Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
According to Genesis, God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Many religious followers believe literally that everything from the air we breathe to the water we drink was created in a matter of days. Others scoff at this interpretation, insisting that the universe couldn’t have possibly been created in such a short time span. What really happened “in the beginning”?
6
2
4
3
3
0
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Six Day Creation is Incompetent Theologically
- From Gary Hurd
By Dr. Gary Hurd - Archaeologist/Researcher
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Which languages are those, exactly?
AFAIK, the languages of Genesis are Hebrew and Aramaic. Both of these have continuous spoken traditions. I'm not sure that you are making your point very well.
AiG's point that 'yom' means a common sense day in Genesis 1 is valid. Certainly the Mosaic author of Exodus understood it that way when he used it to justify the creation of a 7 day week and day of rest.
- dvunkannon
October 13, 2008 7:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Languages?
Try reading Chaucer out loud in his language. Biblical Hebrew is considerably different from any language spoken today. But more important are the recent discoveries in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician literatures.
Some fairly accessable books I can recommend are;
Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press
Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press
Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God" 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing
___________
2003 “The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts” Oxford University Press.
The work by F. M. Cross is probably the most frequently cited text in the field.
The use of the work "yom" in Genesis 1, as well as in Exodus 16, 20 or 31, certainly does refer to a single day.
- Gary Hurd October 14, 2008 7:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Attack
Wow. Why not stick to arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves???
- Jefe
October 16, 2008 3:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What are you talking about?
".... arguing against the Christian belief, instead of attacking Christians themselves?"
First it is obvious to the most naïve observer that creationist dogma is not honestly identified with Christian faith. Further, I have not attacked any individual because of their religious belief. I have exposed their false claims of truth.
Stop lying, cf Exodus 20:16.
- Gary Hurd October 17, 2008 10:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Relative?
Isn't "false claims of truth" relative to your view?
In my book all you have proven is that you do not believe that it is possible that Creation could of taken place.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 19, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
William Jennings Bryan.
July, 1925 William Jennings Bryan, the leading fundamentalist in America, was questioned by Clarence Darrow on the accuracy of the Bible. Question after question he did not waver. But when Darrow ask him if the world was created in 6 days, Bryan said, no the Bible doesn't say that. You can believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible without believing in the 6 day creation.
- mike1948
July 26, 2009 12:26AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How?
If the bible is to be taken literally then wouldn't a literal interpretation include a literal interpretation of Genesis?
- MrBook
July 26, 2009 8:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
6 days or nothing.
By supporting the idea that the Bible stands or falls on a 6 day creation you have proven Dr. Hurd's point. I would be worried about any idea where atheists are in agreement with young-earth creationist.
- mike1948
July 26, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hurd?
Dr. Hurd does not seem like a YEC... he is on the Earth not created in six days side.
My question is: How can you both believe in a literal Bible and at the same time NOT believe in a six day creation? Isn't the whole Genesis as six actual days idea A literal interpretation?
- MrBook
July 26, 2009 2:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A literal interpretation?
A six day creation is a literal interpretation of Genesis, but it is not the only literal interpretation. You always pick the narrowest interpretation as if it was the only interpretation. It is not.
- mike1948
July 26, 2009 11:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.