NationStates Jolt Archive

THIS IS NOT A THREAD CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF CREATIONISM

My question is:

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"

THIS IS NOT A THREAD CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF CREATIONISM

My question is:

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"
If I were the troll-y type, my question would be, "Why should I care?"


Sorry for that, you caught me in a terrible teenage mood swing induced by a spot of hunger.

0% of it. Creationism doesnt have to be christian. Hindus are creationist as well.

THIS IS NOT A THREAD CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF CREATIONISM

My question is:

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"
it depends on your beliefs.
(Non-Christians) none. they have their own texts.

(pure Creationists) 100%

(not quite pure Creationists) depends on who you ask. to me. Genesis outlines evolution (granted there are mistakes but take into account the time it was written) but it's not 100% accurate. a day for us may be different to a day for God.

I think most Creationists believe that the events described in Genesis happened in the order listed. The usual question is 'Over what period of time did these events take place?' Was it seven days, or was it over a few billion years?

If God is completely removed from his creation, the univserse, then he might not bound to our concept of time, either as a device of measurement or as a dimension of space. Are we measuring in 'God days' or in 'Human days' if we're even really measuring at all?

0% of it. Creationism doesnt have to be christian. Hindus are creationist as well.

Very true, I should have declared that I was referring to Christian creationists. I am very bad about lumping religions together, and I should really stop it.

I think most Creationists believe that the events described in Genesis happened in the order listed. The usual question is 'Over what period of time did these events take place?' Was it seven days, or was it over a few billion years?

If God is completely removed from his creation, the univserse, then he might not bound to our concept of time, either as a device of measurement or as a dimension of space. Are we measuring in 'God days' or in 'Human days' if we're even really measuring at all?
That's my take on it.

"A day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day in the kingdom of Heaven."

Very true, I should have declared that I was referring to Christian creationists. I am very bad about lumping religions together, and I should really stop it.

If you add water, it makes its own gravy. :D

(Just getting off topic cuz you said something about it in the title :p )

That's my take on it.

"A day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day in the kingdom of Heaven."remindes me of a joke.

Man praying to God: Lord, what is the value of material wealth to you...
God: a million dollars can be ought a penny in mine eyes.
Man Praying to God: Lord, what is time to one such as you...
God: a second can be but a million years and a million years can be but a second in mine eyes.
Man Praying to God: Lord, will you give me a penny?
God: in a second.

Beautiful, heh.

THIS IS NOT A THREAD CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF CREATIONISM

My question is:

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"


very little

it depends on your beliefs.
(pure Creationists) 100%


that is where you are wrong. Creationist scientists I have seen in debates and the such use the Genesis record as the foundation or...say 25%

Lafier']remindes me of a joke.

Man praying to God: Lord, what is the value of material wealth to you...
God: a million dollars can be ought a penny in mine eyes.
Man Praying to God: Lord, what is time to one such as you...
God: a second can be but a million years and a million years can be but a second in mine eyes.
Man Praying to God: Lord, will you give me a penny?
God: in a second.
*snickers*

I love that joke. :D

Very true, I should have declared that I was referring to Christian creationists. I am very bad about lumping religions together, and I should really stop it.

The answer remains the same even if you were to limit it to christians only. Creationism is independent of the bible. Even if you did not believe in the biblical account of Genesis but still believed in God you would still be a creationist. It doesnt matter if you believe that God created the universe in the way genesis says or if you believe he created it through evolution or if you believe he created it some other way. The fact you believe that the universe was created by God makes you a creationist. The answer is the same, it has 0% to do with the account in Genesis. It has 100% to do with a beleif in a creator (or creators).

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"

As others said: in principle nothing.
However, since the order in which things were created differs from the order proposed by science, Christians cannot accept the theories of stellar and biological evolution. Especially stellar in fact, since no scientist believes the earth existed before the sun as Genesis claims. The whole "days are in reality centuries" thing is far less of a problem.

Isn't the idea of a "day" in heaven absurdly stupid? If I recall GOD was supposed to be the light there. Furthermore, what is the POINT of a day in heaven? What makes people even think there is such a thing or that heaven has rules similar to earth? We are talking about spiritual and etheral relms here which likely have nothing of the sort. We are talking Perception. And if you don't percieve a night, then bam. There is no night or day.

I think creationalist are pretty brainwashed and can't think deeper upon questions as they should.

"How much of creationism depends on a literal translation of Genesis?"

Only the more exteme forms. Less literal forms acknowledge that since Genesis contains two creation accounts that contradict each other and other events in Genesis are physically impossible [a man with no shipbuilding experience building a wooden vessel 450ft long without any divine assistance at all] it's not a particularly good source of literal science, and is obviously intended to be a non-literal account.

Further, as has been said, it's not just Christians who are creationists.

Unfortunately the creationists can't decide themselves. There are many that say Genesis is the literal description of the creation of the universe and those that don't. Amongst Christians there are those that believe that the the bible is the literal word of god and those that don't. If the Christians can't decide amongst themselves, how are us lowly atheists supposed to decide?

science is when you start with an idea and seek to proove or disproove it, if you can proove it it becomes a theory such as the Theory of General Relativity by Albert Einstein or more topically the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin.

Pseudo-Science such as the type demonstated by creationists starts with a frim believe, ie God created the universe and then seek to proove it to other people while clutching at fleeting strings which they like to call proof even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It has been said that the most fatal mistake a scientist can make is to become overly attached to their hypotheses. When it looks like they were wrong a scientist will admit they were wrong and try to formulate a better hypothesis to explain what they observe.

science is when you start with an idea and seek to proove or disproove it, if you can proove it it becomes a theory such as the Theory of General Relativity by Albert Einstein or more topically the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin.

Small correction: it in general becomes a theory if you cannot disprove it.

Small correction: it in general becomes a theory if you cannot disprove it.

Nyet, that's a violation of the principle of Parsimony. If you cannot demonstrate something is happening, it is likely that is because it is not. Nothing is regarded as hard science until it can be demonstrated by experiment.

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

Unless you're not referring to accepted theory as opposed to the various other theories that aren't accepted.

[A common misconception is that an 'experiment' must involve labs and such; in reality, gathering data and comparing it to the predictions your theory has generated is also a type of experiment].

Nyet, that's a violation of the principle of Parsimony. If you cannot demonstrate something is happening, it is likely that is because it is not. Nothing is regarded as hard science until it can be demonstrated by experiment.

That does not conflict with my statement ;) You devise an hypothesis to explain something. If you can not show the hypothesis to be wrong despite many different tests and experiments, it becomes a scientific theory. the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity are *not* proven to be right; but even after all these years of testing them fatal flaws have still not been found, and predictions of results based on the theories (especially relativity) come true. Which is why saying they are "just" theories is silly.

But we should continue this in a new topic, seeing as the title of this thread includes the phrase "Who Can Stay On-Topic".

The bible, Genisis esspecially, is one big translation error. Creation is a thing people made to feel secure. So there was an answer to the question "How were we created?" The religion endured and now that is the general belief.

Even though i'm a non believer, it seem appropriate to mention that the 7 days he took to make the Earth IS a translation error. It should be 7 ages, and since time had no meaning, and age could be any amount of time.

Personly, i think creation is stupid.

Creationism = The Velveteen Rabbit by Margery Williams.

kudos to anyone who gets what I mean.

Even though i'm a non believer, it seem appropriate to mention that the 7 days he took to make the Earth IS a translation error. It should be 7 ages, and since time had no meaning, and age could be any amount of time.

Well, the word that would used could mean any length of time, but 'day' is a valid translation of it. Just not a particularly sensible translation of it.

The most obvious translation error in the Bible is at the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra. Watch:

2 Chron 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

2 Chron 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

Odd way to finish a sentence, ne? Now, to Ezra:

Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Ezra 1:3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

It's amazing how anyone could claim a book containing such an obvious copying error is without error.

Even though i'm a non believer, it seem appropriate to mention that the 7 days he took to make the Earth IS a translation error. It should be 7 ages, and since time had no meaning, and age could be any amount of time.


Youve never read it huh?

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


It follows the same pattern for every day of creation. Even if you replaced the word day with age it still makes it clear that he created x, then there was evening then there was morning, and then it was the next day (or age if you preffer that word).

Not much of it, and only because i go to an anglican school. I herd this from a good friend who has valid knowledge

Not much of it, and only because i go to an anglican school. I herd this from a good friend who has valid knowledge

Thats why you should verify what people tell you before you quote it as being accurate. Had you done so by simply reading the first chapter of Genesis you would not have said something that made you look like an idiot.

Thats why you should verify what people tell you before you quote it as being accurate. Had you done so by simply reading the first chapter of Genesis you would not have said something that made you look like an idiot.

Angered pedant does not forgive.

0% of it. Creationism doesnt have to be christian. Hindus are creationist as well.

just a little side note... Not all Hindus are strictly speaking "Creationist", much like not all Christians are creationist. Also, because of it's view of the cyclical nature of time, Hinduism is also much more accomodating of evolutionary ideas than the Christian worldview is. The Vedas state that to Brahma, the creator God, a single day and night lasts 311 trillion solar years. With those sort of numbers, there's a lot more room for evolution to fit into the Hindu idea of "creation".

just a little side note... Not all Hindus are strictly speaking "Creationist", much like not all Christians are creationist. Also, because of it's view of the cyclical nature of time, Hinduism is also much more accomodating of evolutionary ideas than the Christian worldview is. The Vedas state that to Brahma, the creator God, a single day and night lasts 311 trillion solar years. With those sort of numbers, there's a lot more room for evolution to fit into the Hindu idea of "creation".

All Christians are creationists because they believe God created the universe which is what creationism means. I cant speak for Hindus because Im not knowledgable enough about that religion to feel confident about any statement, but it seems to me that they also believe the universe was created by a God, therefore they are also creationists. You are only something other than a creationist if you do not believe that the universe (or at least our world) was created by some intelligent being.

Well, in an individual's mind, the Book of Genesis may have everything to do with the question and undoubtedly has induced a cultural following. But objectively speaking, it has absolutely nothing to do with creationism, not only because they idea of creation is not unique to the Bible, but because the theory needs no "religious" aspect to be presented. Scientifically, religion doesn't (shouldn't) enter into it at all.

You are only something other than a creationist if you do not believe that the universe (or at least our world) was created by some intelligent being.

In the way it is used in these debates, 'creationist' is generally used to refer to one side of an argument where 'evolutionist' is the other; in other words, in the context of threads like these, 'creationist' generally means 'creationist who denies evolution.'

In the way it is used in these debates, 'creationist' is generally used to refer to one side of an argument where 'evolutionist' is the other; in other words, in the context of threads like these, 'creationist' generally means 'creationist who denies evolution.'

Neither the title of the thread, nor the body of the original post makes any refference to evolution. I answered the question asked. If the person asked the wrong question then thats their problem.

Neither the title of the thread, nor the body of the original post makes any refference to evolution. I answered the question asked. If the person asked the wrong question then thats their problem.

There's a question in Mythotic Kelkia's post? As far as I can see, he's not asking any kind of question at all, and is clearly using the definition of 'creationist' I described.

There's a question in Mythotic Kelkia's post? As far as I can see, he's not asking any kind of question at all, and is clearly using the definition of 'creationist' I described.

Mythotic Kelkia was following up on a statement I made in answer to a question posed in the very first post of this thread. Its part of that discussion, thats why it is in this thread. I dont think he/she was making a statement totally out of context, it seemed to be in response to my answer to the original question. Therefore its all related to the question of whether creation has anything to do with Genesis, the answer being, no it does not.

However, creationism in the second sense is not the same. It IS correct to state that not all Christians deny evolution [most of them don't] and that other religions don't either, so the statement that 'not all Christians are creationists' is valid. You said:

All Christians are creationists because they believe God created the universe which is what creationism means.

But that's not the [i]only thing creationism means, and Mythotic Kelkia was obviously referring to the second definition and not the first. Ie, semantics.

Literal evolution-denying Creationism [specifically 'young earth' creationism] is more dependant on Biblical evidence to 'support' it. So, under one definition of 'creationist' there is no dependence whatsoever, going right up through partial evolution-denying ID 'theory'. Past that, the extreme froms that totally deny evolution are generally Bible-based and point to Genesis as evidence that evolution does not occur. Under the 'evolution-denying' definition of 'creationist,' there is therefore a high dependency on Genesis.

So depending on what definition is being used, you're either dead right or totally wrong. Life's like that.