Re: How can lie be justification for truth?




On 1/25/06 4:50 PM, in article hoSBf.133755$6K2.15608@edtnps90, "Grendel"
<nadda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> anon1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window
>> to see what's outside, because when I was young my mother told me there
>> was a mad gunman stationned outside our house, ready to shoot anyone
>> who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said
>> he's still there and I need to stay in my room.
>>
>> Recently I discovered the telephone, and called the police, and asked
>> about the gunman. The police assured me that there's no such gunman.
>>
>> So I asked my mother about it. She admitted the literal story of the
>> gunman was not true, but said there's a deeper theological truth, it's a
>> parable, and I should trust the conclusion despite learning the premise
>> was false. I still need to stay in my room the rest of my life, and
>> never look outside. She says the parable is from God, who passed it
>> down through the generations, and I need to tell the parable to my own
>> children, so they don't stray out of their room and get killed by
>> whatever the gunman represents.
>>
>> How is that any different from Genesis, with the daylight and nightdark
>> cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created,
>
> Good question...and here is a good answer.
>
> How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasnâ??t created
> until the fourth day?
> by Jonathan Sarfati
>
> We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating
> Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly
> that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we
> can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this
> created light.
>
> God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told
> that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon
> (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of
> light or its absence.
>
> Å?Progressive creationistsâ?? sometimes use the argument that the days are
> really long periods, although God could have used words for that if He
> had really meant that (see How long were the days of Genesis 1?). The
> creation of the sun after the Earth undermines progressive creationistsâ??
> attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must
> explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on
> this fourth Å?dayâ?? was that the sun and other heavenly bodies Å?appearedâ??
> when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not
> only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word Å?asah means
> Å?makeâ?? throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with
> Å?createâ?? (baraâ??), e.g. in Genesis 1:26Ë?27. It is pure desperation to
> apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical
> construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic
> evolutionary ideas like the Å?big bangâ??. If God had meant Å?appearedâ??,
> then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (raâ??ah),
> as when the dry land Å?appearedâ?? as the waters gathered in one place on
> Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all
> clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.
>
> The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming
> that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no
> other intent Ë? particularly when the words Å?eveningâ?? and Å?morningâ?? are
> used from the first day. (See The Answers Book Chapter 2, and Six Days?
> Honestly!)

Certainly the story does refer to ordinary days. Whether the story was meant
to be literally true is something else altogether.

>
> On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earthâ??s
> temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first
> day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I
> found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis
> means what it says). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat
> arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]
> Notes
>
> 1.
>
> This would have been very significant to pagan world views which
> tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.

This is patently false. The Creation Myths of most cultures did not begin
with the sun. Life was usually well along before the sun was created.

Since ancient peoples were very much centered on where they lived and
usually did not travel great distances, each culture tends to see where they
are as the center of creation. The earth is usually (almost always) created
first out of some kind of disorder or chaos, but usually some material is
present to create from. Often the sun and moon and stars begin as people or
gods who then make their home in the sky.

An examination of the creation myths of the world in any significant detail
will reveal this. But Sarfati, for his own purposes of misdirection does not
tell us. It would blow his story.

While the Creation story of the Bible does have some unique points, it
shares common features with many creation myths.

> God seems to be
> making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood
> as the source of everything. He doesnâ??t Å?needâ?? the sun in order to
> create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)

Nor was the sun needed to create life in most creation myths around the
world.

> 2.
>
> This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before
> sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity.

Not at all. As noted above, in culture after culture, the "sun" is almost
always created after the earth, and is almost always created after some kind
of life activity is already going on.

> If the Bible had been the
> product of later Å?editorsâ??, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really
> write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their
> own understanding.

They certainly did. One understands that even in Ezra's day the sun was not
generally viewed as *the source* of light. The moon was also credited with
having light of its own, as was God, angels, etc. It was not thought that
without the sun there would be no light.

In fact, in the book of Revelation, the sun is seen as unnecessary for
light, for "the Lamb is the light thereof" in heaven.


> It is only recently that the astronomical fact has
> been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation.
> Having Å?dayâ?? without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to
> the ancients.

Shoot, they not only thought of it, they incorporated it into their
mythology.

I find it interesting that Creationists have to lie to make their point.

>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp
>
>
>> and the Adam and Eve story, with the Garden of Eden, and the tree of
>> knowledge, which is all a complete fiction, but is somehow supposed to
>> reveal our relation to God and specify a code of behavior of rejecting
>> anything we learn from other sources except the Bible?
>
> The Bible is not a science book.

This is perhaps the first true thing said (or quoted) by you today!

> That is not it's purpose.

Too right.

> It's purpose
> is to tell us how a perfectly holy God can have a relationship with
> sinners like me and you.
> However, the Bible is correct in areas it touches on, like biology,
> astronomy...etc.

Uhh, no. Hares and rabbits do not chew cud. And there is no biological
information in the Bible that other ancients did not think of first.

And wouldn't you know it? They thought the organ of thought and emotion was
the physical heart, not the brain!

> The Bible and science go hand and hand...no problems what so ever.
> The contradictions are between evolutionary science and the Bible.
> Because, the Bible and evolution are %100 mutually exclusive.

No sir. Your interpretation of the Bible may be 100% exclusive of science or
common sense (or truth, for that matter).

But as a Christian, I am offended by the lies you so readily parrot.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith


>
>
>
>
>
>
>> .
>>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How can lie be justification for truth?
    ... >> All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window ... >> How is that any different from Genesis, ... >> cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created, ... > that God created light on the first day, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How can lie be justification for truth?
    ... >>>All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window ... >>>How is that any different from Genesis, ... >>>cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created, ... >>that God created light on the first day, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is it really possible to offend someone on rmd?
    ... under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." ... hand of God; ... drink and take pleasure in all his toil. ... his toil through the days of life which God gives him under the sun. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: How can lie be justification for truth?
    ... >>> All my life I've been hiding in my room, afraid to look out the window ... >>> who peeks out the window, and anytime I asked about the gunman she said ... >>> cycling for three complete calendar days before the Sun was created, ... >> that God created light on the first day, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is it really possible to offend someone on rmd?
    ... under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." ... hand of God; ... drink and take pleasure in all his toil. ... his toil through the days of life which God gives him under the sun. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)