The article was moved here out of sight with this disclaimer:

Some material moved to Talk for work. While POV and not focused, it is useful material as it proposes some arguments for the day-age interpretation.

I moved it back.

The very nature of Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Placing an article out of the way is a good way to take it out of its proper progression. I do not subscribe to the ideas in this piece, and I agree that it is somewhat thick. Nonetheless, it is clearly well thought out and includes very good detail and citation. There are much worse articles in Wikipedia right now.--Administer 21:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, actually - this is a good start. Personally, I'd like to see comments about who was the first person to present this hypothesis, and perhaps some notable followers of Day-Age Creationism. I'm glad to see this article complementing the others in the Creationism series. :) Martin 00:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Could god have lied?

As an agnostic, I don't actually hold the day-age creationist view myself (I feel the theory of evolution fits the facts the best), but in arguments with creationists I often offer the day-age viewpoint as a compromise, including evolution as a tool used by god to complete his work. It surprises me to see so much debate over the meaning of various Hebrew words for "day". When I thought of the day-age model I always simply assumed, in the model, that god lied to the writer of the Bible because he felt they would grasp a metaphor better than the truth. Am I the only one who feels a blatantly deceptive god is an acceptable branch of the day-age theory? -Kasreyn

yes.  :-) More seriously, the most important issue is not how old the earth is, but the connection between Adam and Jesus. Serious theologians tend to admit that they could be wrong about the whole "day" thing, but are not willing to let go of the special creation of Adam as the first and representative man because of his parallel to Jesus as the representative of his people. jrcagle 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that Eveolution is a bowl of crud!

This is a pretty good page/argument for day-age creationism. Infraredeclipse 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a journal page or something? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that YECs state that "yom" always means 24 hours (granting it does in Genesis) when either a number or the terms "evening or morning" are attached.... as they do not state that yom always means 24 hours in any context.

DarthSidious 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Forgive the rant... Following the KJV of the bible, I see how the Day-Age theory could come about, but how some of it's by-products stayed around for so long is curious. Yes, one could argue the translation of "Yom" and, frankly the possibility is there for a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, but how Yom translates and the idea of a gap between man's creation and fall are quashed in the very Bible that the people are studying. (Forgive me and if I am missing something that is in another translation, or something is disputable about my comments, please tell me) but, those two divisions of the theory (Yom and creation-fall gap) are both put down by the fact that Adam lived 930 years---period. See Genesis 5:5. One full day passed between the creation of man and the Sabbath- or, following the 1day=1,000years theory, Adam would have lived 1930 years. And, supposing "yom" was meant to be translated as something else, you could add that sum to the 930 years. However, you can't. Nine hundred and thirty years. No more. The dating of the world will continue to be a debate until it's very end. Whether you are able to ascertain the date of the earth should not determine your faith. Creation, or the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang. They are all theories - unproven speculation. It's your choice, but no matter which, it's all on Faith. Heather.salvatore 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These Creationism pages are not primarily an attempt to use certain rules or logic, the goal is to illustrate major interpretations and beliefs and some of the reasons behind them. We can't remove those theories because they are proven wrong by yours or anybodies proof, that's not wikipedia's job in these articles. That's really the only way it can be done, and I'm happy with the results.

My impression is that Adam was created near THE END of Day 6 (humans come very late according to the evolution chain of events), and so far Day 7 hasn't finished. You can certainly refer to evolution as "speculation" in many areas, but "theory" (in scientific terms) actually means a well substantiated explanation of data. You should look at this page:Arguments Creationists should not use.

However I wasn't really trying to start a debate on the issue, but pointing out the response to claims that "yom" can just as easily mean an indeterminable period of time as it can mean 24 hours, which the article seems to promote.

DarthSidious 08:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

I think this following paragraph which I tried to add to the lead on Aug. 19, 2007, expresses a division in Day/Age Creationism where some see Genesis creation days as symbolic for ages, but others see ages of time as real 24-hour days when relativity theory is applied. I don't think there is a name coined for this kind of "Day/Age Creationism", but maybe there should be because it is an important distinction. You saw it first right here! :)

Proposed lead paragraph 4: "While this Biblical debate (detailed following this section) seeks to ascertain whether time references rendered as "days" in Genesis can be properly understood as equivalent to "ages" or "eons" of Earth's evidently very great age, recently Scientific theory is being applied to show that the Genesis "days" are more than merely symbolic of long ages. By using relativity theory, some have explained that a 24-hour day as observed from the cosmos can be equivalent to an eon as observed on Earth. So, a debate solely on Biblical texts may tend to say that creation "day-ages" are not truly 24-hour days, but the scientific argument could counter, "Oh yes, they are!" Examples of this position are Physicist Gerald Schroeder's ^[1] argument ("The Science of God", 1998) that six "days" of "cosmic time" may correspond equivalently to six eons on Earth in an exponentially-based sequence. He cites relativity theory saying that a day may equal an age depending on the position in time and space of the observer. Similarly, in 2007 Physicist Samuel A. Elder (Further reading, below) theorized that the Universe experienced a periodic alternation from darkness to light, as it unfolded over billions of years, that may correspond to the six evening-mornings of the Genesis creation account."

24.35.41.145 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Peter 3:8 says: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....

But wait, that's just the more recent translation, let's look at the original Greek:

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Β΄ 3:8: εν δε τουτο μη λανθανετω υμας αγαπητοι οτι μια ημερα παρα κυριω ως χιλια ετη και χιλια ετη ως ημερα μια

The original Greek uses "και" to mean "and", but "και" can be used as a multiplier in this sense -- in the same sense that I could say a year is 365 days and 24 hours are in a day, therefore a year is 8,760 hours.... so what Peter is saying there is that 1 day to God is like a thousand years, and each day of each of those thousand years is like a thousand of our years....

So, a day to God is 365,000 intermediary days, and each one of those 365,000 days is like a thousand of our years!! So, one day to God is 365 million of our years.... and seven of God's days (remembering that other than the Creation events, none of the events in Genesis take place until after the seventh day) is 2,555,000,000 of our years (give or take 6,000)....

Remembering also that Genesis begins with God separating the land from the waters on a pre-existing planet (and that Earth may have been created aeons after the rest of the Universe), this is not particularly far out of the context of our science of when life began.... Pacific PanDeist 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were Slifkin's remarks removed? The removing editor failed to acknowledge the supported and cited remarks made by this biblical commentator. It was claimed that the information is does not represent a large enough sphere of perspective. There are enough knowledgeable individuals for there to necassarily be a large sphere of perspective regarding these issues. Slifkin's comments about how this method of concordism does not even serve to reconcile the issues was removed without notice to its content, but rather because he happens to be a rabbi - otherwise, it would not have been removed due to a claim of narrow-focus perspective of "Orthodox/Hareidi Judaism." Slifkin's remarks are pure contrast of Day-age and biblical narrative.

...some of this may be useful, but needs balancing from other perspectives.

So add other perspectives - dont's delete reliable, sourced and entirely valid ones instead, just becase its easier. Or you can tag it as "may be weighted towards one perspective" until someone else adds them.

DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions consist primarily of long strings of quotes from figures within the Orthodox Jewish community, lacking any context indicating why they should be viewed as compelling by the wider world. As it stands it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Additionally the over-preponderance of quotes (the additions are 5 of the 6 direct quotes in the entire article) makes these sections of the article less easy to read and provide a less encyclopaedic presentation. Opinions from a wider range of biblical commentators would be useful, and more discussion of their views and less verbatim quotation. Also please read up the documentation on template:quotation -- padding with large numbers of colons is very bad markup -- there are fields for author/source/etc: please use them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My citations were for support both for and against Day-age creationism; how is this unbalanced? The fact that the Jewish tradition is strongly linked with the Old Testament more than any other religion may make Jewish commentators more polished in their perspective, and the fact that someone is Jewish doesn't make their perspectives representative solely of Jewish people. Thus, there is no violation of WP:UNDUE.

Secondly, your listing of template violations is ridiculous, as these are hardly grounds for removal -- a suggestion to edit would fit better in this situation. Either way, your belligerant methods of edit reversal are received as an outright censorship -- especially since my edits included both endorsement for and against Day-age creationism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. My main point was that your quotes were all from within a single Judaic denomination, which represents only a tiny proportion of the population that accepts the book of Genesis as canonical. Further on this point, you completely failed to even narrate why the sources quoted are considered authoritative even within the Orthodox Judaic community. They may well be, but the average reader isn't going to know them from Adam without further explanation. Further, you have presented nothing as yet to indicate that their views are given any weight outside this tiny community (e.g. in the wider Biblical scholarship community) -- a point that you definitely need to make, in the article (backed by heavyweight reliable sources), if you expect something close to such extensive and concentrated emphasis on Orthodox Jewish authorities to stand. Mere hand-waving about how they "may" be more "polished" or may be representative not solely of Jewish perspectives quite simply doesn't cut it.
2. My secondary point, which you failed to address completely, is that having more quotes than narration is very poor editorial style, and should be avoided wherever possible.
3. That you were misusing the {{quotation}} template was merely my tertiary point -- for somebody who over-uses quotations, you certainly have no idea how to actually mark them up correctly.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 of the 11 citations are for YEC views in opposition to DAC (a probable violation of WP:UNDUE.
• Of the remaining citations:
  • one has itself a {{fact}}-tag within it;
  • another is to a wayback of a self-published geocities article by two people, neither of whom has any significant expertise in the subject of the article.
• We have a lengthy quote vaguely attributed to "BDB's Hebrew lexicon", but no more precise citation.
• Just about every DAC view & analysis of biblical translation is uncited.

I think we need to start citing things to:

• Prominent DAC individuals/organisations -- Reasons to Believe would be a good starting point.
• The writings of prominent biblical scholars.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross would be a good source to add too. 76.115.130.174 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Hrafn reverted this edit citing (a) a logical fallacy and smoke screen that "I have seen nothing to controvert that DAC is OEC" (it's a Smoke Screen because the edit he reverted did not remove the OEC reference, merely placed it one sentence down), and (b) the following were misrepresented by Hrafn as "unreliable sources":

• Leet, PhD, Lenora (1999). Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 222-226, 229. ISBN 0-89281-724-0.
• Pascal, Blaise (1958). Pensees. New York, NY: E. P. DUTTON & CO., INC., 654, 655. ISBN 0-525-47018-2.
• Einstein, Albert (1931). Cosmic religion, 48-52, 102.
• Einstein, Albert; Alice Calaproce (2000). [www.pup.princeton.edu The Expanded Quotable Einstein]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press and Hebrew University Jerusalem, 208. ISBN 0-691-07021-0.

I chose and reviewed the above sources page for page and they are impeccable. I expect that the only name above that is unfamiliar will be Dr. Lorena Leet (Brodwin), who recieved her PhD from Yale University, was a Professof of English at St. John's University and has published many books in this area, all of which have recieved outstanding reviews from academics.

"Unreliable sources" is pure nonsense. If there's a disagreement, let's talk and avoid edit warring. riverguy42 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an edit war going on...

• Robert, you appear to be (unintentionally?) starting one.riverguy42 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hrafn that the new material has to go, for numerous reasons. Much of it is simply false. For instance, Einstein certainly wasn't a "day-age creationist" of any sort (his "religion" was a form of Deism, not anything Bible-based) - so what's he doing here? And DAC is a form of Old-Earth Creationism (so why move that statement?), and it is NOT based on original Hebrew concepts (rather, it's based on a "convenient" idiosyncratic interpretation of the Hebrew). --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Robert, had you taken 30 seconds to read before reverting, you'd have noticed that the edit he reverted DID NOT remove the OEC statement. Sorry to SHOUT, but you need to read before you pull the trigger and start an edit war. So, the primary reason Hrafn cited was false. Perhaps Hrafn made the same simple mistake you did and failed to read my edit before he reverted. I will assume good faith that you both made the same mistake.

• 2) The Day-age creation idea IS based on original (and ancient) Hebrew tradition, this view HAS been adopted by prominent scientists and mathematicians for a very long time (exactly as my sources explicitly illustrate) and the quotes and sources I provided are impeccable. Whether Einstein was or was not a "Day-age creationist" (which is a recently adopted taxonomic device) is completely irrelevant in the context in which the information was presented.

Given that you did not read either the edit or the talk page associated with the issue, and your revert primarily cites a false justification, please revert yourself so I can continue to assume good faith. Your secondary reasons for reverting are unsupported and appear to reflect POV only.

And please talk if you disagree with the edit. riverguy42 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The edit Hrafn reverted removed (from the first sentence) the most important fact about DAC: that it is a form of Old-Earth creationism. It later says that DAC "can be compared" to OEC, but it actually IS a form of OEC.

2. The second paragraph presents a point-of-view as if it was a fact: that "the central ideas of the Day-age creation viewpoint have their roots in the ancient Hebrew religion". This strongly implies that the authors of Genesis were Day-Age Creationists themselves, and this is what they wanted the text to convey. This is what later advocates of DAC want us to believe, but it is highly controversial, and Wikipedia should not be endorsing such views as fact. It also falsely implies that Einstein was a DAC. Let's be clear about what a DAC is: it's NOT someone who merely believes the Earth is old, it's someone who has a very specific view regarding the intent of the Genesis author and the manner in which Genesis should be translated. And it's a far-from-settled opinion among Hebrew scholars. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ok, I am fine with putting OEC back into the first sentence (for now). Later we can talk about how this strange taxonomy (and taxonomy is a form of POV) became such an all-powerful force here that it somehow MUST be in the first sentence rather than the second.

2) FYI, the ancient Hebrew texts (i.e. Sefer Yetzirah and Zohar) are in fact the original source of all "Day-age creationism" viewpoints. To somehow "define" day-age creationism as a "new device" that is used by contemporary creationists to achieve their agenda (which is the current POV this article attempts to push) is just plain false.

This should be obvious, as Genesis is a Hebrew text. riverguy42 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"... According to the master Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, when counting the years of these cycles, one must not use an ordinary physical year, but rather, a divine year (Otzar Chaim 86b). The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday", Psalm 90:4 (Bereshit Rabbah 8:2, Zohar 2: 145b, Sanhedrin 97a). Since each year contains 365.25 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of 2.5 billion years is very close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth. If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some 15 billion years ago." -- Taken from Sefer Yetzirah, commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, published by Weiser -- 1997, page 186.

From the same source...

"Professor Cyril Domb of Bar Ilan University (In the publication: B'or Hatorah, #11 -- 1999, page 174.) quotes Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, of blessed memory, as saying: "The Bible uses human language when it speaks of the "rising and setting of the sun" and not of the rotation of the earth, just as Copernicus, Kepler, and other such scientists, in their words and writings, spoke of the rising and setting of the sun without thereby contradicting truths they had derived from there own scientific conclusions. Loshon benei adam, "human language", which is also the language of the Bible, describes the processes and phenomena of nature in terms of the impression they make on the human senses, without thereby meaning to prejudice, in any manner, the findings of scientific research." (S.R. Hirsch. Collected Writing, volume 7 (New York: Feldheim, 1992), page 57.)

3) Regarding your critique that I "falsely" implied that Einstein "was a DAC". What the heck is "a DAC"? Where have "we" agreed on this definition? Can you point me to somewhere to go where DACs get a DAC ID card? Is there a "Church of the Day-age Creation" that someone can belong to? Obviously not, so please don't be disingenuous. You have read my edit by now, and you are a competent and intelligent reader, and anyone who actually goes to read my edit will understand immediately why I observe that you appear to be using the same kind of smoke screen tactics as Hfrafn. Please stop.

Lastly, I would remind you that this article is about "Day-Age Creationism". This article is NOT about "Day age creationists". Einstein and Pascal are therefore perfectly appropriate and improve the article by providing highly notable historical examples of the creationism viewpoint that is now known as "Day Age Creationism". If there is a reliable source for the "definition" of who is and who is not a "DAC'ist", perhaps you should provide us all a cite for that definition so that we don't trip over this arbitrary and arbitrarily enforced WP:OR "definition" again, OK? riverguy42 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. My original revert edit summary reference to unreliable source was with respect to Leet, who has no qualifications in Biblical analysis.
2. Albert Einstein was not a creationist (of any stripe), a theist, or even really a deist. It is a misrepresentation to claim that he "shared this interpretation" or that the quote demonstrates this.
3. Pascal lived long before the advent of modern geology called a young earth into question, so his views are largely irrelevant.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sefer Yetzirah isn't part of the "ancient Hebrew religion" that produced the Book of Genesis (indeed, it appears to be post-Christian): it's a work of (relatively) modern Judaism. And apparently you're not even quoting from the book itself, but from a modern commentary on it.

The second paragraph, "from the same source", is rather blatant apologetics: the Bible was written by flat-Earthers (this is clear from the many references to the old Sumerian flat-Earth, solid-sky cosmology throughout ancient Hebrew literature), but the author wants to believe otherwise.

And how is Einstein a "highly notable historical examples of the creationism viewpoint that is now known as Day Age Creationism" when apparently he held no such view? Einstein made his views on religion pretty clear, and denounced the "lies" told about him. If he DID endorse "Day-Age creationism" in the cited source, then why doesn't the quote say so? I want to see a quote from Einstein himself where he says that he thinks this is what the author of Genesis meant!

The article needs to make a distinction between Genesis and later (medieval?) Jewish views (and even more recent modern commentaries on those later views), and Einstein shouldn't be dragged into this without direct evidence that he shared this view (which seems rather implausible due to his rejection of Judaism, but he might have changed his views later in life). --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

riverguy42: {{fact}}-tagging talkpage comments is disruptive editing and will be reverted, and may ultimately get you blocked. Please desist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)/// See my response on Hrafn's talk page here[reply]

• WRT Einstein and Pascal, the objections don't add up. Reminder - this article is NOT about creationISTS, it's about creationISM. Historical roots of Day-age creationISM are perfectly appropriate and improve the article.

• Except that neither Einstein's nor Pascals views have anything to do with the "historical roots of day-age creationism". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT Dr. Leet, Hrafn, you'd better take a minute to look into Dr. Leet's credentials, research and reputation before you make another patently untrue statement about her.

• "The author is a Ph.D. and professor of English ... She has, however, spent more than two decades re-envisioning the Kabbalah. ... Her approach is, by her own admission, non-traditional. Therefore, since it runs counter to the academic scholarship on the Kabbalah, many readers may object to her conclusions."[1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT "The Sefer Yetzirah isn't part of the 'ancient Hebrew religion' that produced the Book of Genesis..." Yet another Straw Man. I didn't say that. The Sefer Yetzirah is the oldest known INTERPRETATION of the Book of Genesis, and it's tradition extends further back than than any similar non-hebrew work. To be valid here, all it needs to do is pre-date modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth, and that it clearly does.

• WRT "I want to see a quote from Einstein himself where he says that he thinks this is what the author of Genesis meant!" Let's quit with the Straw Man tactics. What I claim is that Einstein is notable here because he is one of many scientists who thought of God as outside of space-time and his quote that "one year is like a thousand years.." from God's POV illustrates that he held a "Day-age" POV.

• This does not "illustrates that he held a "Day-age" POV". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT: You are relying on a misquoted Einstein, as in "Einstein made his views on religion pretty clear, and denounced the "lies"..." FYI, the famous "lie" he denounced is this:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views" from "The Expanded Quotable Einstein", 2000, Princeton University Press, page 214. See also Jammer, "Einstein and Religion", page 97.

I've just finished reading (for fun) twenty-one pages of Einstein's explicit quotations on God and religion in the best known source there is (ibid, pages 200-221) Summary: Einstein believed deeply in God but NOT religion (he didn't "reject Judaism", he rejected dogmatic religions in general and on principle. Einstein was deeply theistic (pantheistic was his word), but rejected the notion of a Personal God. Einstein spoke publicly about a God in explicit "Day-age" terms, and this is perfectly relevant to an article on "Day-age creationISM" regardless of whether he may (now or then) have been able to fit some arbitrarily designed definition of a "Day Age CreationIST" that fits the POV WP:TEND which I find to be endemic here.

If Einstein rejected Judaism, he would not have "shared this interpretation" of Genesis, as he would have no interest in interpreting Genesis at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Einstein's interest in the Bible? You said "...as he would have no interest in interpreting Genesis at all". Einstein's quotes on the Bible span several pages of my text. Here's what Einstein said (just one quote) in refuting your assertion:

"I often read the Bible, but it's original text has remained beyond my reach" September 2, 1945 (letter) lamenting his lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language, from "The Expanded Quotable Einstein", 2000, Princeton University Press, page 215.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he ever express a need to harmonise Genesis with science? If not, then he can hardly be considered to be expressing a DAC interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, WRT your critique "The second paragraph presents a point-of-view as if it was a fact: that 'the central ideas of the Day-age creation viewpoint have their roots in the ancient Hebrew religion'. Robert, if you are going to "snip" my sentence to effectively mischaracterize my edit to fit your point, then please do not place a period at the end of your snip. Was this intentional? If you are going to "snip", then use three periods...

Here's how my edit ACTUALLY reads, this is what I actually wrote, and it is quite factual.

"The central ideas of the Day-age creation viewpoint have their roots in the ancient Hebrew religion, Hebraic sacred science and Hebrew language interpretations of Genesis" .

See how my actual edit reads oh-so differently than your snipped mischaracterization? See how your assertion no longer fits?

Now, if we can agree to dispense with the POV wars here and acknowledge that the roots of the Day age creationism perspective are as Hebrew as Genesis is, and that they pre-date modern christian "Old Earth Creationism", then I think we get back to editing, OK?

riverguy42 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is not a matter of us agreeing on it. It is a matter of finding reliable sources and plumbing what the mainstream historic and religious and academic communites feel on any of these issues. And as I said before, the smart thing for you to do is to make a proposed addition in a sandbox, and then invite us to come and critique it. And hopefully after a few iterations you will learn more about what sort of material is appropriate for Wikipedia. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverguy, Einstein did not worship a Judeo-Christian God, and here is what he wrote about that (in response to those who claimed that he did): "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". Judaism is a "dogmatic religion" and DOES feature a "personal God" (rather prominently). Einstein has no place in this article, unless he did at one time express the opinion that the Hebrew "yom" was intended to refer to an "age": and you have provided no quote to that effect.

Also, as there is no indication whatsoever that the author of Genesis was referring to anything other than a regular 24-hour day (and considerable evidence that this WAS intended: the references to "evenings and mornings" and the fact that it's used in Exodus as the basis for the weekly sabbath), Day-Age creationism does NOT have its roots in "the ancient Hebrew religion", but rather a later interpretation of that religion (and medieval Judaism IS itself a later interpretation). I didn't object to the later phrase "Hebrew language interpretations of Genesis". Please stop using strawman arguments. The claim that it has its roots in the ancient Hebrew religion is the claim that has to be substantiated or removed (and the reference to "Hebraic sacred science" needs some attention too: the original "Hebraic sacred science" is the Sumerian flat-Earth cosmology, not later medieval thought).

Please stop trying to conflate Einstein's religion with Day-Earth creationism and ancient Hebrew beliefs with medieval and modern interpretations. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert...sorry...but when you start off with another Straw Man mis-characterization of my argument, as in "Riverguy, Einstein did not worship a Judeo-Christian God...", and then (when I protested an earlier misrepresentation of my edit), you respond by throwing "strawman" back at me...well, it makes it difficult to talk here. Einstein's God was "Spinoza's God", was not a personal God, and was "Judeo" (Kabbalahistic), but not "Christian". If you are interested, try a google search on "Issac Luria" + "Baruch Spinoza" and then "Einstein" + "Spinoza", or see Dr. Leet's books.

Anyway (deep breath)...you are right in this: "The claim that it has its roots in the ancient Hebrew religion is the claim that has to be substantiated". Agreed. You'll see it here in the next day or so. Also, WRT: "the reference to "Hebraic sacred science" needs some attention too: the original "Hebraic sacred science" is the Sumerian flat-Earth cosmology, not later medieval thought).", I don't think the Sumerian cosmology is relevant, it seems to me that the relevant thing is that the Hebraic sacred science needs to be conclusively shown to predate all of (a) christian OEC, (b) Darwinian evolution, and (c) the 20th century scientific establishment of the age of the earth and universe. If it can be shown via WP:RS that the Hebrew science on the interpretation of Genesis predates ALL of these, and that the "Day-age" viewpoint was integral to this interpretation, then, would you agree that we can say "had it's roots in..." as I wrote? Thanks Robert, these were thoughtful points...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]