesis 1 mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says? Where is the explanation? Are you just going to make one up? Pick a number. Tell us what it means if it does not mean what it plainly says.

As a means of illustrating that creation was the direct result of divine will, that God is the author of law and being.

And this renders it a non-historical account, how?

What do you think that means? How can the earth be without form and exist?

I don't know. I have an idea. How does my ignorance render Genesis 1 non-historical?

What is the deep?

The ocean. :duh:

We didn't see it created in this telling but there it is.

And this renders the Genesis account non-historical, how?

Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be comingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.

Repeating the fact that Genesis 1 is poetry is not helping your case. It is of a poetic form. What I want to know is how a style of writing makes the content of the writing necessarily non-historical. Certainly there are many other places in the bible that use the same poetic forms that describe real events.

Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?

Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.

You seem intent on mocking Genesis. What we want you to do is explain what these things mean if they do not mean what they plainly say.

I'm not approaching this considering the proposition of evolution. I'm approaching it from a literary perspective. It doesn't look like a literal set out to me. It looks like a poetic illustration of the hand of God in the formation/creation of all that is.

Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?

It does in the existence of non literal literary devices that underscore essential truths and principles. In this case, that everything that is owes its existence and willful formation to the authority and desire of God.

Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?

That's a conclusion in search of an argument, because it doesn't just follow.

Until you are able to give good reason why we should not accept that Genesis means what it plainly says, there are two rational routes to take.

1. Accept the Genesis account as it is plainly written.
2. Reject the Genesis account.

Trying to make Genesis mean something other than what it plainly says requires some very careful and convincing reasons. Telling us it is poetry is not a good or convincing reason.

You should probably lose the unreasonable inference and cowardly suggestion. It doesn't actually make a point except that you hold other opinions in some degree of contempt

Sounds like I well communicated what I think. :up:

not the best selling point

Not trying to make money.

especially if you run into someone who has a different reason but might be open to considering your reading.

Nothing I say can stop a rational person considering rationally what I say.

In my experience few people are made more and many are made less likely to approach someone in the process of insulting them with an eager curiosity.

This is your argument?

Maybe Stripe's not all that concerned with your foppish opinion and overrated estimation of your abilities :idunno:

:think:

:up:

But then TH has a sharp mind. Perhaps he can see past my "insults" and come up with something substantial to contribute. :thumb:

 

[resurrected]

But then TH has a sharp mind. Perhaps he can see past my "insults" and come up with something substantial to contribute. :thumb:

When has he ever? :idunno:



Unless by "substantial" you mean reams of empty rhetoric posing as "reasoned argumentation"

 

[resurrected]

I am fully on board with Stripe on this one.

I do agree that there are a great many devoted, saved Christians who do not believe in a six day creation and even many who believe God caused creation to happen through evolution.

Still

I believe that this belief has caused generations of people to doubt that the Bible is true!

Good post Del!

You got kat's POTD!

 

[Stripe]

When has he ever? :idunno:

When you say that much you gotta eventually get something right.

 

[resurrected]

I suppose :idunno:

Lately I don't bother reading past all the cleverness and self congratulation

 

[StanJ53]

Comments.

Comments.

Just a few comments for you about your post.

What do you think that means? How can the earth be without form and exist? What is the deep? We didn't see it created in this telling but there it is.

I think it means exactly what God wanted to communicate through Moses. In the beginning God made the earth, v1, and He made it out of what it is now but completely engulfed in water.

Divided? Light and darkness aren't a thing to be co-mingled then separated. I only mean by this to point out that we're already seeing a poetic, non literal device in play.

If you assume it was co-mingled, but that's not indicated prior to v3 happening. God put the architecture in place, then ran the wiring, so-to-speak. What you refer to as poetic and non-literal was not needed with Moses and his people. They quite frankly just believed and accepted that is what God did. Today, some 7000 years later, our brain has developed to the point, where we seem to need to be able to make sense of this in our still limited human capacity of understanding, before we will acquiesce to it's truth. I think it needs to be viewed with the same child like faith Jesus spoke about.

Why would God name anything at this point? Names are only points of reference, symbols traded between limited intelligences so as to make a common point of reference for communication. Language itself doesn't make much sense at this juncture.

I'm not sure it was at THIS point, but Moses is relaying history as related to him by God. I am convinced that God is nothing if not succinct. He has no need to explain Himself. Again, child like faith is required.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I believe that its 6 days, but 6 days meaning 6000 years.

Both David in the OT and Peter in the NT make reference that a day to God is as a 1000 years. So i believe that its possible each day of creation took 1000 years.

It also makes sense to me like that because God told Adam that the "day" he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in that "day" he would surely die.

Well adam lived to just under 1000 years, so in that "day" he indeed surely died both spiritually and physically.

Satans lies are like tricks, they are deceptive, satan said to eve that no she would not surely die that day and her and adam did not die in that 24 hour day, but they did die that day if what david and peter said is literally true.

I allow for myself to be wrong on this and believe that it could also be 6 -24 hour days as well, but i believe 1000 year days is more likely since it covers scripture that makes no sense entirely to me unless its that way.

Either way i believe in a young earth and the canopy theory.

 

[Town Heretic]

Which is to say exactly nothing in response to me.

That's not true, Stripe. I noted that the Bible uses a variety of literary devices that aren't literal or historical.

Jesus spoke with meaning and intent and He clearly explained that meaning and intent.

That's not responsive to my point. The debate is over whether Genesis is being literal and whether it is necessarily so. I don't see it and I told you why.

If Genesis 1 is to be read in the same way, what do its details mean if they do not mean what they exactly say. What do these mean:

I literally answered you directly on the point. It is readable as a poetic account representing the authority and authorship of creation by God.

Sure, they did.

Not relevant to my point, as I explained prior and above.

Jesus explained what He meant when He spoke in parables. What does Genesis 1 mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

Answered directly prior and again above.

And this renders it a non-historical account, how?

That assumes the literal/historical, which is the point of contention to begin with. I asked a couple of questions to note the poetic that doesn't appear aimed at a literal, let alone scientific understanding.

I don't know. I have an idea. How does my ignorance render Genesis 1 non-historical?

I didn't say it did. I just asked you a reasonable question that you can't reasonably answer. I can't either unless I consider it, again, as the poetic illustration of a larger principle of God's authority and power. When I have two ways of seeing a thing and only one that affords me a reasoned explanation, I lean toward the one with support.

And Genesis speaks to me as poetry, in the formation/creation of what is. As science it doesn't. As a literal accounting it leaves me, as it did you, scratching my head. But how God accomplished it is less important to me than that He accomplished it, which either reading attests to.

The ocean. :duh:

Thanks. Where'd it come from in that literal spelling out of how things arrived?

Repeating the fact that Genesis 1 is poetry is not helping your case.

"I don't know" isn't doing much for yours. But if you don't want repetition stop asking the same question. Because that's what you did.

Certainly there are many other places in the bible that use the same poetic forms that describe real events.

Specific and real events? What do you have in mind. I'd like to look at that.

Do you have any good reasons or are you just going to repeat non sequiturs?

It wasn't a non sequitur. And I only repeat my point because you keep rearranging the same inquiry. Again, that's easily fixed.

You seem intent on mocking Genesis.

Only if you're stupid. I don't think you're stupid. But you're obviously so accustomed to a hostile and equally entrenched objection that you're jumping to a conclusion that isn't in line with the offering.

No, the point was serious. The contention is the literal. I made my general observation on the poetic. You appeared to want specifics. You've asked for them. I gave you the first and you didn't have an answer, which I appreciate as an honest response, even if unhelpful for me in moving any closer to your understanding. I give you another point that's simply a logical observation, if we're to take this literally. Why is God naming things when language itself should be meaningless. He knows what He has created. He isn't going to be confused on a point. And who is He going to speak with who would be?

Literally speaking, he'll let Adam name things later. That makes sense. At this point it doesn't.

What we want you to do is explain what these things mean if they do not mean what they plainly say.

I did. If a thing isn't literal it isn't going to have a literal parallel. It means that God is the author of everything. Why isn't every love song just "I love you" with a different melody?

I omit your ongoing habit of proclaiming non sequitur without establishing it beyond that attestation.

Until you are able to give good reason why we should not accept that Genesis means what it plainly says,

False premise. It reads, but you interject the plainly says business. That's the point of discussion.

there are two rational routes to take.

Accept the Genesis account as it is plainly written.
Reject the Genesis account.

Another false premise and conclusion. You can accept it as being meant to be literally taken or you can take it as poetic license illustrating a larger foundational truth.

Trying to make Genesis mean something other than what it plainly says requires some very careful and convincing reasons. Telling us it is poetry is not a good or convincing reason.

It's actually more convincing if you can't answer fairly obvious questions reasonably raised, while the alternative doesn't have that particular problem.

Sounds like I well communicated what I think. :up:

That's too bad then.

Not trying to make money.

Look if this is just a blog for you with interruptions and you don't care about altering anyone's opinion through discourse and reason that's your call. But it's a peculiar habit.

Nothing I say can stop a rational person considering rationally what I say.

Which is why teachers routinely insult their students before a lesson? You're wrong. How you go about your testimony impacts how people view it and how they listen to you. That's human nature. If someone who isn't wedded to a particular view but has a leaning for a number of reasons asks you why you think what you do and you offer insult as part of your method where no insult (rather, interest instead) has been proffered, you don't put yourself or your argument in its best frame.

Why would anyone who has something they consider important to say do that?

This is your argument?

That's your counter/answer?

[Sod leaps upon an opportunity to offer insult]

think:

:up:

That's too bad also.

But then TH has a sharp mind. Perhaps he can see past my "insults" and come up with something substantial to contribute. :thumb:

Maybe you'll see past that chip at some point and realize you were being approached by someone who was both friendly and curious.

Or maybe you won't. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

the Bible uses a variety of literary devices that aren't literal or historical.

Agreed. How does this make Genesis non-historical?

That's not responsive to my point.

I'm not responding to anything you say. I'm asking you to justify your opinion. You claim Genesis does not mean what it plainly says. Show us why this opinion is reasonable.

It is readable as a poetic account representing the authority and authorship of creation by God.

That's great. How does this make Genesis non-historical?

That a passage is poetry does not mean it cannot be historical. You need to drop this argument. It's dead in the water.

Not relevant to my point

So suddenly when you're shown wrong it's not relevant? Parables are explained. Where is the explanation for Genesis if it is the same thing?

That assumes the literal/historical, which is the point of contention to begin with.

False premise. It reads, but you interject the plainly says business. That's the point of discussion.

Another false premise and conclusion. You can accept it as being meant to be literally taken or you can take it as poetic license illustrating a larger foundational truth.

Which might be a reasonable objection if the content of Genesis were not so explicitly clear. It says "Six days". If you want that to mean something else it is incumbent upon you to show good reason for your alternative meaning. I need not provide anything to support the fact that Genesis (and the rest of the bible) does indeed say "Six days".

You need good reason. Declaring Genesis to be poetry, which seems your only argument, is not good reason.

I asked a couple of questions to note the poetic that doesn't appear aimed at a literal, let alone scientific understanding.

We're looking for reason to believe Genesis is not historical. I don't believe anyone reads anything "literally" as has been defined by you in this thread. You cannot read much without finding people being compared to snakes or something.

I didn't say it did.

So, no reasons then?

I just asked you a reasonable question that you can't reasonably answer.

Sure, I can.

I can't either unless I consider it, again, as the poetic illustration of a larger principle of God's authority and power.

Your ignorance is no good reason either.

When I have two ways of seeing a thing and only one that affords me a reasoned explanation, I lean toward the one with support.

False dichotomy. There is no doubt an explanation (the right one) that you have no inkling of.

And Genesis speaks to me as poetry, in the formation/creation of what is.

That's nice. Now, perhaps you'll do us a favour and instead of blindly repeating this mantra "It's peotry, it's poetry!" you can explain to us why poetry cannot be a description of historical events. As has been pointed out and as you have ignored, poetry of the same kind is used plenty of other times in the bible to describe other historical events.

Your "It's poetry!" argument is dead in the water.

As science it doesn't.

You may not introduce science to this discussion until you show how your understanding of Genesis is rational and reasonable.

As a literal accounting it leaves me, as it did you, scratching my head.

I think I'm more than capable of giving a reasonable explanation for each and every one of those points I raised. For instance, I knew that the deep refers to oceans when you did not.

So, speak for yourself.

But how God accomplished it is less important to me than that He accomplished it, which either reading attests to.

Mindless platitude. What you need to deliver is good reason for why we should accept your opinion of what Genesis represents.

Thanks. Where'd it come from in that literal spelling out of how things arrived?

Jesus made it. Just like He made everything else. :duh:

"I don't know" isn't doing much for yours. But if you don't want repetition stop asking the same question. Because that's what you did.

What we need is good reason to accept what you say. So far you've got "poetry". And that one has been shot full of holes. One wonders how evolutionists have the temerity to keep using it. :think:

Specific and real events? What do you have in mind. I'd like to look at that.

Pretty simple exercise. Look up the name for the type of poetry that Genesis is written in then do a search for other examples of that type.

It wasn't a non sequitur.

Yes, it is. When we ask why "Six days" does not mean "Six days" and you say "Because it is poetry" your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Certainly we know that it could be a poetic device actually referring to something else, but then we'd want to know what it meant instead. And we'd want to look at the poem to find that answer.

You do not do any of that. You just declare it to be poetry and expect that to be the end of the story.

You appeared to want specifics. You've asked for them. I gave you the first and you didn't have an answer, which I appreciate as an honest response, even if unhelpful for me in moving any closer to your understanding. I give you another point that's simply a logical observation, if we're to take this literally. Why is God naming things when language itself should be meaningless. He knows what He has created. He isn't going to be confused on a point. And who is He going to speak with who would be? Literally speaking, he'll let Adam name things later. That makes sense. At this point it doesn't.

I want you to tell us what the poetry means if it doesn't mean what it plainly says. If you don't know, feel free to tell us. Finding out that I don't have a poetic interpretation or do not understand something is not points in favour of your argument.

I did. If a thing isn't literal it isn't going to have a literal parallel. It means that God is the author of everything. Why isn't every love song just "I love you" with a different melody?

Details. This is an empty platitude. You need to delve into the details and tell us what those details mean. Like with an actual parable the seeds represent something and that representation is explained. The soil represents something and that representation is carefully explained. The bird represents something and that representation is explained. If Genesis is like a parable, what do its details mean? What is the firmament and why was it divided by water? How does that detail translate into "God is the author of everything"?

You're giving empty platitudes in response to very clear and direct questions.

I omit your ongoing habit of proclaiming non sequitur without establishing it beyond that attestation.

You're just dodging the issue.

It's actually more convincing if you can't answer fairly obvious questions reasonably raised, while the alternative doesn't have that particular problem.

Nope. I can answer your questions. Your questions are irrelevant to the challenge you face. You've invented an alternative meaning for Genesis 1 as opposed to what it clearly states. It is incumbent upon you to give good reason why we should accept your opinion when the written word expressly contradicts what you say.

The only reason your alternative doesn't have a problem with specifics is because it is an empty platitude. What you say is worthless.

That's too bad then.

I'm sure you'll get over it. :up:

Look if this is just a blog for you with interruptions and you don't care about altering anyone's opinion through discourse and reason that's your call. But it's a peculiar habit.

I care about your opinion. I care enough that you would have an opinion that is robust and explicable. Your rejection of Genesis is founded upon, "It's poetry". This is a lame opinion.

Which is why teachers routinely insult their students before a lesson?

I haven't insulted you and I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm asking you to explain to us why your opinion is reasonable.

How you go about your testimony impacts how people view it and how they listen to you.

:yawn:

That's human nature. If someone who isn't wedded to a particular view but has a leaning for a number of reasons asks you why you think what you do and you offer insult as part of your method where no insult (rather, interest instead) has been proffered, you don't put yourself or your argument in its best frame.

Are you going to keep this up?

Why would anyone who has something they consider important to say do that?

Calling stupid ideas stupid is sometimes the only way to express the truth.

That's your counter/answer?

Nope. What I'm interested in is a rational discussion. Listening to you wail on as if I insulted you is boring.

 

[Charity]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 28th, 2013 06:00 AM

toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Its as if... coherent writing came first an instructed incoherent science to discover what 6 days means.

It Smells.

 

[xAvarice]

toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

Depends what kind of person you are:
Idiot: Yes
Rational: No

Who even requires it to be 6 literal days? Unless God can poof sheep into existen.... Nvm, it's not even worth consideration.

 

[xAvarice]

I believe that its 6 days, but 6 days meaning 6000 years.

Satans lies are like tricks, they are deceptive, satan said to eve that no she would not surely die that day and her and adam did not die in that 24 hour day, but they did die that day if what david and peter said is literally true.

Because that's what you have to watch Satan for... his word games.

I allow for myself to be wrong on this

Progress is made?

Either way i believe in a young earth and the canopy theory.

I may be incorrect, but do you accept 6000 years as revelation from the pope? Doesn't this mean you have to accept everything any pope says as literal?

You could say that a pope could later correct something dumb... but... aren't they infallible? *sigh*

 

[Lighthouse]

Depends what kind of person you are:
Idiot: Yes
Rational: No

Who even requires it to be 6 literal days? Unless God can poof sheep into existen.... Nvm, it's not even worth consideration.

Poof into existence? Who has ever believed such a thing? For instance, God built man [Adam] from the ground up, literally.