The Six Periods of the Creation

L

love my god

The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been
compressed into the space of a few lines in today s version of the
Bible and is too insubstantial to be considered here.] description of
the Creation in six days followed by a day of rest, the sabbath,
analogous with the days of the week. It has been shown how this mode
of narration practiced by the priests of the Sixth century B.C. served
the purpose of encouraging the people to observe the sabbath. All Jews
were expected to rest [ 'Sabbath' in Hebrew means 'to rest'.] on the
sabbath as the Lord had done after he had laboured during the six days
of the week.
The way the Bible interprets it, the word 'day' means the interval of
time between two successive sunrises or sunsets for an inhabitant of
the Earth. When defined in this way, the day is conditioned by the
rotation of the Earth on its own axis. It is obvious that logically-
speaking there can be no question of 'days' as defined just now, if
the mechanism that causes them to appear-i.e. the existence of the
Earth and its rotation around the Sun-has not already been fixed in
the early stages of the Creation according to the Biblical
description. This impossibility has already been emphasized in the
first part of the present book.
When we refer to the majority of translations of the Qur'an, we read
that-analogous with the Biblical description-the process of the
Creation for the Islamic Revelation also took place over a period of
six days. It is difficult to hold against the translators the fact
that they have translated the Arabic word by its most common meaning.
This is how it is usually expressed in translations so that in the
Qur'an, verse 54, sura 7 reads as follows:
"Your Lord is God Who created the heavens and the earth in six days."
There are very few translations and commentaries of the Qur'an that
note how the word 'days' should really be taken to mean 'periods'. It
has moreover been maintained that if the Qur'anic texts on the
Creation divided its stages into 'days', it was with the deliberate
intention of taking up beliefs held by all the Jews and Christians at
the dawn of Islam and of avoiding a head-on confrontation with such a
widely-held belief.
Without in any way wishing to reject this way of seeing it, one could
perhaps examine the problem a little more closely and scrutinize in
the Qur'an itself, and more generally in the language of the time, the
possible meaning of the word that many translators themselves still
continue to translate by the word 'day' yaum, plural ayyam in Arabic.
[ See table on last page of present work for equivalence between Latin
and Arabic letters.]
Its most common meaning is 'day' but it must be stressed that it tends
more to mean the diurnal light than the length of time that lapses
between one day's sunset and the next. The plural ayyam can mean, not
just 'days', but also 'long length of time', an indefinite period of
time (but always long). The meaning 'period of time' that the word
contains is to he found elsewhere in the Qur'an. Hence the following:
--sura 32, verse 5:
". . . in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is a thousand
years of your reckoning."
(It is to be noted that the Creation in six periods is precisely what
the verse preceding verse 5 refers to).
--sura 70, verse 4:
". . . in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is 50,000
years."
The fact that the word , yaum' could mean a period of time that was
quite different from the period that we mean by the word 'day' struck
very early commentators who, of course, did not have the knowledge we
possess today concerning the length of the stages in the formation of
the Universe. In the Sixteenth century A.D. for example, Abu al Su'ud,
who could not have had any idea of the day as defined astronomically
in terms of the Earth's rotation, thought that for the Creation a
division must be considered that was not into days as we usually
understand the word, but into 'events' (in Arabic nauba).
Modern commentators have gone back to this interpretation. Yusuf Ali
(1934), in his commentary on each of the verses that deals with the
stages in the Creation, insists on the importance of taking the word,
elsewhere interpreted as meaning 'days', to mean in reality 'very long
Periods, or Ages, or Aeons'.
It is therefore possible to say that in the case of the Creation of
the world, the Qur'an allows for long periods of time numbering six.
It is obvious that modern science has not permitted man to establish
the fact that the complicated stages in the process leading to the
formation of the Universe numbered six, but it has clearly shown that
long periods of time were involved compared to which 'days' as we
conceive them would be ridiculous.
One of the longest passages of the Qur'an, which deals with the
Creation, describes the latter by juxtaposing an account of earthly
events and one of celestial events. The verses in question are verses
9 to 12, sura 41:
(God is speaking to the Prophet)
"Say. Do you disbelieve Him Who created the earth in two periods? Do
you ascribe equals to Him. He is the Lord of the Worlds.
"He set in the (earth) mountains standing firm. He blessed it.
He measured therein its sustenance in four periods, in due proportion,
in accordance with the needs of those who ask for (sustenance? or
information?).
"Moreover (tumma) He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it
and to the earth: come willingly or unwillingly! They said: we come in
willing obedience.
"Then He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and He assigned
to each heaven its mandate by Revelation. And We adorned the lower
heaven with luminaries and provided it a guard. Such is the decree of
the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."
These four verses of sura 41 contain several points to which we shall
return. the initially gaseous state of celestial matter and the highly
symbolic definition of the number of heavens as seven. We shall see
the meaning behind this figure. Also of a symbolic nature is the
dialogue between God on the one hand and the primordial sky and earth
on the other. here however it is only to express the submission of the
Heavens and Earth, once they were formed, to divine orders.
Critics have seen in this passage a contradiction with the statement
of the six periods of the Creation. By adding the two periods of the
formation of the Earth to the four periods of the spreading of its
sustenance to the inhabitants, plus the two periods of the formation
of the Heavens, we arrive at eight periods. This would then be in
contradiction with the six periods mentioned above.
In fact however, this text, which leads man to reflect on divine
Omnipotence, beginning with the Earth and ending with the Heavens,
provides two sections that are expressed by the Arabic word tumma',
translated by 'moreover', but which also means 'furthermore' or
'then'. The sense of a 'sequence' may therefore be implied referring
to a sequence of events or a series of man's reflections on the events
mentioned here. It may equally be a simple reference to events
juxtaposed without any intention of bringing in the notion of the one
following the other. However this may be, the periods of the Creation
of the Heavens may just as easily coincide with the two periods of the
Earth's creation. A little later we shall examine how the basic
process of the formation of the Universe is presented in the Qur'an
and we shall see how it can be jointly applied to the Heavens and the
Earth in keeping with modern ideas. We shall then realize how
perfectly reasonable this way is of conceiving the simultaneous nature
of the events here described.
There does not appear to be any contradiction between the passage
quoted here and the concept of the formation of the world in six
stages that is to be found in other texts in the Qur'an.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

--
Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
 
N

Nick

The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

[email protected] (Kenny McCormack) said:
love my god said:
The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

BI?
 
N

Nick

[email protected] (Kenny McCormack) said:
The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

BI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
 
K

Keith Thompson

Nick said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [the usual]

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

Nick, please don't feed the troll. A lot of us have killfiled Kenny
precisely because we don't want to read his articles. When you
post followups that quote what he writes, you defeat the purpose
of our killfiles.

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.
 
S

Seebs

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

I recommend allowing him to post idiocy on Usenet. It seems to have
resulted in him being essentially completely discredited except with
people with huge grudges and no reading comprehension, sock puppets,
and... Hmm. That's basically it.

-s
 
K

Keith Thompson

Seebs said:
I recommend allowing him to post idiocy on Usenet. It seems to have
resulted in him being essentially completely discredited except with
people with huge grudges and no reading comprehension, sock puppets,
and... Hmm. That's basically it.

Sure, I'm not trying to get Kenny to stop posting (there's no point
in trying). I'm just trying to discourage others from posting
followups and thereby re-posting his nonsense.

(Possibly I could figure out how to get my newsreader to filter
out followups to certain posters, but (a) I'm not sufficiently
motivated to spend the time to do so, (b) it would probably slow
down loading of the newsgroup, and (c) probably not all newsreaders
are capable of it.)
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Keith Thompson said:
Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

Yes. Because my posts have the power of Medusa's head.
Merely having them come into your view can turn you to stone (or worse).

P.S. Note that it has been shown conclusively, many times over the past
few years, that they (the regs, including Kiki) are lying when they say
they have killfiled anyone.
 
N

Nick

Keith Thompson said:
Nick said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [the usual]

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

Nick, please don't feed the troll. A lot of us have killfiled Kenny
precisely because we don't want to read his articles. When you
post followups that quote what he writes, you defeat the purpose
of our killfiles.

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

While I appreciate your point, I like to make my own decisions on kill
filing, and often a bit of give and take with the subject is necessary
before I can make that decision.

I've already kf'd two of the heads (keeping an open mind as to how many
hydras there are behind the door) and Kenny is sailing very close to
joining them (that the two most recent posts he's made are attempts to
question the sanity of two people based on one perfectly sensible and
one slightly intemperate (but that's all) posting has at least led to me
taking the padlock off the trapdoor).

I doubt he's going to make the year out, but please tolerate me just
long enough to make my own decision. After all, although I'm sure I'm
going to get the "clique" tar-and-feather brush waved at me very soon
anyway; I'd like to make absolutely sure I've done nothing to justify
it.
 
P

Phil Carmody

Nick said:
Keith Thompson said:
Nick said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [the usual]

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

Nick, please don't feed the troll. A lot of us have killfiled Kenny
precisely because we don't want to read his articles. When you
post followups that quote what he writes, you defeat the purpose
of our killfiles.

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

While I appreciate your point, I like to make my own decisions on kill
filing, and often a bit of give and take with the subject is necessary
before I can make that decision.

You've conflated reading loon-spew with replying to it.

Phil
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Phil Carmody said:
You've conflated reading loon-spew with replying to it.

Note how controlling these people are. They are very much motivated by the
same sorts of forces as those that motivate religious belief. That is,
the idea that the world will crash and burn unless everyone conforms.

It is no coincidence that many of the CLC regs are, in real life, loony
fundamentalist Christians.

P.S. Nick, in response to your previous posting, in which you stated
that I had assessed the mental state of some of our reg friends based on
one or two postings. This is not true. It is based on years of
observation. Note, BTW, that CLC had gone to the dogs (the loony
religion of "What's in the standard and only what's in the standard") as
early as 1992. But it didn't get really entertaining until around 2000.
It has been a laugh riot ever since.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Nick said:
Keith Thompson said:
Nick said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [the usual]

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

Nick, please don't feed the troll. A lot of us have killfiled Kenny
precisely because we don't want to read his articles. When you
post followups that quote what he writes, you defeat the purpose
of our killfiles.

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

While I appreciate your point, I like to make my own decisions on kill
filing, and often a bit of give and take with the subject is necessary
before I can make that decision.
[snip]

I'm not asking you to killfile Kenny; it doesn't matter to me
whether you read his articles or not. I'm simply asking you not
to re-post his nonsense for the rest of us.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Keith Thompson said:
I'm not asking you to killfile Kenny; it doesn't matter to me
whether you read his articles or not. I'm simply asking you not
to re-post his thoughtful commentary for the rest of us.

Something which you have equally little (i.e., none) authority to do.

Trust me, Kiki, my posts do *not* actually have the power of Medusa's
head. I was joking when I said that they do.

P.S. Althought Kiki may technically be right in saying that *this
time*, he was not "asking" (and their "requests" have the sense and
flavor of orders) you to killfile me, it is undeniably true that he and
others have done exactly that (ordered people to killfile me and the
other so-called "trolls") - "for the good of the group" - in the past.

And will do so in the future.
 
N

Nick

Keith Thompson said:
Nick said:
Keith Thompson said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes:
[the usual]

That's three today. Your BI must be getting pretty high by now.

Nick, please don't feed the troll. A lot of us have killfiled Kenny
precisely because we don't want to read his articles. When you
post followups that quote what he writes, you defeat the purpose
of our killfiles.

Kenny has been doing this for many years, and he's not likely
to change. If you want to ridicule him, please find a way to do
so that doesn't have the side effect of inflicting his crap on the
rest of us.

While I appreciate your point, I like to make my own decisions on kill
filing, and often a bit of give and take with the subject is necessary
before I can make that decision.
[snip]

I'm not asking you to killfile Kenny; it doesn't matter to me
whether you read his articles or not. I'm simply asking you not
to re-post his nonsense for the rest of us.

Now two of you have quoted me, and yet apparently not read what I
wrote. So before I get all snotty, can I just politely draw your
attention to the bit you have both quoted "and often a bit of give and
take with the subject is necessary".
 
N

Nick

The Six Periods of the Creation




There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The
Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called
Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the
description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been

Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

Since we're already holding a conversation on this (utterly off-topic,
so easily killed by those who don't want to see me reposting your
comments), I throw a question at you. It doesn't apply in this tread,
because it's rubbish anyway, but - as I said - this was once of three in
one day.

You've been doing this cut-and-paste job (at least, I assume it's cut
and paste, I can't see why else you've been making the same grammatical
error) for I don't know how long (mainly because Google's group search
is utterly hosed). What good is it doing. Firstly, it's clearly not
making the regulars any more flexible - indeed, it's just giving them
something else to get focussed on. And it's actually utterly no good
for the poor sods who do wander in and ask the wrong question. Surely
you'd be better answering the off-topic questions, or keeping quiet (and
saving the biting satire for when someone has been shown politely where
to go). After all, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who did
come here and ask about accept() or whatever, what on earth would you
make of your canned response?
 
K

Keith Thompson

Nick said:
Keith Thompson said:
While I appreciate your point, I like to make my own decisions on kill
filing, and often a bit of give and take with the subject is necessary
before I can make that decision.
[snip]

I'm not asking you to killfile Kenny; it doesn't matter to me
whether you read his articles or not. I'm simply asking you not
to re-post his nonsense for the rest of us.

Now two of you have quoted me, and yet apparently not read what I
wrote. So before I get all snotty, can I just politely draw your
attention to the bit you have both quoted "and often a bit of give and
take with the subject is necessary".

Yes, I did read what you wrote. I didn't address that specific
point. I should have.

In my opinion, "a bit of give and take with the subject" shouldn't
be necessary. Perhaps it's helpful to you somehow, but as I said,
it inflicts the troll's nonsense on the rest of us. Some of us
have already tried it, and found that it doesn't work. Read the
achives and learn from our mistakes.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Nick said:
Since we're already holding a conversation on this (utterly off-topic,
so easily killed by those who don't want to see me reposting your
comments), I throw a question at you. It doesn't apply in this tread,
because it's rubbish anyway, but - as I said - this was once of three in
one day.

You seem to be implying that this thread is "more" off-topic than
others, because it was, originally, about some religious nonsense.

Well, a couple of comments:
1) The fact is that the regs get more worked up about things that
are very marginally off-topic (such as happening to use a word that
appears in C++ [or worse, God forbid!, C#] documentation), than
they do about things (such as this thread) that are clearly OT.
2) Given what has been shown already about the religious nature of
the CLC regs, this thread is, in fact, not all that OT.
You've been doing this cut-and-paste job (at least, I assume it's cut
and paste, I can't see why else you've been making the same grammatical
error) for I don't know how long (mainly because Google's group search

The typo is (obviously) intentional.
is utterly hosed). What good is it doing. Firstly, it's clearly not
making the regulars any more flexible - indeed, it's just giving them
something else to get focussed on. And it's actually utterly no good
for the poor sods who do wander in and ask the wrong question. Surely
you'd be better answering the off-topic questions, or keeping quiet (and
saving the biting satire for when someone has been shown politely where
to go). After all, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who did
come here and ask about accept() or whatever, what on earth would you
make of your canned response?

I am certain that you know the answers to all these questions, and that
you are, in the great CLC tradition, feigning ignorance for rhetorical
effect.

In any case, if you view the thing from the perspective of someone who
wants to understand, you *will* understand.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,580
Members
45,055
Latest member
SlimSparkKetoACVReview

Latest Threads

Top