macbone wrote:Ham defined "kinds" as families taxonomically, which is interesting. Previously, creationists argued that species don't evolve into new species, but Ham admits this possibility. So new species and genera can evolve, according to Ham. I still don't see how lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, and cheetahs can evolve so fast in a 4,000 year time span from one common ancestor. This source puts the domestication of dogs at 8,000 BC:
http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=ajP ... &q&f=false
Really? Species adapt to other species all the time, Just the other day, a neighbor of mine he and his wife both have recessive brown eyes and they produced a blue eyed child. Adaptation occurs everyday. Don't confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation already has the DNA information to adapt to changes in environment. Evolution requires random unguided mutations in the DNA to produce new information for changes in function and kind. You are mixing the two. Lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, cheetahs are the same kind of creature. Though mankind has categorized them into different species, they are still the same kind of animal.
macbone wrote:There's just not enough time for everything to fit into a narrow window of 6,000 years.
says who? name the person that was there to see there isn't enough time? You are buying into the slow evolving theology of evolutionist and trying to force that into the Bible. That won't work, you will gain no ground by compromising the integrity of the Bible, Evolutionist will not look at Christians and say, well since they believe the Bible has errors in it and they accept the billions of years of evolution theory, well then I'll convert and believe in this god that can't even keep his word correct. That is a terrible means of evangelizing the masses by saying the Bible has errors.
What difference does it matter if it's 10,000 years to account for generational skips in the genealogies or 6,000 and taking the bible literally, either way believers are foolish in man's eyes.
macbone wrote:[spoiler=Strong definition of son]Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary
bĆŖn ×Ö¼× (Strong's #H1121)
From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson,...
Jesus in the NT quotes Genesis, why would God quote His own word if it's meant to be paraphrased. Why would Luke bother giving genealogies that goes all the way back to Adam to God and also say son of...
The bottom line is no matter if it says son or grandson, you are not going to appease the corrupt heart of those who view the Bible in error, you will gain no ground at all. It's like the Civil war soldier wearing Confederate pants and Union blazer and top hat, and both sides shoot at him.
macbone wrote:The words could refer to a literal day and night, but the majority of scholars view these words as metaphorical.
Majority doesn't equal correct. You must focus on Exodus 20:8 āRemember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9
Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the
seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
God wrote that in stone! and verbally spoke this to Moses.
You also must dwell in Exodus 31:14 āāObserve the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. 15 For
six days work is to be done, but the
seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever,
for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.āā
God wrote that in stone as well since Moses broke the first set. And God spoke this verbally again to Moses.
Any believer that questions what Moses wrote is subject to this verse:
Numbers 12:6-10 Aaron and miriam were questioning Moses' word and God spoke this: āListen to my words:
āWhen there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8
With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?ā
9
The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.God said He spoke clearly to Moses face to face and not in veiled dreams or visions. So don't question Moses' words, take them at face value for they are clear words to read. Bottom line, 100% in the Bible when a number is in front of "day" it's one rotation of earth.
macbone wrote:There are also a number of verses that refer to "a thousand generations," which I think you'll agree with me is probably metaphorical, but if we take that literally, and a generation is 20 years, that's at least 20,000 years for Homo sapiens sapiens. The site suggests that a Biblical generation is 40 years, so that doubles the estimate to at least 40,000 years.
I have no problem taking all those verses about a 1,000 generations as literal.
currently living on the earth are about 2-3 billion generations alive right now.
Also, you are saying there hasn't been 1,000s of generations at the beginning of Biblical story, don't forget there is still a 1,000 year reign to come and eternity after that. So why question when the future still has generations to come. It's like one at a baseball game in the second inning saying, "Well this game is faulty, I thought baseball had 9 innings." You are premature with your questioning of 1,000s of generations.
