4 ms·

why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting create

by bsedlm 5y ago

why assume that they meant earth days? if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) also, what if a day is a rotation around a body's axis, then what about a solar day (the sun spins around itself once)? what about a galactic day?

krapp 5y ago
>if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) Because this is a myth from thousands of years ago, and "scientific" accuracy wasn't relevant, much less possible. Read any ancient creation myth, or most ancient myth at all, it's closer to dream logic than anything remotely realistic. They meant earth days because those were the only kind of days they were aware of, and because there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  logically plausible and "scientific" and/or "realistic" are different things. Things can be complete fantasy yet logically consistent. > there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that. you seem to be working under the assumption that because they lived long ago it must follow that they are simpler or in some sense "dumber". (i.e. I claim you believe that "in the past every man was a simpleton compared to a modern man") alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? or do they need to have a modern scientific outlook in order to even be able to consider days of different durations?
  - krapp 5y ago
    I'm not claiming that ancient people were dumber, I'm claiming the cultural and spiritual purpose of a creation myth isn't served by realism or logical consistency. God creating day and night before creating the sun and moon is par for the course for these stories. The Babylonian myth some people believe Genesis is based on - the Enuma Elish, says the god Marduk killed his nemesis Tiamat, cut him in half and made the sky out of one half and the Earth out of the other. >alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? I don't know why you're being so defensive, or why it's so important to you that Genesis be justified rationally. If you want to believe the ancient Hebrews based the days of creation on galactic rotations, go right ahead. It would just be odd, given that no one back then knew what stars, planets and galaxies even were. The timeline still wouldn't make any sense And sure, they could probably dream of other varieties of days, whatever that means, but again - why have a narrative about six days refer to that rather than just six days? And why did they never write this dream down, or mention it? Surely they would have considered that a divine revelation from God. The story says days, it means days. Regular human Earth days. There's no reason to believe otherwise.
staticman2 5y ago
If the bible was written by humans before humans knew about carbon dating and evolution I would assume humans meant 6 days. I mean, why wouldn't they believe it was 6 days? That was just as plausible as anything else. If you are dedicated to the idea the writer of the bible wasn't human then you might go down the rabbit hole of alternative explanations.
nkrisc 5y ago
It’s all fiction and fantastical accounts of history anyway, I wouldn’t read too much into any of it.
Retric 5y ago
Any attempt to be logically consistent runs into issues. If you assume the first six days where the equivalent of geologic time then so was the 7th. Thus God would still be resting and not doing anything else biblical in the rest of the good book. Give up on consistency and that problem goes away. Look if you want to accept the Bible as true then acknowledge what it is warts and all. Old Testament God kills kids for mocking someone’s bald head (Kings 2:23-24), that’s your religious text. Feel free to believe it all happened as written, or do what almost everyone does and ignore most of it.

by bsedlm 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

>if they're creating earth, then how could it be that they're using earth days? (allegedely, earth is just getting created) Because this is a myth from thousands of years ago, and "scientific" accuracy wasn't relevant, much less possible. Read any ancient creation myth, or most ancient myth at all, it's closer to dream logic than anything remotely realistic. They meant earth days because those were the only kind of days they were aware of, and because there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that.

bsedlm 5y ago
logically plausible and "scientific" and/or "realistic" are different things. Things can be complete fantasy yet logically consistent. > there's no reason to believe they made the story more complex than that. you seem to be working under the assumption that because they lived long ago it must follow that they are simpler or in some sense "dumber". (i.e. I claim you believe that "in the past every man was a simpleton compared to a modern man") alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? or do they need to have a modern scientific outlook in order to even be able to consider days of different durations?
- krapp 5y ago
  I'm not claiming that ancient people were dumber, I'm claiming the cultural and spiritual purpose of a creation myth isn't served by realism or logical consistency. God creating day and night before creating the sun and moon is par for the course for these stories. The Babylonian myth some people believe Genesis is based on - the Enuma Elish, says the god Marduk killed his nemesis Tiamat, cut him in half and made the sky out of one half and the Earth out of the other. >alternatively, if in the past they were using dream logic (which you also seem to belive ought to be expediently discarded) couldn't they also dream about other varieties of days? I don't know why you're being so defensive, or why it's so important to you that Genesis be justified rationally. If you want to believe the ancient Hebrews based the days of creation on galactic rotations, go right ahead. It would just be odd, given that no one back then knew what stars, planets and galaxies even were. The timeline still wouldn't make any sense And sure, they could probably dream of other varieties of days, whatever that means, but again - why have a narrative about six days refer to that rather than just six days? And why did they never write this dream down, or mention it? Surely they would have considered that a divine revelation from God. The story says days, it means days. Regular human Earth days. There's no reason to believe otherwise.

staticman2 5y ago

If the bible was written by humans before humans knew about carbon dating and evolution I would assume humans meant 6 days. I mean, why wouldn't they believe it was 6 days? That was just as plausible as anything else. If you are dedicated to the idea the writer of the bible wasn't human then you might go down the rabbit hole of alternative explanations.

nkrisc 5y ago

It’s all fiction and fantastical accounts of history anyway, I wouldn’t read too much into any of it.

Retric 5y ago

Any attempt to be logically consistent runs into issues. If you assume the first six days where the equivalent of geologic time then so was the 7th. Thus God would still be resting and not doing anything else biblical in the rest of the good book. Give up on consistency and that problem goes away. Look if you want to accept the Bible as true then acknowledge what it is warts and all. Old Testament God kills kids for mocking someone’s bald head (Kings 2:23-24), that’s your religious text. Feel free to believe it all happened as written, or do what almost everyone does and ignore most of it.