Argument a with friend over creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gricken
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s exactly my point. I don’t mind that he takes it literally. The issue is that he thinks it puts him at odds with scientific discovery. It wouldn’t be an issue if he didn’t think it made the earth less than 1,000,000 years old. Or that evolution is impossible because “it isn’t in the bible.”
 
Whenever this subject comes up I am reminded that “you cannot have a rational discussion with irrational people”. If your friend is absolutley convinced that every word of Genesis is to be taken literally (regardless of the mental gymanstics required to hold that notion) then there is no foundation for rational discussion. As far as he is concerned the matter is settled.

Personally I cannot fathom a God who would create a world in such a fashion and then completely cover said world with contradictory evidence.

Dead dinsosaurs have been found practically everywhere.
Dinosaurs have not been around for any part of the history of mankind.
Nuclear chemistry works consistently.
Dating of said dead dinosaurs by nuclear chemistry set their ages at between 65 million
and 250 million years old (Triassic to Cretaceous periods).

Genesis cannot be literal timewise.
 
Whenever this subject comes up I am reminded that “you cannot have a rational discussion with irrational people”. If your friend is absolutley convinced that every word of Genesis is to be taken literally (regardless of the mental gymanstics required to hold that notion) then there is no foundation for rational discussion. As far as he is concerned the matter is settled.

Personally I cannot fathom a God who would create a world in such a fashion and then completely cover said world with contradictory evidence.

Dead dinsosaurs have been found practically everywhere.
Dinosaurs have not been around for any part of the history of mankind.
Nuclear chemistry works consistently.
Dating of said dead dinosaurs by nuclear chemistry set their ages at between 65 million
and 250 million years old (Triassic to Cretaceous periods).

Genesis cannot be literal timewise.
You might want to investigate the dino soft tissue findings.
 
I think at this point no science will convince him. Should I try to lead this into a discussion about what authority he has to decide that’s the correct way to intrpret the bible?
 
Is there any argument I haven’t tried yet?
there are some very good posts here

not sure you will convince him
it would be nice to feel you’re on the same planet as your friend
but he sees differently
he may feel perhaps that you are tempting him from God’s truth or he basically wants to win an argument; or you do

at any rate,
what i understand from Genesis is that
God created time from His position in the eternal Now
within the Moment, as the universe came into being, the sequential flow of events emeged - one following another, the universe grew into being through His will

not sure if i am expressing it correctly, but something along those lines
 
As a side note. He takes everything his pastor says at face value. That’s where he gets all his information. I do not doubt his pastor is a smart man. But whenever I try to ask what makes what he says more correct than say, what the catholic church says. He claims it’s because his is what the bible “Literally says”
Ask him if he believes the sun literally “rises”. The Bible tells us the sun rises, and yet, we know that is only how we perceive it. What is actually happening is the earth is rotating.
 
I think at this point no science will convince him. Should I try to lead this into a discussion about what authority he has to decide that’s the correct way to intrpret the bible?
You could, if you’re willing to wade in to that argument. You would have limited success convincing him to change is mind though, because if you only managed to convince him that he is not infallible in his interpretations, he would say that that was true but that he has to have an interpretation of some sort and is doing the best he can; and even if you convinced him that the Catholic Church did have the authority to interpret scripture that he did not, the Catholic Church has not definitively said that either position is true (or false).

The best this approach could do, I think, would be to convince him that while he’s free to think as he likes, his thoughts on what Genesis means have no special weight and that no one else is bound to accept them except so far as they agree with the reasoning.

Really, the only approach I’ve ever had have any results at all is to say “Either answer is possible - God could have made the world in 7 earth days if he so chose, or over however long of another period of time he chose. Salvation history can work both ways, neither one contradicts the fall or original sin or any other doctrine. So far they seem to be on equal footing. But then we look at science, which at the moment tends to suggest (very strongly) that a literal 7 days is wrong. Therefore, unless and until our understanding of science changes to disagree, or someone comes up with some insurmountable technical difficulty of how salvation history would have played out in the more figurative understanding, the figurative interpretation tends to have the upper hand.”

Certainty is something we can ask God about when we die, but until then we must do the best with our best understanding of the physical laws God made and our best understanding of the Scripture He gave us.

I personally agree with Augustine:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
 
Is there any argument I haven’t tried yet?
Yes. There is the “You mean too much to me to argue about it” argument.

This argument says that niether person is going to convince the other, and realizes both of you just might sin in the process of trying. It is an argument which says that the “Truth” of your friendship is, at the present moment, more important than the truth of whether Genesis was literal or figurative. Then you offer him some home baked chocolate chip cookies or a beer, or you go fishing or go play golf or something.

You love him and be another Christ to him. When he sees you live an authentic Christian life, when he sees you remain calm and at peace while the world is imploding and society is in a rage, he will ask you how you do it, and you can simply say, “I have the sacraments.”

That argument has worked well for me.

-Tim-
 
Right. Thanks everyone. Quote form Augustine was amazing by the way. I do have one question still. What his pastor said about what hebrew word for day means in this context. He claims that because a number was used next to the word (ex “on the 4th day” ) that is means a literal day. Is that right?
 
Right. Thanks everyone. Quote form Augustine was amazing by the way. I do have one question still. What his pastor said about what hebrew word for day means in this context. He claims that because a number was used next to the word (ex “on the 4th day” ) that is means a literal day. Is that right?
Never heard this before, but two comments:
  1. (Via google) In Hebrews 4, there is a reference to the 7th day which can be read as though the 7th day is still “in progress”:
[3] For we, who have believed, shall enter into rest; as he said: As I have sworn in my wrath; If they shall enter into my rest; and this indeed when the works from the foundation of the world were finished. [4] For in a certain place he spoke of the seventh day thus: And God rested the seventh day from all his works. [5] And in this place again: If they shall enter into my rest.

[6] Seeing then it remaineth that some are to enter into it, and they, to whom it was first preached, did not enter because of unbelief:"

You would have to know more than I do about Hebrew and about that particular reference to know if that makes sense.
  1. Googling turned up someone making the claim that the phrase “on the nth day” always meant literal 24 hour day every other time it was used, and that this was something like 400 times. But I ask: in what other context is a succession of days used (perhaps) figuratively to compare it to? This could be because that’s a real thing, or it could be because there was just no other place where such a metaphor would be appropriate. Is there any evidence of people avoiding “nth day” so as not to be confusing? Is there, in short, any reason to believe that this anything but wishful thinking and a convenient happenstance?
To me this sounds like me saying “St. Patrick once said Trinity is a shamrock, but every other time he ever said “shamrock” he obviously was referring to the literal plant, so he must have meant that the Trinity is an actual plant,” or “excepting a small collection of parables, the word “vine” means an actually literal vine, so Jesus must actually be a literal plant-vine, and we must actually be branches.” I mean, it’s possible that there is some obscure Hebrew rule that if you put a number in front of the word “day” it means literal 24 hour day, but to me that just seems less likely than that someone was fishing for evidence and turned up a helpful coincidence.

But hopefully someone who knows more about Hebrew than I do can help you out.
 
Hello! I’ve surfed this site for about a year and a half now, but I finally made an account today. Mostly so I can ask this question.

So I had an argument with a friend of mine (He’s non denominational) Over taking the Genesis story of creation literally. I gave him many standard reasons not to. But his claim (And, consequently,what his pastor told him) is that in Hebrew, having a number next to the word for “day” meant it was a literal day, and therefore god created the world in 7 literal days. Meaning our planet can not be millions or billions of years old.

Well something about that smelled fishy. But all I could get out of him after that was that his translation was what the bible literally says so he must be right. (wasn’t even going to touch on “what the bible literally says” But I digress) So I want to know if what he said about the Hebrew language was correct, and other arguments to use against him. Thank you all in advance for charitable responses! 😃
Your friend should believe every word of Genesis, literally. Keep in mind that the catholic church has no official position on whether sacred scripture is referring to six literal days. Adam ans Eve must be accepted as real though, this is church doctrine.

We must be careful that we don’t water down Jesus’ own words referring to Genesis in the NT. He never calls it a “parable”, nor does the church. The Catholic church recognizes that symbolic language is used, but this is not a mandate of faith. When we start introducing pre human apes (as one poster did) we are going down a very slippery sloap.
 
As I’ve said before. I know it isn’t a parable. The issue comes when he looks at the bible and decides that it refutes what science tells us about earth.
 
As I’ve said before. I know it isn’t a parable. The issue comes when he looks at the bible and decides that it refutes what science tells us about earth.
He is entitled to that. Science disputes that a man (Jesus) can be Almighty God, yet billions believe this to be true.
 
As I’ve said before. I know it isn’t a parable. The issue comes when he looks at the bible and decides that it refutes what science tells us about earth.
Keep in mind science is provisional, Revelation is not.
 
He is entitled to that. Science disputes that a man (Jesus) can be Almighty God, yet billions believe this to be true.
Actually, it does not. Some scientists do, but that’s different.
40.png
buffalo:
Keep in mind science is provisional, Revelation is not.
True, scientific understanding can change, but it seems unlikely that this will, and Revelation does not actually say anything that must contradict the current understanding. This sort of thing is creating conflict where there need be none.

Let me reemphasize: the faith honestly does not care whether it was 7 days or 7 seconds or 7 eons. Science makes a pretty solid case that it wasn’t 7 days.

Furthermore, since the faith doesn’t care, and it really does not care - you may care, but the Church does not - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that a person who does not take the passages to mean 7 24 hour days must somehow treating them as less than they are and hence putting admittedly somewhat transitory (though not that transitory) science above faith.

Because if you could make that claim in any real way, then that would mean that you could make a claim with certainty that the 24 hour day interpretation is true.

And if you could do that, then the Church would have done so. And it hasn’t.

Again, there is no problem with arguing for either position, but we should argue based on things that we know to actually be true, not based on some misguided idea that the opinion that is not ours belittles faith. We aren’t belittling faith. There is not one of us here who thinks God could not have created absolutely everything that it is even possible to create in an instant if He so chose or that is claiming that anything the Church has declared true is false, we are only debating what He did in a context that is allowed and within which the Church leaders of today tend to agree with us. “More then a theory,” you know?
 
=Gricken;10320457]Hello! I’ve surfed this site for about a year and a half now, but I finally made an account today. Mostly so I can ask this question.
So I had an argument with a friend of mine (He’s non denominational) Over taking the Genesis story of creation literally. I gave him many standard reasons not to. But his claim (And, consequently,what his pastor told him) is that in Hebrew, having a number next to the word for “day” meant it was a literal day, and therefore god created the world in 7 literal days. Meaning our planet can not be millions or billions of years old.
Well something about that smelled fishy. But all I could get out of him after that was that his translation was what the bible literally says so he must be right. (wasn’t even going to touch on “what the bible literally says” But I digress) So I want to know if what he said about the Hebrew language was correct, and other arguments to use against him. Thank you all in advance for charitable responses! 😃
The use of “numbers” in the Bible have a Traditional Signifiance ALL of their own.

Check out thuis GREAT site 🙂
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/the significance of numbers in scripture.htm

“Seven” for example means “perfect or complete”👍

Thanks for asking.

Also you can point out that God is:

All Perfect

All KNOWING

All Wise;

THEREFORE TIMES DOES NOT EXIST FOR GOD: EVERYTHING IS “PRESENT TO HIM”…TIME EXIST FOR MANS SAKE ONLY:rolleyes:

God Bless,
pat/PJM
 
Actually, it does not. Some scientists do, but that’s different.
What does not? Do you mean to say the OPs friend is not entitled to believing in a literal Genesis? Science makes a pretty good case that a man who has layed dead in a tomb for three days is not capable of returning back to life with full health. God can operate outside of mans concept of science…and has.
 
I believe he means that some scientist disagree with the idea of Jesus rising from the dead. But not all do
 
As I’ve said before. I know it isn’t a parable. The issue comes when he looks at the bible and decides that it refutes what science tells us about earth.
Do you think this is something that can lead his soul to hell? If not why does it matter if he believes the earth is 10,000 years old. Why should he care if you think it is much older. I don’t believe God is going to send us to heaven or hell based on what we believe the age of the earth is. I doubt if you asked him he does either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top