The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation, which is flawed. If I put myself objectively in the position of the atheist attempting to debunk the Bible I would start with Genesis Chapter 1. The Chapter passed the inspection of this former atheist.

The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

What this means is that the creation was complete even before the six "days" of creation even began, in fact, later verses in the chapter reveal it was more than likely a long time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Views: 3913

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As I undersdand it, though, he intends to debunk the Young Earthers from the bible not from scientific fact, i.e., to try to show that they are reading the thing wrong in coming up with their 6000 year schema.

The way I see it, the wider the range of interpretations of scripture we can document here, the better we look. Win-win, in a way.

The way I see it, the wider the range of interpretations of scripture we can document here, the better we look. Win-win, in a way.

Excellent! Exactly! Is it not the objective or perhaps even the skeptical scientific approach?

As I undersdand it, though, he intends to debunk the Young Earthers from the bible not from scientific fact, i.e., to try to show that they are reading the thing wrong in coming up with their 6000 year schema.

As well as present the possible alternative which would also debunk the atheist position influenced by the YEC. Reread the OP.

From what I have seen your interpretation of Genesis tracks that of Dr. Hugh Ross (who founded reasons to believe .org).

This is particularly attractive to me as a fiction writer. You know, because of all the stretching to make ideas work.

Lewal,

Perhaps truth is stranger than fiction.

"Truth" is established by evidence and reproducibility - while it may be stranger than fiction, it not as fictitious.

Archaeopteryx,

Truth is subjective. Truth doesn't evolve into something else without that truth having been void from the start. Truth is an imperfect claim subject to change.

No. Claims of proof are subject to change not truth.

No. Claims of proof are subject to change not truth.

Point taken, but often the truth is misapplied due to false claims of truth. I think.

We can say that our current understanding is the truth and in 20 years that understanding is demonstrated not to have been accurate. But for that 20 or 200 or 2000 years it is taken as such.

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent god need to give us a book? A book that condones slavery and rape, yet no mention of electricity or the germ theory. You don't even need to read it to refute it. It refutes itself as bat-shit all by itself. 

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 1 Comment

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 5 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service