Hebrew for the phrase is “Hayom.” This means “today.”



Now that IS interesting. Not being a Hebrew scholar, I didn’t know that. The word obviously has a broad range of meaning, though, judging by the great variety of places it is used. I do wonder if there is some particular reason that here it was translated “the day” rather than “this day,” as it is in some other places. Perhaps because later on in the manuscript it becomes clear which was meant?




H: But you said that everything had evolved upward.
C: -I hope I said nothing of the sort,



But you did. In your comment on my Tues, Aug 29 post, you quoted this: (If you’re aware of any instances where something evolved upward Confanity, please share them.) and answered with:   -How about everything that exists?



You’re contradicting yourself.





God made the expanse, and it separate the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Sky.


This says pretty clearly that above the sky, there should be an expanse of water identical to that below the sky… Any astronaut can tell you that above the sky is hard vacuum.



Identical? Really? Where is that word? It says they’re both water, that’s all I’m seeing. I think it’s interesting that the word translated “above” also carries the meaning from, out of, or among. That would fit nicely with the upper waters being vapor in clouds.





ask some organic chemists, experts in their field and far better able to judge than you or I…If chemistry says that such a thing is possible [for a self-replicating molecule to form from inorganic material]



And why would their opinion carry any more weight than anyone else’s? They can show me possibility, but they aren’t any more of an authority on whether it DID happen than anyone else. They weren’t there!




As Sherlock Holmes said (I paraphrase), once you have eliminated the impossible, then what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.



And how have you eliminated the impossible? The leap from one life form to another, which no one observed, is no more provable than my belief that everything was created. I know you think it probable, but the fact is that while there should be numerous transitional fossils in the fossil record, especially considering the many millions of years we’re talking about, all we actually have are a handful of disputable examples. There is absolutely nothing that shows all the transitional forms that should be there.  The gaps are huge!



In other words, by this quote, you choose to believe the improbable because you have rejected the only other alternative.




In a way, therefore, creationism is direct disobedience against God.



(shaking my head) I think you once accused me of twisted thinking. The convoluted route you took to arrive at this is simply amazing. Sir, if you honestly believe this statement, you have created your own god.



I’ve started responding to several other topics, but can’t get too enthused about finishing them. I think I’m tired of being mocked and tired of talking in circles. 



I have chosen to believe the New Testament, which means that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is my Messiah and my Lord. In light of the New Testament, everything I have said makes sense, but since you don’t accept that, it won’t make sense to you. I don’t know how familiar you are with NT, but this is a quick overview of creation from John 1:1-4




In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


The same was in the beginning with God.


All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


In him was life; and the life was the light of men.



Yahweh, the One who has life in Himself, is the source of ALL life, and he created through his living WORD, Jesus Christ. That’s my worldview.



You and I view the world from opposite grandstands. I really can’t see your point of view, nor can you see mine, unless we actually go to the other side of the field and look at it from there. Your position allows you to only see what is within your field of vision, and the same goes for me. Unless one of us is willing to move to the other’s position, we will continue to see different things. The only way to have a productive discussion of the various things that we see is to graciously describe our own view and charitably consider the alternate one. Obviously, they will never look the same. I have been trying to understand why you have chosen your particular viewing position, and I think I begin to comprehend.



To deny that one has chosen a viewing position and claim omniscience is futile. Faith is the evidence of things that can’t be seen. Both views have plenty of those unseen things. The difference is where we have chosen to put our faith.



I am weary and must go. Too many short nights, I believe.   :yawn:   It’s been a great weekend, but exhausting, and my children are waiting to be educated. 


Blessings to all~



Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to

  1. Google it…. It’s the haircut that is short on top & long down the back…. :p

  2. Confanity says:

    “The word obviously has a broad range of meaning, though”-As with any word or phrase, the meaning can vary somewhat with context. A literal translation of “ha-yom” into English would be “the day,” although idiomatically it means “today” and so both “the day” and “this day” are generally acceptable translations. Attempting to read deeper meaning into which translation was chosen should probably not be attempted without reference to the translator.”You’re contradicting yourself.”-Please accept this clarification. The first time, I was focusing on evolution, and it seems I missed the “upward.” The second time, I caught it and objected to that as a misunderstanding. Let us correct my error of the first time, then, and say that everything that lives has indeed involved. There, contradiction resolved. 8^)”It says they’re both water, that’s all I’m seeing.”-It’s true that there’s room for interpretation here. 8^) But consider this: the water was one body before being separated, so why would it not be the same? Plus, vapor is not the same as liquid water; vapor is microscopic droplets suspended in a gaseous medium. Genesis says God separated water from water, not water from the mists that hovered on its surface.”the word translated “above” also carries the meaning from, out of, or among. That would fit nicely with the upper waters being vapor in clouds”-Except that clouds are not “from” the sky, “out of” the sky, or “among” the sky; they are manifestly part of it.”And why would their opinion carry any more weight than anyone else’s?”-Isn’t it obvious? For the same reason a mechanic’s opinion carries more weight about cars, or a doctor’s about disease, or an elecrician’s about wiring. For the same reason you let someone else choose which books you consider holy and how they’re to be interpreted: because greater knowledge and greater experience mean something real.”They weren’t there!”-And you weren’t there when the Bible was first put in ink on parchment. And you’ve never seen the shekhinah of the Lord, or heard the voice of the Lord, or even felt anything deep within yourself that hasn’t also been felt by devout Moslems and Hindus and pagans and even atheists. The point is that if it’s possible for elementary compounds to be combined into organic compounds, then to complex organic molecules, then into self-reproducing organic molecules, then into increasingly complex RNA and then DNA that build their own containers and then eukaryotic cells and prokaryotic cells, thence to multicellular organisms, multicellular organisms with specialized cells, and finally to increasingly complex and specialized and differentiated species that fit various niches in an ever-changing environment… if that’s possible, then the burden of proof shifts to you if you want to demonstrate that it didn’t happen. If it’s possible, then why believe that a supernatural cause was necessary for the same result?” ‘…what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.’And how have you eliminated the impossible?”-You’ve focused on the wrong point. The point was that improbable things can and do happen, so saying “it must not have happened because I find it unlikely” is false.”The leap from one life form to another,”-Never occured. I’ve said again and again that all evolutionary change is gradual. It’s incremental. There are no sudden leaps from fish to kangaroo. Macroevolution a process with changes taking place over many many generations, and most of the changes from one generation to the next would seem trivial to the casual observer. And yet by manipulating evolution, humanity has changed wolves into dachshunds and changed the size and scent of roses.”is no more provable than my belief that everything was created.”-By a strict definition of proof this is true… but there’s a lot more evidence in favor of evolution than there is in favor of your interpretation of scriptures.For that matter, did you know that the creationists themselves are divided? Some accept neither micro- nor macroevolution; some accept the former but not the latter; others say that both kinds of evolution occur but are guided “behind the scenes” by the hand of God. So you disagree even with the people you agree with. It’s all interpretation!”there should be numerous transitional fossils in the fossil record”-If you had done advanced study in geology and biology, I would be more likely to accept your opinion of how many fossils we should have found.”all we actually have are a handful of disputable examples”-If all the disputes boil down to “I won’t believe it if it’s not right in front of me (yet I refuse to go see it)” or “I won’t believe it if it contradicts my prefabricated opinions,” then I don’t see why the examples at hand aren’t sufficient!”In other words, by this quote, you choose to believe the improbable because you have rejected the only other alternative.”-What makes you think that yours is the only alternative? Can you disprove the creation legends of the Greeks, Celts, the Norse, the Native Americans, the Japanese, and the Africans? There are an awful lot of supernatural creation legends to choose from, and if your only criterion is faith, then they’re all equally believable!”The convoluted route you took to arrive at this is simply amazing.”-Perhaps it was too difficult last time. Allow me to straighten it for you.1. It pleased God that you should develop a working brain.2. If you believe that God purposed everything that exists, then God must have allowed you a brain for a purpose.3. Blind faith over reason is the opposite of using your brain; any idiot can have faith. It’s reason that requires brainpower.4. Therefore God didn’t want you to indulge in blind faith. Use your brain instead; otherwise, you’re wasting God’s gift to you.”Sir, if you honestly believe this statement, you have created your own god.”-A Christian accusing a Jew of inventing new gods? I really don’t think you want to go there.”I think I’m tired of being mocked and tired of talking in circles. “-If only you’d listened to my warnings about circular logic! You could have avoided both of these issues.”I have chosen to believe the New Testament”-But why? If you have no reason other than blind faith justifying itself, then what’s to keep some charismatic individual from turning your blind faith in another direction? Wouldn’t it serve your Jesus of Nazareth better if you came up with some reasons for believing in him other than “just because”?”but since you don’t accept that, it won’t make sense to you.”-Even if for some reason I were Christian, it still wouldn’t make sense to me to ignore facts and proof just because they might make you change your interpretation of a text.”All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”-If you accept that God may have a hand in things indirectly rather than blatantly, this neither contradicts nor is contradicted by evolutionary theory. So what’s your problem?”You and I view the world from opposite grandstands.”-I keep trying and trying to say that science and religion don’t have to be in opposition!”I have been trying to understand why you have chosen your particular viewing position, and I think I begin to comprehend.”-I’d be interested to know what you think.”To deny that one has chosen a viewing position and claim omniscience is futile. “-Which makes it all the more incomprehensible to me that you refuse to consider that your interpretation of the Bible may not be perfectly accurate.Let me say this one more time: I share the view that God – that the Creator – by definition, is responsible for all that is. However, I believe that by and large, the divine remains outside of this universe; outside of this limited frame of reference and being. Within the universe, the universe is best described by the iterated, self-checking processes of observation and reason known as science.Holy text was given to us for a purpose, but as long as that purpose is served, a literal reading is not necessary. In cases where the fruits of our minds show us that a literal reading is not possible – that the Earth was not formed in six days, less than six thousand years ago, but rather over the course of millions of years, billions of years ago – then clearly some reading other than the literal must be intended. If the spirit is unharmed, why bicker over the letter?You’ve already admitted that you put your faith in things that aren’t in the Bible, simply because they “make sense” to you. If you trust your reason enough to believe in things it produces that are comforting to you, then it’s the sheerest hypocrisy to distrust your reason on other occasions if the only reason you do so is that its fruits are discomforting. That’s the core of the difference between doing what’s easy and what’s right.

  3. Confanity says:

    edit:”and say that everything that lives has indeed involved” should, of course, read “evolved.”

  4. “Holy text was given to us for a purpose, but as long as that purpose is served, a literal reading is not necessary. In cases where the fruits of our minds show us that a literal reading is not possible – that the Earth was not formed in six days, less than six thousand years ago, but rather over the course of millions of years, billions of years ago – then clearly some reading other than the literal must be intended. If the spirit is unharmed, why bicker over the letter?”
    By whom was it given?  Who says it is holy?  By what authority?  And by what criterion do you define something as holy?  And on what grounds do you assert that this purpose for which you say “holy text” was given is NOT a literal reading?  Individual rationalizing?  And kindly note that I did not say a literal reading IS the purpose, simply asked where you deduced the opposite.

  5. Another paragraph if I may pull it out here~
    “And why would their opinion carry any more weight than anyone else’s?”-Isn’t it obvious? For the same reason a mechanic’s opinion carries more weight about cars, or a doctor’s about disease, or an elecrician’s about wiring. For the same reason you let someone else choose which books you consider holy and how they’re to be interpreted: because greater knowledge and greater experience mean something real.
    Greater knowledge and greater experience mean something real?  Perhaps.  But overall, or simply in the perspective, sphere, field of understanding in which the issue at hand lies?  And if I may bring up a comment from breformed on my site regarding our discussion there, confanity~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “Confanity says that he is opposed to a “policy” (does he really mean “doctrine”?) of prioritizing “knowing Jesus” above healing the body. He bases this opposition on his “understanding [of] the word of God.” He says so. But that’s doubletalk considering his other statement where he asserts that “no particular reading of ‘the word of God’ is as important” as the work of making the world a better place. So how can his particular reading of the word of God prioritize his works in the world above someone else’s particular reading which prioritizes knowing Jesus? Obviously, his priority of doing good works in the world is based on a “particular understanding” of something. He’d better not be wrong. 
    AND, whose works are good, by the way? Why can’t the Muslim who wants to destroy Israel for the good of the world be doing a good work as far as he is concerned? After all, the Muslim requires NO particular reading of “our” word of God. So he can be left to do the good works of his “word of Allah”, right? That is exactly what a rationalist must conclude, or he is a dishonest rationalist.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now, are you simply in objection to the fact that homefire has pushed what she believes to be fully true?  In essence, opposed to this concept of absolute truth, in favor of rationally finding our own truths?  Or do you actually have a handle on what is and is not, truth and falsehood, honest history rather than legends and misinterpretations, and you are concerned enough that you wish to share it?  So far what I have seen of your efforts here with homefire, you have spent your time taking her posts piece by piece and systematically dismantelling or attempting to dismantel each statement with which YOU do not or cannot find yourself agreeing with, in light of your logic or rational. Do not fail to apply the same trains of logic toward yourself that you direct toward her.  I suppose you could try to make mincemeat out of my comments here as well, as admittedly you have significantly more experience or knowledge in light of your profession and current activities than I, but I would at least appreciate you thoughts on the second paragraph from breformed, dealing with consistent rationalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s