Sup,

Seemingly the thread we were talking in has actually vanished. If I remember correctly it was the Denke thread and we all know what a freakasaurus he is so it's of no surprise :)

Anyway, if you're upto it I would like to sorta continue where we are at.

You stated that we are in the 7th day. You went on to assert that genesis uses a different method of timescale or something.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would explain. Thanks.

Well, the question is what is the first assumption that most people assume about the creative days?

I'd hate to presume that I can speak for most people, kindly fill me in on the details just to prevent me making an error.

What do you think about the idea that the Earth was created in 6 days (six 24 hour periods)

Saquist:

I think the idea that the Earth was created in 6 24-hour periods is nonsense.

What do you think about that?

What do you think about the idea that the Earth was created in 6 days (six 24 hour periods)

To me the idea would seem somewhat understandable for an advanced alien species terraforming a planet - It will take some work. If we're talking some all powerful god entity I would have thought 6 gazillionths of a nanosecond would be sufficient.

From a biblical perspective it took 6 days and required a rest at the end.

If God created the earth then why not take the bibles word for it that he did it in 6 days ?

If God created the earth then why not take the bibles word for it that he did it in 6 days ?

according to the bible he did create the world in 6 days because on the 7th day he rested which is why sunday is suppose to be the day of rest (LOL)

according to the bible he did create the world in 6 days because on the 7th day he rested which is why sunday is suppose to be the day of rest (LOL)

Yes i agree, but Saquist here says it isnt so.

Personally im with Snakelord on this:

To me the idea would seem somewhat understandable for an advanced alien species terraforming a planet - It will take some work. If we're talking some all powerful god entity I would have thought 6 gazillionths of a nanosecond would be sufficient.

Yes i agree, but Saquist here says it isnt so.

Personally im with Snakelord on this:

anyway i dont believe he created the world, i think we're a mistake!!

To me the idea would seem somewhat understandable for an advanced alien species terraforming a planet - It will take some work. If we're talking some all powerful god entity I would have thought 6 gazillionths of a nanosecond would be sufficient.

From a biblical perspective it took 6 days and required a rest at the end.

And on the 8th day, God turnith to his client and spaketh, "That will be tree-fitty."

The whole "7th day being Sunday" sadly results from uninformed chauvinism; the Jewish calender was sufficiently different from ours. In fact, their calender started on Sunday, meaning the Sabbath would have actually been on Saturday.

But all of this is meaningless drivel anyway, who cares really? The Sabbath is about as useless of a religious tool as fasting (Jesus didn't even respect it). I've heard several interpretations of these "days" as symbolic and they supposedly represent much greater lengths of time than our "days". This is supported (weakly) by sparse verses here and there (2 Peter 3:8,10; Ezekiel 4:4-6). These verses nicely clean up some early contradictions (i.e. God: "If you eat of the tree, this day you will surely die."...and Adam was kicked out, not dead that very day. Well now a day constitutes as 1000 years, so He is all of a sudden right on as usual). Sounds like somebody can't pick up on figurative language.

Speaking of figurative language, there is another view; that the Sabbath isn't a period of 24 hours that is magically more pious than any other set of hours, but a state of spirituality in relation to God, as are all the other "days". This interpretation recognizes the absurdity of the literal words of the Bible, and so cloaks it in a shroud of metaphor (as if this is somehow better). Some are ambitious enough to play theological connect-the-dots to such an extent that they claim the first chapter of Genesis is actually a microcosm of all of time (which also nicely piffles the contradictory and adjacent two accounts of creation in Genesis); the seventh day a day of "rest" because by this time, Jesus has returned (once again, not literally, but spiritually in his people to such an extend that you might as well be looking at a physical Jesus) and the Earth experiences a Golden Age of revelation and harmony with God.

Of course, I don't buy into any of that either :D

Charming...

To me the idea would seem somewhat understandable for an advanced alien species terraforming a planet - It will take some work. If we're talking some all powerful god entity I would have thought 6 gazillionths of a nanosecond would be sufficient.

From a biblical perspective it took 6 days and required a rest at the end.

Instrestingly enough the Bible says it took 6 Days and then it says it took one day.

Were they 24 hour periods?
Infact if you were to go by the litteral each period was half a day.
You should search my Genesis thread which expalins this in detail.

There are many misconceptions about what Genesis is saying...

There are many misconceptions about what Genesis is saying...

Can it then be discarded as myth?

No.

Then, how useful is it if it's full of misconceptions?

I've heard several interpretations of these "days" as symbolic and they supposedly represent much greater lengths of time than our "days". This is supported (weakly) by sparse verses here and there (2 Peter 3:8,10; Ezekiel 4:4-6). These verses nicely clean up some early contradictions (i.e. God: "If you eat of the tree, this day you will surely die."...and Adam was kicked out, not dead that very day. Well now a day constitutes as 1000 years, so He is all of a sudden right on as usual). Sounds like somebody can't pick up on figurative language.


Aye, this is what I was waiting to hear Saquist say. He hasn't said it yet so I've gotta wait :)

Aye, this is what I was waiting to hear Saquist say. He hasn't said it yet so I've gotta wait :)

He's a charming one.

Aye, this is what I was waiting to hear Saquist say. He hasn't said it yet so I've gotta wait :)

If i understand correctly Saquist said in another thread that each day constitutes as 1000 years ?
Then saying that Adam would die that day means nothing more then if i said "you are going to die this millenium". Hell of a prediction :bugeye:

If i understand correctly Saquist said in another thread that each day constitutes as 1000 years ?
Then saying that Adam would die that day means nothing more then if i said "you are going to die this millenium". Hell of a prediction :bugeye:

He hadn't yet fully developed his prophecy skills, give him a break. You gotta start somewhere.

The serpent on the other hand...pwned that n00b.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA

I'm sure this has been posted before and I don't think it's entirely relevant but it's funny as hell.

He hadn't yet fully developed his prophecy skills, give him a break. You gotta start somewhere.

The serpent on the other hand...pwned that n00b.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA

I'm sure this has been posted before and I don't think it's entirely relevant but it's funny as hell.

Thats was brilliant !! :D Thanks for the link !

Then, how useful is it if it's full of misconceptions?

Own your misconceptions. It's very obvious that the bible doesn't meet a litteral 24 hour period. The misconception is that of those that may have relied on hearsay over research.

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.


Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

Own your misconceptions. It's very obvious that the bible doesn't meet a litteral 24 hour period. The misconception is that of those that may have relied on hearsay over research.

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.


Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

I've been asking several Bible scholars the following question, so don't take it as me picking on just you: What makes your interpretation the correct one?

Asking why the bible is full of misconception is tantamount to asking "why do people speak in metaphors?" And surely this is concept that today we all appreciate.

Once again, you've changed my quote. I never asked why the bible was full of misconceptions, I asked, "How USEFUL is it if it's full of misconceptions?"

This is significant. After taking in the meaning of Day from various parts of the bible, It's easy to see that in multiple location "Day" does not refer to a 24 hour day.


Here is the problem when you make the claim that "day" refers to 1000 years:

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

But no, the religious think they can just make it up as they go along. The bible writers were idiots, one minute not knowing what a "day" means, and the next knowing perfectly well.

What you would have to do is justify why you claim the biblical writers didn't understand what a "day" was, and why they actually meant 1000 years when not doing the same in any other usage of the word 'day' in the entire bible.

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.


Actually its much worse than that, i think you made a typo there.
If 1 'day' refers to 1000 years, then 40 'days' refers to 40.000 years!
This is already longer than Saquist proposes the earth has existed. :D

Yeah, years sorry.. that's what I meant :D

Once again, you've changed my quote. I never asked why the bible was full of misconceptions, I asked, "How USEFUL is it if it's full of misconceptions?"


You're dodging. The point is these are you own misconceptions. Because you're dodging this point you'll no understand it.

You're dodging. The point is these are you own misconceptions. Because you're dodging this point you'll no understand it.

WTF?

I'm dodging???:rolleyes:

All you had to say is that you couldn't answer the question after digging yourself into a corner, no need for the BS.

Here is the problem when you make the claim that "day" refers to 1000 years:

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

But no, the religious think they can just make it up as they go along. The bible writers were idiots, one minute not knowing what a "day" means, and the next knowing perfectly well.

What you would have to do is justify why you claim the biblical writers didn't understand what a "day" was, and why they actually meant 1000 years when not doing the same in any other usage of the word 'day' in the entire bible.
\
There is a certain parameter to apply the day for a year rule and a parameter for a day is a thousand years.

A day for a year is a prophetic timetable
A day to a thousand years is a Godly perspective.
Neither is applied in the Genesis account which is a man's perspective as the creation would appear from a man's perspective.

WTF?

I'm dodging???:rolleyes:

All you had to say is that you couldn't answer the question after digging yourself into a corner, no need for the BS.

Correction:
I could not answer the question to your satisfaction. However the question is answered in all reasonableness.

Correction:
I could not answer the question to your satisfaction. However the question is answered in all reasonableness.

Oh, yes, of course. How silly of me to not have been reasonable. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be your first time. Thus a pattern is established.
Reason is meant as yielding...In order to be reasonable you must yield to logic the boundaries of the discussion and what is probable.

If you are determined to remain opposed to the bible, then quite frankly you're wasting your time here.
(wallowing in a state of "unreason")

It wouldn't be your first time. Thus a pattern is established.
Reason is meant as yielding...In order to be reasonable you must yield to logic the boundaries of the discussion and what is probable.

If you are determined to remain opposed to the bible, then quite frankly you're wasting your time here.
(wallowing in a state of "unreason")

YOU were the one who said that Genesis was full of misconceptions, hence ANY reasonable person would consider it's usefulness as a moot point. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of misconceptions?

.

There are many misconceptions about what Genesis is saying...

IT would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your interpretation. Will you now be known for misquoting on a whim?
No wonder we've had a communication problem.

What a waste of time. Forget it.

IT would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your interpretation. Will you now be known for misquoting on a whim?
No wonder we've had a communication problem.

Hate to butt in cause it's not my business, but just to point out the obvious, Q is right you know. "It would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your own interpretation," I fail to see how you escape this as well. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Neither is applied in the Genesis account which is a man's perspective as the creation would appear from a man's perspective

All due respect but there wouldn't have been any men around to see it - and thus the only 'perspective' would have had to have come from god:

"Guys, it took me 6 days to make the universe, on the 7th I had a rest. Oh and guys, it's going to rain for 40 days and 40 nights.. Oh and btw, as I'm a god of confusion.. when I say day I mean thousands of years, and sometimes I mean day".

Do me a lemon.

Hate to butt in cause it's not my business, but just to point out the obvious, Q is right you know. "It would seem that the way you color reality is subjective to your own interpretation," I fail to see how you escape this as well. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Your opinion is noted Celpha Fiael. The facts are remain static however. Q would like to imply that I said the bible is full of misconceptions when that was his statement. I merely pointed out people have misconceptions about the bible. You're right the difference is obvious it is hard to conprehend how you see it any other way but the way the facts present it.

IF you and your compatriot were concerned more with comprehension then blame then our schism would not be in place. I stand ready at anytime to answer your question, approachable and reasonable.

That being so, I have a low tolerance conteniousness. If that was not your intent. I'm willing to accept that, but allowances for rank disrespect, lying, and hardheadedness is not something I will enable you to do when speaking to me.

In other words it's a short life, so get to the point.

All due respect but there wouldn't have been any men around to see it - and thus the only 'perspective' would have had to have come from god:

That's correct. No man was present during the creation process on the Earth.
Does that therefore mean that the Genesis account is from the perspective of God? No.

The Bible frequently approches the incomprehensible in smaller more easier to understand terms. While we in this modern age can comprend the ammount of time that should have elasped the people who Adam passed the Genesis account to would have had a limmited scope. Far more limited than our own.

Then there is the question of how much Adam understood if any. Did Adam pass down the Genesis account to generations or was this inspired and given to Moses specificly? We don't know.

However we do know that it was meant for ease of understanding. As a result the literal number of days actually elapsed is unknown. Genesis immediately after creation states that these events chronicle the day God created the Earth. So we do know that the bible is not stating 6 literal days.

It's confusing at first. But consider why. Most churches are based on tradition and word of mouth. While it's certainly not untrue that the bible says 6 days...the question becomes is it a litteral period of time and is there substantial preocurring usage of the word in symbolic forum to suggest that these days are not litteral?

The answer is Yes, there is more than enough.

The next question is there any sign that the days in questioin are not literal?

The answer is also Yes,

Paul (I believe) speaking of the 7th day of God's rest stated of the Great Sabbath that it was ongoing even now...

True to that statement. Genesis fails to end the Seventh day...unlike the previous six days.

It is not an issue of If God had the power to create the Earth or even the Universe in just six days. The bible says plainly that he is "abundant in dynamic energy"

The question is...is God telling us through inspired scriptures that such an event occured. The facts once viewed i their entirety, say no.




Guys, it took me 6 days to make the universe, on the 7th I had a rest. Oh and guys, it's going to rain for 40 days and 40 nights.. Oh and btw, as I'm a god of confusion.. when I say day I mean thousands of years, and sometimes I mean day".

Do me a lemon.[/QUOTE]

Your opinion is noted Celpha Fiael. The facts are remain static however. Q would like to imply that I said the bible is full of misconceptions when that was his statement. I merely pointed out people have misconceptions about the bible. You're right the difference is obvious it is hard to conprehend how you see it any other way but the way the facts present it.

IF you and your compatriot were concerned more with comprehension then blame then our schism would not be in place. I stand ready at anytime to answer your question, approachable and reasonable.

That being so, I have a low tolerance conteniousness. If that was not your intent. I'm willing to accept that, but allowances for rank disrespect, lying, and hardheadedness is not something I will enable you to do when speaking to me.

In other words it's a short life, so get to the point.

Your respone is appreciated, I was hoping to get your attention because I asked you a question above that was never answered. I was thinking maybe you didn't see it.

the people who Adam passed the Genesis account to would have had a limmited scope. Far more limited than our own.

And yet we know that these poor old limited fools knew what the word 'day' meant because they used it correctly every other time in the very same writing.

These same limited fools even showed that they recognised what a day was. On the first day god separates dark and light - evening came and morning came.. thats day 1 done. Funnily enough the rest of the days follow this trend - that a new day starts with morning.

You have no case to say 'day doesn't mean day because these people were limited in understanding'.

However we do know that it was meant for ease of understanding.

Oh I see, you use a word that means something entirely different to what you're trying to say and that's for "ease of understanding". Ok Saquist, ok.

As a result the literal number of days actually elapsed is unknown

Incorrect. Count the number of times the sun rises. Unless of course it took a thousand years for each sunrise back in the day?

Genesis immediately after creation states that these events chronicle the day God created the Earth. So we do know that the bible is not stating 6 literal days.


Only thing I can see is 'Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created'. How does that indicate the bible is not stating 6 days?

the question becomes is it a litteral period of time

The answer is yes - unless you claim that one rising of the sun to the next does not constitute a literal day.

The next question is there any sign that the days in questioin are not literal?

Not when they openly display their knowledge of a day - the rising of the sun to the next rising of the sun.

Paul (I believe) speaking of the 7th day of God's rest stated of the Great Sabbath that it was ongoing even now...

What it shows is that god continues to rest - because creation was completed - as explained in genesis. The sabbath is ongoing because the 7th day was made holy - which is why it is 'celebrated' every.... 7 days. No Saquist, the holy day is not 'celebrated' every 7,000 years.

And yet we know that these poor old limited fools knew what the word 'day' meant because they used it correctly every other time in the very same writing.

I do not regard them as fools.

These same limited fools even showed that they recognised what a day was. On the first day god separates dark and light - evening came and morning came.. thats day 1 done. Funnily enough the rest of the days follow this trend - that a new day starts with morning.

In the Genesis Account a day stands for a period of time. It is a common metaphor that repeats again and again in the bible.

In refrence to the Festival of booths...described as one in one verse when it is known to last serveral days.

You have no case to say 'day doesn't mean day because these people were limited in understanding'.

It is plain to see that there understanding of creation was limited. They would not have appreciated any microscopic life that that likely came to be before complex plant life...then again...who am I to say.



Oh I see, you use a word that means something entirely different to what you're trying to say and that's for "ease of understanding". Ok Saquist, ok.

It is not uncommon even today.



Incorrect. Count the number of times the sun rises. Unless of course it took a thousand years for each sunrise back in the day?

If you wish to take the Genesis account litteraly...so be it.
I find sufficient grounds in the scriptures to find the "day" refrence in the Genesis Account as NOT Litteral.



Only thing I can see is 'Such was the story of heaven and earth as they were created'. How does that indicate the bible is not stating 6 days?


which part did you not understand.



The answer is yes - unless you claim that one rising of the sun to the next does not constitute a literal day.

As the Hebrews associated a day...from one sunset to the next.
In this case it is quite figurative as I've illistrated.



Not when they openly display their knowledge of a day - the rising of the sun to the next rising of the sun.

As a reasonable person it's apparent that the days are not litteral.



What it shows is that god continues to rest - because creation was completed - as explained in genesis. The sabbath is ongoing because the 7th day was made holy - which is why it is 'celebrated' every.... 7 days. No Saquist, the holy day is not 'celebrated' every 7,000 years.

Hense why it was called the Sabbath of God or the Great Sabbath. No Snakelord the seventh day of the month is not the Great Sabbath. The Great Sabbath is the seventh day of creation.

I've been asking several Bible scholars the following question, so don't take it as me picking on just you: What makes your interpretation the correct one?

I try not to interpret the Bible but I understand your meaning.
The correct understanding of the scriptures will no cause contradiction with other scriptures.

For example:
It is a common belief that the bible says good people go to heaven.

Reality: Not one scripture says ALL good people go to Heaven.

It is a common belief that the bible says bad people will burn in Hell.

Reality: The bible says Hell is merely mankinds common grave.
Reality: The place of burning torment is figurative ~Gehenna~ Lake of Fire and Sulfer~ They are symbolic of eternal death with no possibility of a return to life.

And the same is true of the Creative days...figurative. And once you've observed and research scripture that has been found to have figurative content it is easier to identify the same in other scriptures.

Snake lord said that the 6 days of creation were "imperfect" since 6 is the number for imperfection.

Is that scriptural understanding? No.
The bible gives every indication that God is incapable of imperfect acts.
Further Imperfection always refers to man....Just as 666 is a "man's number " not a heavenly number

Just as ten is a man's number for perfection and 7 is a heavenly number for perfection....but there is no number for God's imperfection because he has no imperfection.

I do not regard them as fools.

I couldn't be more pleased for you. It doesn't however detract from the point. You claimed they were "limited" when trying to explain that they couldn't accurately describe a day, I have shown otherwise.


In the Genesis Account a day stands for a period of time.

Indeed: The period between one sunrise and the next. You want to assert otherwise. You want to assert that in this one instance a 'day' actually means a millennium even though the same text describes that 'day' as being from one sunrise to the next. You have a lot of work to do.

It is a common metaphor that repeats again and again in the bible.

What's a common metaphor? The word day is used many times in the bible and signifies the period between one sunrise and the next. When it rained for 40 days, it rained for 40 days - not 40,000 years. Etc etc etc.

In refrence to the Festival of booths...described as one in one verse when it is known to last serveral days.

Provide a quote if you would be so kind.

It is plain to see that there understanding of creation was limited.

On your thread a while back I remember you asserting that these same people had it spot on, and you indeed went to great length to argue against anyone that stated otherwise. Now you provide an explanation that... "They would not have appreciated any microscopic life", and I will not disagree with you whatsoever. My only bone of contention is that we're not talking about microscopic life, we're talking about whether a day is a day or a millennium. It is abundantly clear that these people, while ignorant of microscopic lifeforms, damn well knew what a day was.

If you wish to take the Genesis account litteraly...so be it.

Hang about.. You assert that the word 'day' doesn't mean day at all, but something completely different to day - something in fact 365,000 days longer than a day and then say I'm taking the genesis account too literally? What kind of horse manure is that? If you make the assertion that a 'day' doesn't mean a day then you have to support it with something - that something being biblical text to which the minute you do, I can then turn around and say you're taking the bible too literally.

But wait, I shall not get ahead of myself. I will afford you the opportunity to support your claim. You have tried thus far with one unnamed, unsourced statement that a festival that lasted for several days was claimed as being one day. Forgive me, but even if this was the case, how it supports a claim that the genesis 'day' is actually a millennium is beyond me.

What your argument here does is descend the entire bible into absolute worthlessness. That bit where it says some guy named jesus was born.. pfft, you're taking it too literally. That bit where it says god created something.. pfft, you're taking it too literally. What exactly is left the minute you start playing such games?

I find sufficient grounds in the scriptures to find the "day" refrence in the Genesis Account as NOT Litteral.

You keep saying that but never support the claim. Oh and lest I forget, the only reason you would find grounds in scripture is because you're taking that scripture literally :bugeye:

Anyway, I look forward to some meat to join those potatoes.

which part did you not understand.

Which part of what? The only thing I don't understand right now is why you're not supporting your claim - instead just repeating the claim as if the more you say it the more true it will become. I find such beahviour quite off-putting.

You claim that a 'day' - written as being the period between sunrise and sunrise is not a 'day' but in fact a millennium. Nobody that I have ever met alive right now would assert such a thing. They would all indeed support the notion that a day is in fact a period lasting between sunrise and sunrise. Of course I can understand your confusion if you happen to live in a region where the sun has not risen in the past 1,000 years - and I don't blame you for that, but it is undeniably apparent that these people used the term 'day' to denote a period from one sunrise to the next.

As the Hebrews associated a day...from one sunset to the next.

And.. that is indeed a day - the same period of time, just from a different starting point. It does not in any way, shape or form indicate that a 'day' in this instance actually means 365,000 sunrises or sunsets.

As a reasonable person it's apparent that the days are not litteral.

You keep saying that. Wheres the meat? I'm not vegetarian. The amusing thing is that I provide detailed reason as to why a day constitutes a certain period of time, (one day to the next), thus showing that when they used the word 'day' they were in fact referring to the same period of time that we do today. You then have the audacity to claim that I am not reasonable while not having the integrity or decency to support your claim - thinking that your simple say so and insult to my character makes whatever you say valid. I find such attitude quite distasteful.

No Snakelord the seventh day of the month is not the Great Sabbath. The Great Sabbath is the seventh day of creation.

You start with "no Snakelord", as if seemingly implying that I stated that the sabbath or rest day is on the seventh of the month. Where did I say such a thing? I stated that the 'rest day' is celebrated every 7 days, because the 7th day was made holy because that's when gods work was completed. Now, if you assert that this is still the 7th day, and we know that the 7th day is holy.. then we shouldn't be doing anything.. ever. god tells mankind not to do any work etc on the sabbath - because that is the holy day. If that day is today and everyday then every single man ever to have lived has failed to understand god's words. And you call that "ease of understanding"? Do me a lemon.

Anytime you have something of substance to support your claims let me know.

Snake lord said that the 6 days of creation were "imperfect" since 6 is the number for imperfection.

Not really. You claimed that '6' was a sign of imperfection. I then asked you if that meant that creation was imperfect considering it took 6 days. You said no, thus contradicting your own earlier claim.

I couldn't be more pleased for you. It doesn't however detract from the point. You claimed they were "limited" when trying to explain that they couldn't accurately describe a day, I have shown otherwise.

Not at all infact.



Indeed: The period between one sunrise and the next. You want to assert otherwise. You want to assert that in this one instance a 'day' actually means a millennium even though the same text describes that 'day' as being from one sunrise to the next. You have a lot of work to do

You have the facts and there is much more. Feel free to believe whatever you wish.



What's a common metaphor? The word day is used many times in the bible and signifies the period between one sunrise and the next. When it rained for 40 days, it rained for 40 days - not 40,000 years. Etc etc etc.

Never saw anything state that it rained for 40,000 years. However I have proven to you that a "day" meaning is not regulated to a mere 24 hour period.



Provide a quote if you would be so kind.

I don't see how it would change your perspective there are many occasions in which a day was not actually a day. But You've rejected all these in order to focus specificly on 24 hours despite evidence to the contrary.



On your thread a while back I remember you asserting that these same people had it spot on, and you indeed went to great length to argue against anyone that stated otherwise. Now you provide an explanation that...

It's the same position ...nothing has change. Back then I made it evident that several scientist saw the Genesis account as the perfect way to describe creation to a simple pastoral people.

"They would not have appreciated any microscopic life", and I will not disagree with you whatsoever. My only bone of contention is that we're not talking about microscopic life, we're talking about whether a day is a day or a millennium. It is abundantly clear that these people, while ignorant of microscopic lifeforms, damn well knew what a day was.

The question is...the time which transpired for the Earth's formation likely would have been so long it would have lacked any significant meaning. Rather the Bible has presented the Earth construction in 6 periods of time which are regarded as days. And...at the end of the "day" or the completion of the project...all where allowed to rest.



Hang about.. You assert that the word 'day' doesn't mean day at all, but something completely different to day - something in fact 365,000 days longer than a day and then say I'm taking the genesis account too literally? What kind of horse manure is that? If you make the assertion that a 'day' doesn't mean a day then you have to support it with something - that something being biblical text to which the minute you do, I can then turn around and say you're taking the bible too literally.

A scritpural foundation is all that's necessary Snakelord. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was not litteral. But you can belive what ever you wish.

But wait, I shall not get ahead of myself. I will afford you the opportunity to support your claim. You have tried thus far with one unnamed, unsourced statement that a festival that lasted for several days was claimed as being one day. Forgive me, but even if this was the case, how it supports a claim that the genesis 'day' is actually a millennium is beyond me.

Yet again I must ask...to what end? I know this information but it's not likely to do anything to change your mind.

What your argument here does is descend the entire bible into absolute worthlessness. That bit where it says some guy named jesus was born.. pfft, you're taking it too literally. That bit where it says god created something.. pfft, you're taking it too literally. What exactly is left the minute you start playing such games?

Oh no, Snakelord let that be your arguement, not mine.



You keep saying that but never support the claim. Oh and lest I forget, the only reason you would find grounds in scripture is because you're taking that scripture literally :bugeye:

Thus far you've been completely dismissive of every bit of information I dispense. Challenge me, dare me...your position is quite clear. You intend to go absolutely nowhere with the information wish me to disclose. Hense I'm wasting my time. And you're incouraging me to do so.

Anyway, I look forward to some meat to join those potatoes.
Don't look to far forward. I'm sorry I can't satiate your desire deny the obvious allowance that the scriptures make for the Creative Days. I for one can't believe just because of the evidence that it is a litteral 6 days.

You wish to continue to belive as it was...
I...suspect...You don't wish to allow the scriptures to be correct in any capacity. That's unfortunant if it's true.


Which part of what? The only thing I don't understand right now is why you're not supporting your claim - instead just repeating the claim as if the more you say it the more true it will become. I find such beahviour quite off-putting.

Give me a good reaons why...my claim needs to be verified by you.

You claim that a 'day' - written as being the period between sunrise and sunrise is not a 'day' but in fact a millennium.

I never put any number on the creative days. Thus your statement is false.

Nobody that I have ever met alive right now would assert such a thing. They would all indeed support the notion that a day is in fact a period lasting between sunrise and sunrise.
Yes that would be litteral.
As I've explained...there is no reason to believe these are litteral days.



You keep saying that. Wheres the meat? I'm not vegetarian. The amusing thing is that I provide detailed reason as to why a day constitutes a certain period of time, (one day to the next), thus showing that when they used the word 'day' they were in fact referring to the same period of time that we do today.

Are you waiting to be convinced?

You then have the audacity to claim that I am not reasonable while not having the integrity or decency to support your claim

Yes, how dare I make that claim in light of just the small bit of logical reasoning you're been made privy to.

- thinking that your simple say so and insult to my character makes whatever you say valid. I find such attitude quite distasteful.

Not at all...I encourage you to research the topic on your own.


Where did I say such a thing? I stated that the 'rest day' is celebrated every 7 days, because the 7th day was made holy because that's when gods work was completed.

There's no denying fact...The day of rest is indeed the Seventh Day.

Now, if you assert that this is still the 7th day, and we know that the 7th day is holy.. then we shouldn't be doing anything.. ever. god tells mankind not to do any work etc on the sabbath - because that is the holy day. If that day is today and everyday then every single man ever to have lived has failed to understand god's words. And you call that "ease of understanding"? Do me a lemon.

I can't assert anything.I must defer to the scritpures which say it is so. Obviously this greater Sabbath does not restrict our labors. That would be repetitive. That day has been set aside.

I'd have to look it up to give you details...but I'm not inclined to do so. I imagine that may fusturate you...but I'm sure you'll get over it...research it yourself or give up after this has grown tiresome.

Anytime you have something of substance to support your claims let me know.


If it bit you...would you know....
I hope so.


Not really. You claimed that '6' was a sign of imperfection. I then asked you if that meant that creation was imperfect considering it took 6 days. You said no, thus contradicting your own earlier claim.

There was no contradiction. The creative days were heavenly acts...It was not a man's creation...therefore the only contradiction is your own. You work hard on narrowing in on one piece of information, snakelord. Next time attempt to use all the information I give you. Ignoring the other refrences will not get you anymore information....at least not from me.

It was just a small bit of information I imparted. But I've seen the scriptures and understand their meaning. You have not. At least you appear to not have that knowledge. But you dismiss them anyway. So be it.

Let's see if goading and painfull dedication to the litteral letter of text will get you any where.

Not at all infact.

Not at all what?

You have the facts and there is much more.

Oh do tell, what "facts" are those exactly other than the 'fact' that my 8 year old daughter would put up a more supported debate than you clearly can?

I don't understand exactly what you think you have managed to argue with any decent level of competence.

You claim that the biblical writers did not mean 'day' when they used the word day. The evidence against your claim is that those same biblical writers informed the reader that to them a day constituted a period of time from one sunrise to the next sunrise. This is accepted as a 'day' even by modern standards - and it is absolutely impossible to support your claim that the biblical writers at that time meant anything other than a 24 hour period.

Now, perhaps you're getting confused. The world and universe could have been 'created' in 6 nanoseconds or 6 gazillion years, or - and more likely - not at all. The point of discussion is not how long it took, if indeed creation ever happened, but what the biblical writers meant with the word day - and it is simply undeniable given the text to claim they meant anything other than a 'day' as we understand the word. They are saying, wrong or not, that god took 6 days, (24 hour periods), to create what he created.

Never saw anything state that it rained for 40,000 years.

You're right. Day means day. Glad we have finally established that.

However I have proven to you that a "day" meaning is not regulated to a mere 24 hour period.

No disrespect Saquist, but if you think repeating a claim over and over is "proof", then you're really not ready for large scale debates - or any debates for that matter. The word 'day' in genesis refers to a day as we understand the word- which is shown beyond any doubt whatsoever because each 'day' stems from one sunrise to the next. That is a day. It is nothing else.. it's not a week, it's not a month, it's not a year.

I don't see how it would change your perspective there are many occasions in which a day was not actually a day. But You've rejected all these in order to focus specificly on 24 hours despite evidence to the contrary.

1) Rejected all of what? You haven't given me anything other than a basless claim. Oh, aside from telling me that at the end of creation it says 7 days took 1 day - which it doesn't.

2) What evidence? For one last time: Your say so is not evidence, your continual repetition of a claim is not evidence, or proof, or fact. You need to learn this quick time.

The question is...the time which transpired for the Earth's formation likely would have been so long it would have lacked any significant meaning.

Of course the earths formation took a long damn time, that is not the debate.

Rather the Bible has presented the Earth construction in 6 periods of time which are regarded as days

Those days being 24 hour periods. What is you don't understand? :shrug:

There is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was not litteral.

Yesssssssssssss, you keep telling me this. So, where is it? Get on with it already, I'll be dead in 100 years time.

Yet again I must ask...to what end?

To uhh... support a claim that you made lol.

Oh no, Snakelord let that be your arguement, not mine.

Uhh.. it was your argument.

Thus far you've been completely dismissive of every bit of information I dispense.

Come now, I keep asking you to provide evidence but you seemingly want me to just accept a baseless claim. Come on Saquist, this is not how debates work.

I...suspect...You don't wish to allow the scriptures to be correct in any capacity. That's unfortunant if it's true.

Without wanting to point out the blatantly obvious: YOU are the one saying that scripture is not correct lol - indeed accusing me of taking it too correctly.

Have you come to this debate while still sleeping?

Give me a good reaons why...my claim needs to be verified by you.

Oh right, you're unaware of how these things work. Ok, let me spell it out to you: When you go about making a claim to someone it is standard procedure that they ask for some verification to your claim. For instance:

I claim that there is a leprechaun in my garage. You now seemingly assert that you should just accept this claim as true - simply on the basis that I've claimed it. Surely even someone unfamiliar with how debate works should recognise a problem with that?

I never put any number on the creative days.

You did indeed, stating that we are still on day 7, (which means these days must actually be longer than 1 day - in fact quite a bit more than 1 day as we understand the word).

Yes that would be litteral.
As I've explained...there is no reason to believe these are litteral days.

Other than the fact that it explains them as being from one sunrise to the next. Go figure.. :bugeye:

There's no denying fact...The day of rest is indeed the Seventh Day.

Yessssss... where did anyone say otherwise? Kindly quote the comment. Thanks.


I can't assert anything.I must defer to the scritpures which say it is so.

So if you must, then do so already. Seems like a reasonable idea.. But wait..

I'd have to look it up to give you details...but I'm not inclined to do so.

Oops. Ok then.. :shrug:

The creative days were heavenly acts...It was not a man's creation...therefore the only contradiction is your own.

1) Do you even know what contradiction means? If so how have you managed to fit it in that sentence?

2) So now you change details. Your original claim was that '6' was a sign of imperfection. You never mentioned anything about it only being so with regards to "human creation" - whatever that might mean. In either case I don't see how you support a claim that 6 is a sign of imperfection. The notion is dumb, no offence.

Now.. If you don't want to support your claims and instead think it is sufficient merely to waffle the same claim over and over and over then fine.. But go do that with someone more in tune with such a style of debate, namely a 3 year old. I hope that's understood.

I try not to interpret the Bible but I understand your meaning.
The correct understanding of the scriptures will no cause contradiction with other scriptures.


This is all I'm really interested in. I strongly agree that any interpretation should strive to rid itself of any and all contradiction, but I ask, does that necessarily make it the truth? I could (not easily) construct an interpretation of the Odyssey's symbols and metaphorical meanings that is free of contradiction, but it does not follow that the story from which the interpretation was drawn must be true. I highly doubt you would disagree concerning the Odyssey. So it seems that an interpretation of the Bible, while it may be rid of contradiction, is still just an opinion, albeit a more successful one than others.

Oh do tell, what "facts" are those exactly other than the 'fact' that my 8 year old daughter would put up a more supported debate than you clearly can

This is your flaw...you think ...I'm debating you...

This is all I'm really interested in. I strongly agree that any interpretation should strive to rid itself of any and all contradiction, but I ask, does that necessarily make it the truth? I could (not easily) construct an interpretation of the Odyssey's symbols and metaphorical meanings that is free of contradiction, but it does not follow that the story from which the interpretation was drawn must be true. I highly doubt you would disagree concerning the Odyssey. So it seems that an interpretation of the Bible, while it may be rid of contradiction, is still just an opinion, albeit a more successful one than others.


You bring up a good point, Celpha. Deciphering the truth is one of the most difficult objectives we as humans can undertake. It's why there are so many faiths, so many interpretations and so many doctrines.

I can tell you that no one correct line of thinking, no one fact can define the truth. It is a myriad of facts and right thinking and reasonings that lead to that truth. It must all harmonize, it must all fit, and not just truth unto itself...truth in harmony with everything.

The Bible is one of those rare...truths that is consistent true unto it'self and truely in harmony with everything else. It's 1200 someodd pages. It not only takes awhile to understand what you read it takes extensive research.

This is your flaw...you think ...I'm debating you...

This was the best response you could manage? Thank you for making my point.

You bring up a good point, Celpha. Deciphering the truth is one of the most difficult objectives we as humans can undertake. It's why there are so many faiths, so many interpretations and so many doctrines.

I can tell you that no one correct line of thinking, no one fact can define the truth. It is a myriad of facts and right thinking and reasonings that lead to that truth. It must all harmonize, it must all fit, and not just truth unto itself...truth in harmony with everything.

The Bible is one of those rare...truths that is consistent true unto it'self and truely in harmony with everything else. It's 1200 someodd pages. It not only takes awhile to understand what you read it takes extensive research.

I'd like to suggest a correction in what you've said; it's not that the Bible itself is consistently true to itself, but just your interpretation of it. You would surely agree with me that there are countless interpretations that suffer from contradictions and inconsistencies ad nauseum. Yet as we've agreed, their interpretation is just as valid as yours, although yours may be more successful.

Now I'd like to posit something of grander purpose to you than nit-picky details on semantics. Above you say that, "Deciphering the truth is one of the most difficult objectives we as humans can undertake." I cannot tell you how right I think you are, and in our doing so, there needs to be a solid and structured way of deciphering the truth. I have found that philosophy/theology, while it has its place, cannot serve as the forerunner in our search for truth, due to the wide sea of potential interpretations we've pondered, which are all subject to particular individuals and opinions at heart. What we need is a universal criterion which organizes these ideas and opinions into varying degrees of correctness concerning the truth; otherwise it is simply my word versus your word versus his word versus her word. This universal criterion is science; science is the enterprise that allows opinions to become either facts or falsities. I'll stress again the shortcomings of philosophy/theology here; they can but only show differing degrees of successfulness within relative opinions. In fact, theology would be quick to point out that it deals largely in a realm where hard evidence cannot go, so anything in that realm can't by its own terms leave the developmental stage of opinion.

In short, this is why I look so favorably upon a scientific pursuit of truth; indeed, I believe it is the only real way we will ever get to anything close to truth. It is infinitely more satisfying than the camps of philosophy and theology, as fun as they can be (as I've said, they do have their place) because you actually have undeniable evidence that cannot be refuted by well constructed logic, no matter how rid of contradiction or inconsistencies. Food for thought there.

This was the best response you could manage? Thank you for making my point.

No, thank you for realizing the futility in pointless debating tactics, and dismissing yourself however belatedly.

I'd like to suggest a correction in what you've said; it's not that the Bible itself is consistently true to itself, but just your interpretation of it. You would surely agree with me that there are countless interpretations that suffer from contradictions and inconsistencies ad nauseum. Yet as we've agreed, their interpretation is just as valid as yours, although yours may be more successful.


I can certainly understand for where you speak. It's not uncommon that I speak with individuals with a similary outlook. All of them agree that religion has only bred uncertainty and contradiction. The question of validity is a constant struggle formost that are searching for God.

If we are to assume there is a God that created evertything and that has seen fit to have text as testimony of his existence and purpose handed down to us then we are talking about an author. More than just that...but an author with his own way. So it's elementary to assume there is only one way. Out of a hundred paths then there can only be one true path.

Are all the other paths just as valid is they inwardly contradict themselves?

Now I'd like to posit something of grander purpose to you than nit-picky details on semantics. Above you say that, "Deciphering the truth is one of the most difficult objectives we as humans can undertake." I cannot tell you how right I think you are, and in our doing so, there needs to be a solid and structured way of deciphering the truth. I have found that philosophy/theology, while it has its place, cannot serve as the forerunner in our search for truth, due to the wide sea of potential interpretations we've pondered, which are all subject to particular individuals and opinions at heart. What we need is a universal criterion which organizes these ideas and opinions into varying degrees of correctness concerning the truth; otherwise it is simply my word versus your word versus his word versus her word. This universal criterion is science; science is the enterprise that allows opinions to become either facts or falsities. I'll stress again the shortcomings of philosophy/theology here; they can but only show differing degrees of successfulness within relative opinions. In fact, theology would be quick to point out that it deals largely in a realm where hard evidence cannot go, so anything in that realm can't by its own terms leave the developmental stage of opinion.

I agree to a degree with this. I believe that religion is a difficult measure of reality. The fundalmentals are rarely agreed upon, there is constant contentiousness among sects and doctrines...I've often related it to the American Stock Market: A conflageration of objectives and followers shouting for equal time and presense of a floor of chaos. I've found that the one not shouting is the one with somthing to listen too. It narrows the field.

Science is a vernerable field. It is the pursuit of how the world around us works. It should have no bias and no preconcieved notions. However I've found that science bares a remarkable similarity to the American Stock Market. The shouting, the theories of what will fail vs the successes. The personal objectives and at many times the lack of listening.

I've concluded that the common denominator in failure to find truth isn't the ideaology, science or theology...it's ourselves. It's the human factor that is consistently predjudice and hampered by alterior motives. Without the human factor there is nothing wrong with either religion or science.

In short, this is why I look so favorably upon a scientific pursuit of truth; indeed, I believe it is the only real way we will ever get to anything close to truth. It is infinitely more satisfying than the camps of philosophy and theology, as fun as they can be (as I've said, they do have their place) because you actually have undeniable evidence that cannot be refuted by well constructed logic, no matter how rid of contradiction or inconsistencies. Food for thought there.

The black and white, Yes. it's like problem solving ask a question and get a clear answer. This I can appreciate.

Saquist,

I'm glad we find agreement on a lot of this. I know all too well the human element which tends to muddle things up, no matter what enterprise we are dealing with, religion or science. But another thing I admire about science is that these anomalies of biasness are automatically weeded out by the intellectually honest structure and methodology that scientific pursuit is founded upon. In other words, science is here strictly for knowledge's sake, so I imagine anyone who is abusing that is quickly identified and dismissed by the rest of the community. Religion exists for more purposes than just knowledge (it generally tries to be way too ambitious if you ask me), which allows for so much more opportunity to muddle in than science does.

As for your question, the answer is in a word, yes. The contradictory ones are just less successful and indicative of a less-applied reasoning. Your elementary assumption is one I think you jump to hastily. Consider this; perhaps there was reason God (assuming he exists) decided to have multiple people author his infallible word, namely that no one person has the correct spiritual interpretation. My father believes that all religions and ways of considering the spiritual are correct paths, all leading to God. This is just as equally a possibility as just one being correct, or none being correct for that matter.

Perhaps, but consider this...the bible itself tells us that only god is to interpret. That then implies that we need not interpret but merely look for patterns...

2 Timothy 1:13...

Keep holding the pattern of health words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus.


That gives us some idea of our responsibility as christians to avoid speculation and interpretation and follow the pattern.

Perhaps, but consider this...the bible itself tells us that only god is to interpret. That then implies that we need not interpret but merely look for patterns...

2 Timothy 1:13...

Keep holding the pattern of health words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus.


That gives us some idea of our responsibility as christians to avoid speculation and interpretation and follow the pattern.

But you are interpreting the bible, right ?
Looking for patterns is pointless unless you are going to conclude something about your obsevations, which is interpreting.

Here is the problem when you make the claim that "day" refers to 1000 years:

In the issue of Noah we see that it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. What the bible therefore is actually saying is that it rained for 40,000 days - which is problematic given Noahs supposed lifespan.

But no, the religious think they can just make it up as they go along. The bible writers were idiots, one minute not knowing what a "day" means, and the next knowing perfectly well.

What you would have to do is justify why you claim the biblical writers didn't understand what a "day" was, and why they actually meant 1000 years when not doing the same in any other usage of the word 'day' in the entire bible.I think he means that day can mean "period", perhaps not fixed to 1000 years. Also I think that there are clearly seen metaphorical languange in different areas in the Bible where such a interpretation could be justified. But it's all subjective anyway I guess.

Perhaps, but consider this... the bible itself tells us that only god is to interpret. That then implies that we need not interpret but merely look for patterns...

Keep holding the pattern of health words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus.

That gives us some idea of our responsibility as christians to avoid speculation and interpretation and follow the pattern.
*************
M*W: "Patterns" simply mean "astrology." God was not the only one to "interpret patterns," that was for everyone to do who believed in "the Word" or the "Logos!" Those who chose not to "interpret" but leave it up to a metaphorical "god" will never know the truth in their own mind or out!

I really don't see how you can incorporate the connection with "the Lord Jesus" in this respect. If the guy didn't exist, how could there be any connection of proof? Believing in a fictitious Jesus results in a false positive. He didn't exist, and you believe a falsehood! That's really sad!

I think he means that day can mean "period", perhaps not fixed to 1000 years. Also I think that there are clearly seen metaphorical languange in different areas in the Bible where such a interpretation could be justified.

Ok, but as I was trying to point out to him, the "period" used in the creation part of genesis is clearly a 'day' as we understand the term because it was between one sunrise and the next. He was trying to argue on the other thread and this one that the day seen in genesis does not refer to a 'day' but something much longer, (he is indeed an advocate for the 1000 years = 1 day notion). He has yet to support such a notion - indeed his best argument is that "it is true, but I'm not going to explain it". Little more needs be said to people that believe such a strategy has any value.

Perhaps, but consider this...the bible itself tells us that only god is to interpret. That then implies that we need not interpret but merely look for patterns...

2 Timothy 1:13...

Keep holding the pattern of health words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus.


That gives us some idea of our responsibility as christians to avoid speculation and interpretation and follow the pattern.

...you know Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, right? Not God. That makes your quote one man's opinion. Sorry to wreck your point.

Even so, interpreting and following any pattern in the Bible is still speculation. You yourself aren't avoiding it at all.

But you are interpreting the bible, right ?
Looking for patterns is pointless unless you are going to conclude something about your obsevations, which is interpreting.

When the bible speaks of "interpreting" it means determining the meaning of God's prophecies. Assigning meaning to them before they're fulfillment. The Scriptures express that this is for God alone. It should be possible to understand the prophecies after it's fulfillment.

Concerning the topic of interpreting the meaning of the bible passages... It is not necessary. We follow the pattern set out afore time. As I said in a previous post interpreting the bible is not necessary. On almost every topic but prophecy the bible explains it's self fully.

Thus in this case we merely observer bible pattern. In this particular patern it would seem to be folly to asign a 24 hour period to a word that can have a metaphorical meanings to a longer length of time and also has an established precedent that one of those days was and is not 24 hours.

However this does not tell us how long the creative days were. It would be improper to assume that all the days were the same length once the subjective of term "day" has been brought into question. At this point we only know that one of those "days" was much much longer that 24 hours or even 1,000 years.

In this way we're acknowledging Bible prescedent, Linguistic flexibility, historicaly precedent aswell with out assigning an exact length of time...which would be interpreting. (the religious application)

...you know Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, right? Not God. That makes your quote one man's opinion. Sorry to wreck your point.

Even so, interpreting and following any pattern in the Bible is still speculation. You yourself aren't avoiding it at all.

Not at all Fiael... Timothy himself recongnized the contribution of his letters in God's word.

2 Timothy 3: 16,17

All scripture is inspired of God for teaching and reproving, for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness.

That makes all canon scripture the inspiration of God and not man establishing yet another prescendent from which to understand the totality of the scriptures impact on man.

*************
M*W: "Patterns" simply mean "astrology." God was not the only one to "interpret patterns," that was for everyone to do who believed in "the Word" or the "Logos!" Those who chose not to "interpret" but leave it up to a metaphorical "god" will never know the truth in their own mind or out!

I really don't see how you can incorporate the connection with "the Lord Jesus" in this respect. If the guy didn't exist, how could there be any connection of proof? Believing in a fictitious Jesus results in a false positive. He didn't exist, and you believe a falsehood! That's really sad!

Sad...I think not. Just like the flood, the existance of Jesus christ is established in history. Like the flood the ancient people never challenged the existance of the man. History has placed the man in time....and once again science has seen fit to attempt disregard the word of history and witness with speculation.

But his is off topic.

Sad...I think not. Just like the flood, the existance of Jesus christ is established in history. Like the flood the ancient people never challenged the existance of the man. History has placed the man in time... and once again science has seen fit to attempt disregard the word of history and witness with speculation.

But his is off topic.
*************
M*W: History is also in the eye of the beholder. There are many mythstories that are erroneously believed to be historical. Once again, the victors wrote as to embellish their piddledy accomplishments. There were many illustriously written historical triumphs that were attributed to the many dying demigod saviors of the world, but none of them existed in reality. One should give myth the credit it deserves as a diversion from reality. Seem likes the human race has been looking for diversions since the beginning of time.

Not at all Fiael... Timothy himself recongnized the contribution of his letters in God's word.

2 Timothy 3: 16,17

All scripture is inspired of God for teaching and reproving, for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness.

That makes all canon scripture the inspiration of God and not man establishing yet another prescendent from which to understand the totality of the scriptures impact on man.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to suppose that perhaps Paul didn't realize that these personal letters he was writing would later be added into the canon by a group of religious leaders, all human. Nowhere in that verse does it insinuate that he is referring to his own letter.

*************
M*W: History is also in the eye of the beholder. There are many mythstories that are erroneously believed to be historical. Once again, the victors wrote as to embellish their piddledy accomplishments. There were many illustriously written historical triumphs that were attributed to the many dying demigod saviors of the world, but none of them existed in reality. One should give myth the credit it deserves as a diversion from reality. Seem likes the human race has been looking for diversions since the beginning of time.

That's very true...but the question is...If that is true then what can we trust. Is the statement on victory and eye of the beholder true arbitrarily in every case? Clearly not.

History does stand on a logical rationale in many cases. The question is do we have enough evidence to counter history...that is theaccumlated historical perspective?

From a judicial perspecitive would this not be circumstanial evidence?

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to suppose that perhaps Paul didn't realize that these personal letters he was writing would later be added into the canon by a group of religious leaders, all human. Nowhere in that verse does it insinuate that he is referring to his own letter.

Perhaps...

But consider this. The Hebrews had a great deal of history behind the Christianity. In the past documents inspired by God's prophets have always been added to the library of the synagoge and look to what lengths the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were preserved to assure there existence to future generations. Perhpas it's not so reasonalbe to assume that that Paul didn't realize that these..."personal" letters would be added to canon.

Perhaps...

But consider this. The Hebrews had a great deal of history behind the Christianity. In the past documents inspired by God's prophets have always been added to the library of the synagoge and look to what lengths the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were preserved to assure there existence to future generations. Perhpas it's not so reasonalbe to assume that that Paul didn't realize that these..."personal" letters would be added to canon.

I do consider it but find more problems with it than what we started with. Paul, while he believed he was a messenger of God sent on a mission, obviously did not count himself among the prophets of old. It seems to me that Paul suffered from a self-esteem problem; if you look at his letters in chronological order, you see his introductions of himself getting more and more harsh and self-demoralizing. Here is a sequence pulled from scriptures:

"I, Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Galatians)-->"I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:5) -->"To me, who am less than the least of all saints" (Ephesians)-->Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus"" (Philippians)-->"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (Philemon).

My opinion would be that Paul had a self-confidence problem that he never got over, but regardless of that, it is clear enough from this that he most likely would have reservations as to his letters becoming canonical, especially towards the end of his writing career. Your passage was from 2 Timothy, which was actually Paul's last letter, which puts it in the major thickness of the seething disgust through which Paul saw himself. (This is speaking nothing of his tangential rants on how unworthy he is because he once persecuted the church...seems like he never forgave himself for that one.) If you would like another passage pulled from scripture to give you a context of Paul's self-image while writing these latter letters, here is one from 1 Timothy, which self-evidently directly preceded 2 Timothy: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15 KJV)

There is another point to be made that suggests my earlier presumption (that Paul did not intend his letters to be canonical) is the case. Take a look at Philemon 3:12-13. It says this:
"As soon as I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have decided to winter there. Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need."

From that passage alone (and there are several like this, I picked this particular one because it happened to be on the page I glanced down at), does it seem like Paul was thinking that this personal letter would one day be included as part of the infallible, unmitigated, and eternal truth of God; one that applies across all subsequent generations? Today, are we to expect visits from Artemas and Tychicus, and then go to Nicopolis to meet Paul (because he would apparently still be there "wintering" if this is part of eternal God-truth). Are we to look for lawyer Zenas and Apollos so that we may do everything to help them have everything they need?

I hope you catch my flippant tone and recognize the absurdity of these questions. The answers are obviously "no". Those words weren't meant to exist for any other time but for then and there. They are certainly not what you would expect as eternal truth-words, but absolutely what you would expect if a man was writing a personal letter to his friends, with his personal opinions attached.

So even by your own source, the potentiality that Paul WAS expecting his words to be in the biblical canon is highly unlikely (unless we are to assume that Paul deliberately and manipulatively wrote passages like these to throw us off, simultaneously wanting this to be a subject of uncertainty and controversy, which would bring a whole new slew of questions to the table concerning whether or not a man who would wish this upon subsequent generations should be given the authority of Godword.)

In short, no, your hypothesis IS unreasonable.

Sorry for the delay.

No, he did not count himself among the prophets of Old. None of the Apostle did. Jesus was the only prophet among them. But the question is did Paul or for that matter any of the apostle believe that their writing would be preserved for posterity?

No it's not an unreasonalbe assumption. Paul was not a replacement Apostle for Judas. He was the apostle to the nations. He had a specific role and played it wisely and well. Don't play down Paul's convictions be directing our attention to his points of weakness so as to describe them as rants of self deprication.

I can't boldly tell you that "he knew his personal letters would be add to the bible cannon." Because Paul may or maynot have been privy to the unfolding of future events by God. What I can tell you is that all the books of the bible have an uncanny connection with other books and that includes Pauls personal letters to Timothy. They all have some direction that joins them all together.

However, you say it's unreasonable, yet from what I can remember of the availablity of writing tools of Roman times and when the coping work began, during the latter end of the life of the last apostle (If memory servers) or Timothy then it is not a far stretch to from reasonable to possible.