I posted;
and Jeff Fink responded;
----- Original Message -----
Unfortunately there are Christians who insist on a literal 6, 24 hour day creation, despite the fact that the Hebrew text can be read to mean either that or a preexistent Earth which had been rendered dead. While this sort of absolutism plays well with the Christian masses, it turns off many educated people. I regard this as the Christian version of political correctness.
In spite of the various meanings for the Hebrew word for day, when the author of Genesis wrote, "the evening and the morning were the first day, the evening and the morning were the second day,.............", there is no question that he intended us to understand that he was writing of literal 24 hour days.
Yes there is a question about the 24 hour day! I have two native Hebrew speakers, Yair Davidi and Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzok both of whom agree with me, I also have two English Bible scholars, Ferrar Fenton, translator of the Fenton Bible, and James Strong, author of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance who concluded the same thing. Look up yom Strong # H 3117 read the entire definition, it includes the term age, as in a long period of time.
Whether or not he was writing truth or falsehood is another question.
Why do you have to impugn Yahweh's veracity? It's obvious to me that the Earth Moon system with the web of life didn't form spontaneously.
Could a God be powerful enough to make the universe in six days? Could he do it six minutes if he really pushed it? Doesn't God own time? Perhaps creation takes as long as it takes and God merely sticks whatever time label he wants on it when he finishes.
R. Bar Tzok, who is a Kaballahist, says that they agree with the astrophysicists estimate for the age of the universe, 15,000,000,000 years. The way we read the text, time, as we know it, will only exist for 7,000 years, the Earth will continue to exist when time is no more, just as it did before time was.
If the Vortex group woud be so kind as to grant me a few minutes to read my following composition I would be pleased to have your comments. I believe
There's no question that the Grand Canyon can be better explained by a massive lake in the area to the north and east of it, then a crack formed in the wall holding it back. The small canyon that you see in the bottom of the big canyon was carved out by the Colorado River running as it does today.
While there are areas in which the bones of many animals are jumbled together as if there were a massive flood just like the one described in Bereishis (Genesis). Most of the rock stratums that are out there show layers of material with fossils in it with layers which we would expect if the mud had been deposited and then dried, which is why it breaks into layers. The fossils become progressively more complex too, just as though someone were experimenting with progressively more complicated life forms. As I have pointed out previously, specization, the morphing of one species into another, such that the offspring of the event can't cross breed, is absent in the fossil record, and hence represents a one time event which requires divine intervention.
Then overlaying this Geological Column, you have a massive flood, in which the ridges that run through the center of what is now the oceans broke open and massive amounts of water formerly trapped in the depths squirted into the upper atmosphere.
