tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post2294162199523226229..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: The Six Days of CreationMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-17023237920529546462017-08-12T09:16:39.015-05:002017-08-12T09:16:39.015-05:00tjsf is correct about what I did and did not claim...tjsf is correct about what I did and did not claim. And as I already said in my comment below I see no incompatible discrepancies between the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Rather than repeat how easily these two accounts can be reconciled, I'll let the interested reader simply do an internet search.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-21270806351439016962017-08-03T09:57:21.403-05:002017-08-03T09:57:21.403-05:00Gary, Mr. Strauss did not say that archeology supp...Gary, Mr. Strauss did not say that archeology supported the Creation story, but that much of the Bible history has been supported by archeology, as opposed to the Book of Mormon, for example.tjsfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08652831364476423568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-84720483492160696022017-07-19T07:19:18.160-05:002017-07-19T07:19:18.160-05:00I entirely disagree that the OT account is like ot...I entirely disagree that the OT account is like other creation myths. The OT account of creation has a transcendent being speaking and creating the universe. There are no beings fighting and dying (like Babylonian myths), or pre-existing beavers. I'm kind of shocked that you see these stories as the same genre. As far as Genesis 1 and 2, you are making the logical fallacy that a difference is a contradiction. Gary, your thinking here is very sloppy. If my wife and I go to a concert where band A is the warm-up band and band B is the main attraction and she says we say band A and I say we saw band B that is a difference but not a logical contradiction. The supposed discrepancies in the Bible are not logical contradictions but differences. It is very lazy thinking that considers a difference to be a contradiction. There are many accounts on the internet of how Genesis 1 and 2 describe the same event without contradiction. I'll let you surf the web and find those, but if you are unable to, I'll be happy to point some out.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-90506079619977600652017-07-09T16:36:57.103-05:002017-07-09T16:36:57.103-05:00Ok, please briefly explain how the archeological a...Ok, please briefly explain how the archeological and geological evidence supports the (two) Creation story (ies) in Genesis chapters one and two.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-7517815991447511402017-07-09T13:32:49.818-05:002017-07-09T13:32:49.818-05:00Actually, the meaning of the days of Genesis has b...Actually, the meaning of the days of Genesis has been debated for millennia. This is not a "reinterpretation" at all. Gary, please check your facts before making claims or I just won't publish your comments.. As I have pointed out over and over again, in many cases, archeological evidence has shown the Bible to be accurate. I have given multitudes of examples. Just the opposite has happened with the Book of Mormon. Surely, you must know this. Your statement that the earth was created when Yahweh created a garden is a gross misrepresentation of what Genesis 1 actually says. I would appreciate it if you would post informed, substantiative dialogue.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-51795469781432694872017-07-08T13:12:29.869-05:002017-07-08T13:12:29.869-05:00One thing I don't think a lot of Christians th...One thing I don't think a lot of Christians think to do is to compare the Hebrew Creation story (the one in the Christian Bible) with the creation stories of other cultures. If you do this you will see that every ancient culture had a story of "the beginning". Every story is very colorful and full of magic. Most Creation stories defy the laws of nature, yet, if one tries hard enough, one COULD make each of these stories compatible with modern scientific evidence IF the reader does not insist on a LITERAL interpretation of the text.<br /><br />Here is the Creation story of the Cherokee Indians:<br /><br />"The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again. The Indians are afraid of this.<br /><br />When all was water, the animals were above in Gälûñ’lätï, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room. They wondered what was below the water, and at last Dâyuni’sï, “Beaver’s Grandchild,” the little Water-beetle, offered to go and see if it could learn. It darted in every direction over the surface of the water, but could find no firm place to rest. Then it dived to the bottom and came up with some soft mud, which began to grow and spread on every side until it became the island which we call the earth. It was afterward fastened to the sky with four cords, but no one remembers who did this."<br /><br />"Four cords fastened to the sky"? Sounds silly and ignorant, doesn't it? The Hebrew Creation story in other passages of the OT talks about the "four pillars" of the earth. There is even a "firmament" (a dome) above the earth upon which Yahweh has hung the stars. Literally, this is nonsense, just as, literally, it is nonsense that a beaver created the first dry land on earth. But if one really wants to believe one's Creation Story, one can simply change the literal interpretation of the text to a metaphorical interpretation until it conforms to modern scientific evidence. Try it with the Mayan Creation story and the Cherokee Creation story. If you try hard enough, both stories can be made compatible with the overwhelming evidence of evolution.<br /><br />So is the Hebrew Creation story just an ancient folk myth, no different from the hundreds of other Creation stories on earth? I believe that the evidence indicates it is. To prove my point, one only has to compare Genesis chapters one and two. There is NO WAY these two chapters describe the same creation if one reads them as literal stories. However, if one accepts that this was an ancient folk myth, then one comprehends that the two stories are very likely two different versions of the same folk myth. Perhaps one of the chapters describes the version of the Hebrew Creation story told in northern Israel while the other version describes the version told in the Judean foothills. We don't know, but no one should get worked up over the discrepancies in these two chapters AS LONG AS one recognizes that these are two versions of an ancient Creation myth. Only when someone tries to force the stories to be an actual description of how the universe came into being is there a problem.<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-51412796178828260542017-07-08T11:42:39.045-05:002017-07-08T11:42:39.045-05:00"I grew up believing the Bible taught the ear..."I grew up believing the Bible taught the earth was young and I changed my mind exactly because the supposed biblical reasons for a young earth could so easily be refuted from within the Bible itself as I have done."<br /><br />I will bet the real reason you stopped believing in a young earth was that you obtained an education, and once educated, you were deeply conflicted between the scientific evidence and a holy book you believe to be inerrant. To resolve this cognitive dissonance, you reinterpreted the Bible to make it congruent with modern scientific evidence.<br /><br />Do you ever go onto Mormon websites and see how they defend the literal interpretation of their holy book which states that ancient Hebrews settled in North America, long before the Spanish, bringing horses with them? The problem for Mormons is that when Joseph Smith wrote his book, he did not know that horses did not exist in North America prior to the Spanish. So how do the Mormons cope with this apparent contradiction? Answer: They reinterpret the text! <br /><br />And Muslims do the same for their holy book. Go on Muslim websites and see for yourself.<br /><br />The Mayans believe that the world was created when the god, Huracan, planted a Ceiba tree that separated the earth from the sky and allowed animals and humans space to live.<br /><br />So which is more probable, dear educated Reader: the earth was created by Huracan planting a tree, or by Yahweh creating a garden for humans to romp around naked with lions, tigers, and bears?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-59483014024686062182017-06-18T20:56:06.081-05:002017-06-18T20:56:06.081-05:00Excellent explanation of a difficult subject. The ...Excellent explanation of a difficult subject. The time associated with creating life and the basic kinds even the long lives of the patriarchs may well be subject to the same sort of analysis.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-60662303082229911072017-06-18T17:33:26.936-05:002017-06-18T17:33:26.936-05:00I've heard some argue that the numbering conve...I've heard some argue that the numbering convention of the genesis days are the reason they should be interpreted as 24 hour periods. To this however, there is no other passage that uses the same convention, thus we can't use the text to prove the text in this capacity. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17981044547235028378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-67536648110075192362017-06-17T14:32:01.478-05:002017-06-17T14:32:01.478-05:00All comments on this blog are first screened by me...All comments on this blog are first screened by me before being published. Despite the fact that this comment adds little value to the conversation, I have published it. This comment illustrates that those who believe the Bible teaches a young earth are often unwilling to consider any alternatives despite clearly presented facts. I have shown from the Bible itself that the arguments in these two articles above are not valid since the arguments in the articles repeat exactly what I have said about yom with a number, evening and morning, etc. (In addition, the Hebrew word olam means "from eternity" and not a finite long period of time like an epoch, despite what the above articles claim.) I grew up believing the Bible taught the earth was young and I changed my mind exactly because the supposed biblical reasons for a young earth could so easily be refuted from within the Bible itself as I have done. Mr. Mackirdy, did you read my article and see that yom with an ordinal does not mean 24 hours within the Bible itself and that Moses himself uses evening and morning in a metaphorical way to mean beginning and ending? Those claims by the young earth proponents are very easily refuted by Scripture itself. If the Bible contradicts those claims why do you still hold on to them? You don't have to believe me, just go read the scriptural passages I have pointed to for yourself. Also, I encourage you to read other good evangelical scholars of ancient Hebrew who disagree with the creation.com view. There are many of them and their biblical case is very strong and convincing. This is all based on good biblical exegesis and is not influenced by scientific observations. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-26105512925963240512017-06-17T13:48:31.898-05:002017-06-17T13:48:31.898-05:00Are you kidding?
http://creation.com/how-long-were...Are you kidding?<br />http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1<br />http://creation.com/the-days-of-creation-a-semantic-approachWayne MacKirdyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15604585582368806695noreply@blogger.com