This article was on yahoo.."Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution"

[asta]

How helpful ARE TEs at the high school level? At elementary, student texts are often incomplete, assuming that the teacher will present the material, but even when I've taught 1000 level college classes, there is rarely a TE at all. At most, there's a disk or book of test questions, but often not even that.

 

Well, considering I haven't had chemistry since 1983, I would be up a creek without a solutions manual... and that's what they call "teacher's editions" nowadays.

 

 

a

[Cricket]

Thanks for sharing the article !

 

Frankly, it's a lose-lose situation for some homeschoolers. I don't want to teach from materials which hurl the Bible in my face like a weapon, when the subject material is math or science. (or for anything else, to be honest) As for young earth vs. old earth, I have not yet detected how that even matters at all. I do reject macro-evolution and the attendant opinions which constitute the only science approach available through public schools. Those textbooks often equal the Christian books in smug didacticts.

 

So I have a very hard time selecting science teaching materials when it comes to life sciences, astronomy and, to a lesser extent, geology. I flip-flop, sometimes using a Protestant textbook and correcting it, sometimes using an atheistic textbook and correcting it. Science is a pain in the neck for moderates ! I'm happiest teaching physics, chemistry, and physical science.

 

When you get it figured out, let me know. :D We just took the plunge with an Apologia book. I haven't studied science enough to know what I believe, quite frankly. I believe God created the earth and, like you, don't believe in macroevolution. But I want a science book for my kids, not a Bible study on creation. I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture but I don't want a science book just saying why evolution is wrong. We will probably use a mixture of both Christian and secular science materials. :confused:

[Tracy in Ky]

It matters because the YE Creationists materials are teaching things that seem ridiculous when compared with the facts.

 

To which things specifically are you referring? Just wondering which are the ridiculous things and which are the facts they contradict. It helps to know exactly what you are talking about :)

Edited March 8, 2010 by Tracy in Ky

[Tracy in Ky]

This is what I was trying to get across.

 

Commenting on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, molecular biologist Francis Collins remarks: "Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history."

 

 

Wow. Do you agree with him?

 

Upon what does he base his argument? Specifically, what reasons does he give for this belief?

[at the beach]

a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

 

**Is that really true? Just because stats show that 83 percent of hs parents do so to give religious and/or moral instruction does it follow that they are YE creationists? I don't think so.

 

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

 

Really? Is this true? Maybe it is. :001_huh:

 

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

 

**Why? I have accounts set up with the major textbook publishers as a homeschooler and I can buy texts and solutions manuals. If I want to use a textbook, that is. Is this article implying that we NEED textbooks to homeschool? That we can't homeschool properly without publishers marketing texts to our needs? Please.

 

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

 

**So who cares if it is the parent's religious belief? I'm sure they can get through life just fine and be productive members of society anyway. My oldest was in a private Christian school through 7th grade, and they taught YE creationism. She is anything but a YE creationist now at 21. Some parents teach their kids that it is wrong to live "in sin" or any number of other things that some of us may or may not agree with.

 

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

 

**Right. This book was written for specific people. So, again, why should others care unless it is because they think that YOU aren't fit to raise your own child and teach them your beliefs, that your child must learn the agenda of the STATE and none of us should be permitted to educate our kids at home so they aren't potentially subjected to things the state deems inappropriate.

 

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

 

**Again, so what?! This is the belief of the folks using these books. If they aren't for you, move on I say.

 

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

 

**Well, that's a bit strange. I would hope he'd write a text based on his beliefs, not just his demographic.

 

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

 

**I don't buy this. But in any case, I'd say that kids in school are short-changed academically in countless ways. But that's a topic for another thread, isn't it?

 

And FWIW, I am not a YE creationist.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Violet
spelling

[TXMary2]

a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction."

 

**Is that really true? Just because stats show that 83 percent of hs parents do so to give religious and/or moral instruction does it follow that they are YE creationists? I don't think so.

 

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

 

Really? Is this true? Maybe it is. :001_huh:

 

Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs.

 

**Why? I have accounts set up with the major textbook publishers as a homeschooler and I can buy texts and solutions manuals. It I want to use a textbook, that is. Is this article implying that we NEED textbooks to homeschool? That we can't homeschool properly without publishers marketing texts to our needs? Please.

 

"I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.

 

**So who cares if it is the parent's religious belief? I'm sure they can get through life just fine and be productive members of society anyway. My oldest was in a private Christian school through 7th grade, and they taught YE creationism. She is anything but a YE creationist now at 21. Some parents teach their kids that it is wrong to live "in sin" or any number of other things that some of us may or may not agree with.

 

The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them."

 

**Right. This book was written for specific people. So, again, why should others care unless it is because they think that YOU aren't fit to raise your own child and teach them your beliefs, that your child must learn the agenda of the STATE and none of us should be permitted to educate our kids at home so they aren't potentially subjected to things the state deems inappropriate.

 

The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."

 

**Again, so what?! This is the belief of the folks using these books. If they aren't for you, move on I say.

 

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

 

**Well, that's a bit strange. I would hope he'd write a text based on his beliefs, not just his demographic.

 

"If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology," Coyne said. He argued that the books may steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.

 

**I don't buy this. But in any case, I'd say that kids in school are short-changed academically in countless ways. But that's a topic for another thread, isn't it?

 

And FWIW, I am not a YE creationist.

 

 

Great post Violet!

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree:

[rose_king]

"If I'm planning to write a curriculum, and I want to write it in a way that will appeal to home-schoolers, I'm going to at least find out what my demographic is," Wile said.

 

**Well, that's a bit strange. I would hope he'd write a text based on his beliefs, not just his demographic.

 

 

 

Very well said! This was my favorite part. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Wow. Do you agree with him?

 

Upon what does he base his argument? Specifically, what reasons does he give for this belief?

 

You have no idea who this is? He's a world renown theist evolutionist. I think if you are truly interested in this topic you would be better served doing some research on the subject instead of asking questions here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29

 

http://biologos.org/

 

 

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Mrs. Mungo. I somehow missed that question. I said in my post that this was basically what I was trying to say, so yeah, I agree with him on that point.

 

There is very much a YE or evolution theme going on and there are those of us that don't go along with either of those ideas. IMO scientific evidence does not back up 7 24 hour creative days, so when people including scientists assume that all creationists believe in YE they throw creationism and all those who believe it out the window.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[mcconnellboys]

I happen to know both the Lexington moms who were interviewed. For the record, the journalist completely mischaracterized what they said and Mia has issued corrections on our local boards. She specifically told them that she had never tried to order from a publisher. So she certainly never said that she could not obtain books from a publisher. She also told them that any sort of book wanted could easily be obtained through various online sources, as well as local libraries, etc.

 

I have no idea why they were chosen for the interview.....

[Tracy in Ky]

You have no idea who this is? He's a world renown theist evolutionist. I think if you are truly interested in this topic you would be better served doing some research on the subject instead of asking questions here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29

 

http://biologos.org/

 

 

 

Never heard of him.

 

My questions help me understand what people who post here base their beliefs upon. If people state their beliefs, then they should have good reasons for them. I am profoundly served by asking questions here! Thank you for the advice, but I will continue learning by asking questions of posters on this board who publicly state their beliefs.

 

 

I am interested in the reasons people have for their beliefs--such as reasons for your stated beliefs, ie. why you don't believe Genesis should be read literally and why you believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. I am still interested in your answers if you would care to give them.

 

But thank you for explaining your reason (and the verses in question) for believing there are 2 creation accounts :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Never heard of him.

 

My questions help me understand what people who post here base their beliefs upon. If people state their beliefs, then they should have good reasons for them. I am profoundly served by asking questions here! Thank you for the advice, but I will continue learning by asking questions of posters on this board who publicly state their beliefs.

 

 

I am interested in the reasons people have for their beliefs--such as reasons for your stated beliefs, ie. why you don't believe Genesis should be read literally and why you believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. I am still interested in your answers if you would care to give them.

 

If you aren't learning in researching and reading about the topic from experts, why would you want my personal reasons? It implies that you are seeking a debate rather than knowledge. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just easier if we're upfront about it. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Well Tracy, I have some scriptural reasons for believing that the creative days were longer than 24 hours.

 

All six creative days are refered to as one day at Genesis 2:4. In addition to this, Paul seems to indicate that the seventh day is still going. That is a very long day! (Genesis 2:1-3; Hebrews 4:1-11)

[lionfamily1999]

I happen to know both the Lexington moms who were interviewed. For the record, the journalist completely mischaracterized what they said and Mia has issued corrections on our local boards. She specifically told them that she had never tried to order from a publisher. So she certainly never said that she could not obtain books from a publisher. She also told them that any sort of book wanted could easily be obtained through various online sources, as well as local libraries, etc.

 

I have no idea why they were chosen for the interview.....

Thank you for the update and clarification.

[justamouse]

I have to agree with the other poster that I also wouldn't bring Apologia or Bob Jones into my home. I am sure they contain some solid science, but Creationism goes so much further than I initially thought! It does not simply refute evolution, but large aspects of geology & astronomy as well. I think I would have to pick apart the text to such an extreme that it wouldn't be (for my family's purposes) worth using.

 

 

 

It is a nightmare going through it all with a fine tooth comb and learning the science without the doctrine.

[Tracy in Ky]

If you aren't learning in researching and reading about the topic from experts, why would you want my personal reasons? It implies that you are seeking a debate rather than knowledge. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just easier if we're upfront about it. :)

 

I like talking to real, live people :)

 

And I am learning in researching and reading experts; just not all of them. :D

 

But really, if you don't want to give reasons for your beliefs, don't feel pressured. I am just intensely curious about why posters in these threads believe what they believe. I have heard so many different viewpoints and beliefs! It is fascinating, and it really helps me think through the issues.

[justamouse]

Not true. Student books are readily available everywhere. Teachers' manuals are very hard to come by. That is why the article was written - not much homeschool friendly stuff out there for anyone but YE creationists. We ended up having to go with online classes and outside teachers for science because I did not feel comfortable teaching subjects I hadn't taken in 25 years without the assistance of a TM.

 

Those teacher's manual prices are KILLER! And I just don't feel comfortable teaching without one, either.

 

Wow. Do you agree with him?

 

Upon what does he base his argument? Specifically, what reasons does he give for this belief?

 

You really would be better served by reading DR. Francis's book, THE LANGUAGE OF GOD. All of these questions would be answered and then we could talk about it. The questions are starting to seem...slightly manipulative. Rather, I'm having a hard time believing you have the motive you're saying you do.

[Aggie]

The questions are starting to seem...slightly manipulative. Rather, I'm having a hard time believing you have the motive you're saying you do.

 

 

I don't know Tracy irl, but I've read her posts here for a long time. She has never been manipulative, confrontational or snarky. She has always been one of the sweetest, kindest women on this board.

[justamouse]

I'm reading both threads. I don't think she's being snarky at all. But her answers would be easily found by reading the book then we could all have a discussion about it if she wanted. Having us all rehash it isn't the best way to research TE.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't think Tracy is deserving any critcism either. I ask questions here instead of reading all of the time... it is faster.

 

I am glad that I am not on the other thread. Whew, I just took a peek!

 

Tracy, did you see my Biblical reasons for Old Earth views?

[Mrs Mungo]

I ask questions here instead of reading all of the time... it is faster.

 

There are times when it behooves one to research a topic because of the sheer volume of material involved.

[Joker]

Well Tracy, I have some scriptural reasons for believing that the creative days were longer than 24 hours.

 

All six creative days are refered to as one day at Genesis 2:4. In addition to this, Paul seems to indicate that the seventh day is still going. That is a very long day! (Genesis 2:1-3; Hebrews 4:1-11)

 

Lovedtodeath,

I found Hebrews 4:1-11 to be interesting. I have come to the recent realization that even though I grew up "in" the church and even went to a Christian school that I did very little Bible study. I have been soaking up all I can from here and other places. I have started my own Bible study and I find the YE / OE to be interesting and have trouble deciding what is right for me. Would you mind sharing (you can pm me) any books, articles, etc. I might find helpful? Thanks so much!

[Tracy in Ky]

Well Tracy, I have some scriptural reasons for believing that the creative days were longer than 24 hours.

 

All six creative days are refered to as one day at Genesis 2:4. In addition to this, Paul seems to indicate that the seventh day is still going. That is a very long day! (Genesis 2:1-3; Hebrews 4:1-11)

 

Thanks, lovedtodeath. I wonder if these are common reasons for not believing in literal 24 hour days. Do you know many people who base their beliefs on these same reasons?

 

I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days. Here is why my belief differs from yours: (if you are interested :) )

 

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have a wide range of meanings, just like in our language In 2:4, the word yom is used to refer to the several days of creation as 'the duration of time in which God created.'

 

But in Genesis 1, when yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day of 24 hours. Each time outside Genesis 1 that yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day. Genesis 1 is no different: when yom is used with a number in Genesis, it denotes a regular 24 hour day. In fact, I learned that outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a humber 359 times, and every single time it was used that way, it refers to an ordinary day! I find that to be very compelling evidence.

 

Does that make sense? So the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 in reference to the word day, is no different than the way we would use it in normal speech, and context helps us decide the sense in which it should be taken. Since Gen 2:4 uses the word in a completely different way than Gen 1, there is no reason to force them to mean the same thing.

 

Heb 4 is talking about two different 'rests,' so to speak. The creation week rest is past tense: "and God rested on the seventh day." Hebrews doesn't say that this rest is continuing. And it doesn't say that the creation week rest is continuing. It just says that on that day, He rested.

 

The spiritual rest, however, that He instituted is continuing, and it is a spiritual rest for those who believe. If it were a general creation week continual rest, then everybody would be in it--unbeliever and believer alike. But it is an instituted spiritual rest for believers. So Hebrews doesn't teach that the days in Genesis 1 are anything other than ordinary 24 hour days.

 

Just thought I would explain upon what I base my belief that Gen 2:4 and Heb 4:3-4 do not teach that the days in Gen 1 are longer than 24 hour days. I think it helps to know why others believe what they believe. I know it helps me.

 

Thanks again :)

[Tracy in Ky]

There are times when it behooves one to research a topic because of the sheer volume of material involved.

 

I see your point, but I am not interested in all the material out there. I am interested in specific reasons why specific people believe what they say they believe. Everybody doesn't believe for the same reasons or groups of reasons.

 

As I ask questions and interact personally with those who believe differently than I, it helps me understand their point of view, and it also helps me make sure that I have good reasons for what I say I believe, in those cases where disagree.

 

Lovedtodeath helped me see why she believes in creation days longer than 24 hours. My response was to think her reasons through and then to compare them with what my reasons are. That is helpful for me. I need to be able to say what I believe and why I believe it, especially when I believe differently than other people. If I don't have good reasons for what I say I believe, then I shouldn't believe what I believe :D

[hsmom3tn]

If interested, here is a poll going on about this article:

 

http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_question/2010/03/06/3986804-is-it-ok-for-home-school-textbooks-to-dismiss-the-theory-of-evolution

 

and here is a blog post about it that includes a response from Jeannie Fulbright:

 

http://locustpointeacademy.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-not-bad-enough-to-take-god-out-of.html

Edited March 9, 2010 by hsmom3tn

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks, lovedtodeath. I wonder if these are common reasons for not believing in literal 24 hour days. Do you know many people who base their beliefs on these same reasons?

 

I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days. Here is why my belief differs from yours: (if you are interested :) )

 

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have a wide range of meanings, just like in our language In 2:4, the word yom is used to refer to the several days of creation as 'the duration of time in which God created.'

 

But in Genesis 1, when yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day of 24 hours. Each time outside Genesis 1 that yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day. Genesis 1 is no different: when yom is used with a number in Genesis, it denotes a regular 24 hour day. In fact, I learned that outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a humber 359 times, and every single time it was used that way, it refers to an ordinary day! I find that to be very compelling evidence.

 

Does that make sense? So the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 in reference to the word day, is no different than the way we would use it in normal speech, and context helps us decide the sense in which it should be taken. Since Gen 2:4 uses the word in a completely different way than Gen 1, there is no reason to force them to mean the same thing.

 

Heb 4 is talking about two different 'rests,' so to speak. The creation week rest is past tense: "and God rested on the seventh day." Hebrews doesn't say that this rest is continuing. And it doesn't say that the creation week rest is continuing. It just says that on that day, He rested.

 

The spiritual rest, however, that He instituted is continuing, and it is a spiritual rest for those who believe. If it were a general creation week continual rest, then everybody would be in it--unbeliever and believer alike. But it is an instituted spiritual rest for believers. So Hebrews doesn't teach that the days in Genesis 1 are anything other than ordinary 24 hour days.

 

Just thought I would explain upon what I base my belief that Gen 2:4 and Heb 4:3-4 do not teach that the days in Gen 1 are longer than 24 hour days. I think it helps to know why others believe what they believe. I know it helps me.

 

Thanks again :)

That is interesting about the Hebrew word for day. Leviticus 23:32 indicates that a 24 hour day ran from evening to evening, not from evening to morning as in the Genesis account. In addition, the seventh day in Genesis does not run from evening to morning, indicating an end as the others, but at Genesis 2:1 there is no mention of evening and morning. My translation does not say "rested", rather it says "he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making." --New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

[LittleIzumi]

Thanks, lovedtodeath. I wonder if these are common reasons for not believing in literal 24 hour days. Do you know many people who base their beliefs on these same reasons?

 

I personally believe that the days in Gen 1 are literal 24 hour days. Here is why my belief differs from yours: (if you are interested :) )

 

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have a wide range of meanings, just like in our language In 2:4, the word yom is used to refer to the several days of creation as 'the duration of time in which God created.'

 

But in Genesis 1, when yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day of 24 hours. Each time outside Genesis 1 that yom is used with a number, it refers to an ordinary day. Genesis 1 is no different: when yom is used with a number in Genesis, it denotes a regular 24 hour day. In fact, I learned that outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a humber 359 times, and every single time it was used that way, it refers to an ordinary day! I find that to be very compelling evidence.

 

Does that make sense? So the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 in reference to the word day, is no different than the way we would use it in normal speech, and context helps us decide the sense in which it should be taken. Since Gen 2:4 uses the word in a completely different way than Gen 1, there is no reason to force them to mean the same thing.

 

Heb 4 is talking about two different 'rests,' so to speak. The creation week rest is past tense: "and God rested on the seventh day." Hebrews doesn't say that this rest is continuing. And it doesn't say that the creation week rest is continuing. It just says that on that day, He rested.

 

The spiritual rest, however, that He instituted is continuing, and it is a spiritual rest for those who believe. If it were a general creation week continual rest, then everybody would be in it--unbeliever and believer alike. But it is an instituted spiritual rest for believers. So Hebrews doesn't teach that the days in Genesis 1 are anything other than ordinary 24 hour days.

 

Just thought I would explain upon what I base my belief that Gen 2:4 and Heb 4:3-4 do not teach that the days in Gen 1 are longer than 24 hour days. I think it helps to know why others believe what they believe. I know it helps me.

 

Thanks again :)

 

I'm genuinely curious--is it also "yom" where it says in Gen 2:17 "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."? Since he did not die that day, but much later, was it the same word for day or was it one of the words that is interchangeable for periods?

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm genuinely curious--is it also "yom" where it says in Gen 2:17 "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."? Since he did not die that day, but much later, was it the same word for day or was it one of the words that is interchangeable for periods?

yom is interchangeable for time periods.

 

 

 

The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have a wide range of meanings, just like in our language In 2:4, the word yom is used to refer to the several days of creation as 'the duration of time in which God created.'

[LittleIzumi]

yom is interchangeable for time periods.

 

So it's only a 24-hour "day" if it has a number in front of it?

[Crimson Wife]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense? God exists outside the human conception of time, and 2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think Tracy was saying that yom is always a day with a number, which is a little different than saying that yom is only a day if it has a number with it.

 

2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

Yes. Edited March 9, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[LittleIzumi]

I think Tracy was saying that yom is always a day with a number, which is a little different than saying that yom is only a day if it has a number with it.

 

So it's a day with a number but it can also be general time periods?? I'm so confused, lol....

[Lovedtodeath]

 

So it's a day with a number but it can also be general time periods?? I'm so confused, lol....

I'll let Tracy explain, since I do not believe as she does, yet I am explaining it for her. lol

[LittleIzumi]

I'll let Tracy explain, since I do not believe as she does, yet I am explaining it for her. lol

:lol: Okay, thanks! I know the yom/day is brought up a lot in YE explanations and I'm trying to understand it better.

[TXMary2]

Thanks Mrs. Mungo. I somehow missed that question. I said in my post that this was basically what I was trying to say, so yeah, I agree with him on that point.

 

There is very much a YE or evolution theme going on and there are those of us that don't go along with either of those ideas. IMO scientific evidence does not back up 7 24 hour creative days, so when people including scientists assume that all creationists believe in YE they throw creationism and all those who believe it out the window.

 

I believe in a younger earth- as in younger than millions and billions- I don't know if it is as young as 6000 as some claim. I also don't necessarily believe the 6 days of creation were 24 hours each. There is a verse somewhere about one day being like a thousand to the Lord so that is why I think it may not have been 6 twenty four hour days. I decided awhile ago that it really doesn't matter to me because I have faith that God exists. I don't need *proof* - if I needed proof then I wouldn't have faith. As for the age of the earth etc, none of it matters in the big picture. It is just something to argue about while on earth.

 

Just FTR I don't think many creationists or YE people think the bible is a science book, but like it backs up some history I think it can also back up some beliefs people have about science. God created science after all.

[Tracy in Ky]

So it's a day with a number but it can also be general time periods?? I'm so confused, lol....

 

Lol, Little Izumi :)

 

From what I understand, every time yom (day) is used with a number outside of Genesis 1, it refers to a 24 hour day. Therefore within Genesis 1, when yom is used with a number, there is no reason to change the meaning.

 

But without a number, day (yom) can refer to not only a 24 hour day but also other lenths of time. Just like in our language, day can mean 24 hours, or a time period "Back in the day," etc.

 

The point is that being used with a number is very strong evidence that the yom/days in Genesis 1 were intended by the author to be understood as ordinary days, not indefinite lengths of time.

 

Does that make sense? :) I think I've got it all straight. :D

[lionfamily1999]

So, Tracy, because it says "the first day" &tc. that means it should mean a 24 hour day (because what day is specified)?

 

I'm up in the air with this and have loved the conversation so far.

[Tracy in Ky]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense? God exists outside the human conception of time, and 2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

 

Hi Crimsonwife:) Ds and I have been studying 2 Peter systematically and inductively this year; it is a fascinating book.

 

In context, this verse in 2 Peter refers to the coming of Jesus and its seeming delay, not creation.

 

The point is that God, who is outside time, is not restricted to time as we are--what seems like a long time to us (ie. the 'delayed' return of Jesus), is not a long time to God because He isn't bound by time like humans are. What seems slow to us, isn't slow to Him. This has no bearing on the days of creation.

 

However, if one wanted to press the verse in the way you are suggesting, then the second half of the verse cancels the thought, for it says that a thousand years is like a day, which would bring us right back to 24 hour days.

 

It is an important verse to think through. I'm glad you brought it up.

 

Blessings,

Tracy

[Tracy in Ky]

So, Tracy, because it says "the first day" &tc. that means it should mean a 24 hour day (because what day is specified)?

 

I'm up in the air with this and have loved the conversation so far.

 

That is my understanding, based on the common Hebrew usage.

 

I'm not an expert though. Far from it. I know just enough to be really dangerous :lol:

[Tracy in Ky]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense?

 

Crimson wife, I am sorry I didn't respond to this portion of your post in my above response; I missed it somehow :)

 

We all know from our experience that it is not a difficult thing to decide which interpretative (or hermeneutical) method to use when reading any given piece of writing. For example, you don't have to spend time deciding whether to interpret the words I am writing right now as literal or figurative: the context and style of writing make that obvious. Likewise, I am not going to choose to read your post figuratively; it is obvious what kind of writing you are using, and I interpret your words accordingly.

 

When we read a book of poetry, we don't read it in the same way we read a journal article, and vice versa. Authors intend for their reading to be done naturally--according to the kind of writing that it is.

 

Likewise with the Bible. There are different kinds of writing in the Bible, and we read and interpret them according to the type of writing that they are, trying to read them in the sense that the author intended. When Jesus said, "I am the door." It is obvious that He is speaking metaphorically-- communicating a truth through metaphor.

 

Genesis 1-11 are written in a historical narrative style--a prose style that is intended to be read literally. There is nothing to suggest that it is to be read any other way. But also, the Hebrew language has grammatical patterns that differ according to whether the writing indicates historical narrative, and others than indicate poetry (which would be read more figuratively). Hebrew scholars tell us that the indicators for historical narrative are present in Genesis 1-11--it is called the waw-consecutive. (I can't tell you what that is :lol: I had only one semester of Hebrew in seminary and I've forgotten pretty much all of it). Whatever it is, it indicates, sequential, historical meaning.

 

Therefore there is simply no reason to read Genesis 1-1 in any other way than as literal history. Actually, given all the indicators that we have for reading it naturally as historical narrative, I would have to ask you the same question you asked me--where does it say in the Bible that we need to read Genesis 1-2 non-literally? I'm genuinely interested in your answer; I want to consider all aspects of this discussion :)

[H.S. Burrow]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense? God exists outside the human conception of time, and 2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

 

Hi Crimsonwife:) Ds and I have been studying 2 Peter systematically and inductively this year; it is a fascinating book.

 

In context, this verse in 2 Peter refers to the coming of Jesus and its seeming delay, not creation.

 

The point is that God, who is outside time, is not restricted to time as we are--what seems like a long time to us (ie. the 'delayed' return of Jesus), is not a long time to God because He isn't bound by time like humans are. What seems slow to us, isn't slow to Him. This has no bearing on the days of creation.

 

However, if one wanted to press the verse in the way you are suggesting, then the second half of the verse cancels the thought, for it says that a thousand years is like a day, which would bring us right back to 24 hour days.

 

It is an important verse to think through. I'm glad you brought it up.

 

Blessings,

Tracy

 

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree. :)

 

Peter is reminding his audience of Moses' words in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV translation) Peter is cautioning his audience to remember this, we cannot know nor understand God's time and that we should not worry about the specific day and time of Christ's return.

 

Peter is not speaking to the length of a day. :)

[Tracy in Ky]

I'm genuinely curious--is it also "yom" where it says in Gen 2:17 "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."? Since he did not die that day, but much later, was it the same word for day or was it one of the words that is interchangeable for periods?

 

That is a wonderful question. From my research I have learned that the yom construction in Hebrew in this verse is the same as in 2:4 and refers not to a particular day, but to an indefinite amount of time, so to speak.

 

Dr Terry Morton (whose work I consulted on this matter) concludes:

 

...from all this we conclude that the construction “dying you shall die†and beyom in Genesis 2:17 do not require us to conclude that God was warning that “the very day you eat from the tree is the exact same day that you will die physically.†The Hebrew wording of Genesis 2:17 allows for a time lapse between the instantaneous spiritual death on that sad day of disobedience and the later physical death (which certainly did happen, just as God said, but for Adam it was 930 years later). As Scripture consistently teaches, both kinds of death (spiritual and physical) are the consequence of Adam’s rebellion.

 

So the word yom is used, but with a construction that does not signify that Adam would necessarily die a physical death in the same 24 hour day that he ate.

 

I find all of this so fascinating :)

[Tracy in Ky]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. :)

 

Peter is reminding his audience of Moses' words in Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV translation) Peter is cautioning his audience to remember this, we cannot know nor understand God's time and that we should not worry about the specific day and time of Christ's return.

 

Peter is not speaking to the length of a day. :)

 

I am not sure exactly what you disagree with :bigear:

[Lovedtodeath]

I am of the belief that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are historical narrative. They are not allegorical. You don't have to say that the entire passage is allegorical in order to understand that the word used for day does not mean 24 hours.

 

However, if one wanted to press the verse in the way you are suggesting, then the second half of the verse cancels the thought, for it says that a thousand years is like a day, which would bring us right back to 24 hour days.

I think you are saying that one could take the meaning of this verse to mean that God is capable of accomplishing 1000 years worth of work in one day? That reasoning would back up the idea of 24 hour days... but saying that it "brings us back to 24 hour days" as though it definitely backs up 24 hour days, is not logical, IMO. Edited March 9, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[asta]

Once again: Ya'll do realize that there are already several threads that go over (and over and over and over and over) this EXACT topic... right?

 

 

a

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Where in the Bible does it say that the ancient Hebrews intended Genesis to be read literally as a scientific & historical text rather than in an allegorical sense? God exists outside the human conception of time, and 2 Peter 3:8 discusses this: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." I see this passage and find it confirmation that the six days of Creation may very well represent some time frame other than 144 modern hours.

 

:iagree: I look at the grandeur of the universe and find it impossible to think it is only 6,000 years old. I also would rather consult theologians on the matter as well. I also do not think it matters to Jesus if we take the book of Genesis literally or not. I think what matters to Jesus is whether we love one another IMHO. Jesus broke many of the religious rules back then and treated others with love IMO.

 

John 13:34 (New International Version)

 

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

 

New International Version (NIV)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Once again: Ya'll do realize that there are already several threads that go over (and over and over and over and over) this EXACT topic... right?

 

 

a

 

:lol: True, but I like to express my opinion in a respectful manner:)

[Tracy in Ky]

I think you are saying that one could take the meaning of this verse to mean that God is capable of accomplishing 1000 years worth of work in one day? .

 

No, I was saying that if one presses the verse to mean that a 24 hour day can be 1,000 years, (thus forcing each day of creation to be 1,000 years or longer), then the second half the verse effectively cancels that out, because the comparison is then reversed back. The point isn't length of days at all, but the fact that what we think is slow according to our reckoning of time, isn't slow at all based on God's reckoning of time, because He isn't bound by the limits of time as we are.

 

2 Peter simply doesn't address the length of the days of creation in that verse. :)

[Tracy in Ky]

Once again: Ya'll do realize that there are already several threads that go over (and over and over and over and over) this EXACT topic... right?

 

 

a

 

:lol: