My chief objection to the sole reliance on the KJV is that, as the result of the centuries, it uses in essence a foreign language. Too many words have changed in meaning. Replenish did not mean refill in the 17th century; it meant 'fill up'. (at least, not according to Oxford). So too does the original Hebrew word ML, from which it's translated.
The KJV is the superior English translation of the Bible, and the edition I have has no known errors, and no one has been able to show me any errors in it to date, even though I've invited them to do so more than once in this forum.
The etymology of the English word "replenish" is quite plain, quote: "v.t. to fill again; to fill up after having been emptied or lessened; to fill completely; to stock abundantly [O Fr. replenir, from replein, full; L. re-, again, and plenus, full].
The less explicit Hebrew word, legitimately translated as "replenish" in the KJV, means simply "to fill; to be filled;" and is yet another example of how the God-inspired KJV has superseded the Hebrew and Greek texts in so many ways.
You have also said:
The Bible does not, to my knowledge, specify when Satan's rebellion took place. Given passages like Gen 1:31-2:1, and Eze 28:13, the only reasonable conclusion to me is that Satan fell some time after the creation.
And I can find no scriptural support at all for the notion that Adam re-introduced death to this earth. None.
Scripture says angels were around before Adam, because they were around when God laid the foundations of the earth, upon which Adam later stood up on after being created on the sixth day of renovation and replenishment of the earth (Job 38.4-7).
Scripture indicates that sin was in the world before Eve and Adam took the forbidden fruit, because the original earth was made to inhabited but was reduced to a formless and void state before it was renovated and replenished.
And while scripture says Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin; that doesn't mean angels hadn't previously transgressed. In fact the serpent that tempted Eve was obviously an embodiment of evil and not some sort of good entity as you would have us believe.
Indeed the serpent in the garden must have been an embodiment of an evil angel, because angels of that sort were the only creatures of God that could have tempted Eve in that manner at that time, because the devils or demons didn't then exist, and angels are spirits that can enter into and speak out of the bodies of animals and men.
Are we to believe a serpent, as one of the creatures called "very good" in the day of its creation by God (Gen. 1.31), spoke those evil words to Eve, and not a fallen angel in spirit form that had possessed the body of a serpent at the time?
Indeed the New Testament makes it plain enough that the serpent that tempted Eve was an embodiment of the fallen angel Satan, because the Revelation identifies him as "that old serpent, the Devil, and Satan" (Rev. 12.9).
I believe Adam did bring death into the world again, in the sense that he brought it in by his transgression and among his offspring, after it had been previously introduced among the angels who had transgressed in the matter of trading in precious mineral stones on the pre-Adamic earth.
The verse in Romans five, which says "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin", refers to the sin of Adam, and that sin in his offspring, and its issue of death; and it doesn't preclude the possiblity that some of the angels, like the one that tempted Eve, were dead morally before Adam, as separated by sin from a holy God.
Lucifer was dead morally when he entered the serpent in the garden to tempt Eve, and we know he has to wait a while yet to die the biblical "second death". Just as Adam died morally in the day that he took of the forbidden fruit, but had to wait nine hundred and thirty years to die physically and arrive in Hades. In fact scripture says all of Adam's offspring have been born dead in trespasses and sins, and we all know that doesn't mean we don't exist for a while before dying physically. Death is not cessation of existence, it's primarily separation and relocation before it's anything else.
Not to leave thunderlove alone on this one, but it sounds like he has it covered.
Not to mention I really don't feel it's my place, as either a woman or a CF moderator, to delve further into this debate.
God bless.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I personally believe in YEC, but I have no problem with any other Christian view that does not allow for macro-evolution. When we give in to the lies of evolution is where I take my stand.
Yes. Macro-evolution is without any evidence to support it. None. And the people who are throwing it our faces as fact are usually quite perverted in their mental makeup. Things like hatred of Yah and pride of intellect.
Macro-evolution is a major false religion. Someone like Stephen Jay Gould is akin to a religious Guru in that sense. "Punctuated Equilibrium" his mystical vision.
About the other views. The six literal days of creation position is the one i've most often heard best supported by the most knowledgable christians on this subject. I'd have to do an aweful lot of switching gears into a study of this topic again to be able to answer more fully.
I have spent a lot of time on it in the past. I've been to the Insitute for Creation Research for instance east of San Diego. Seen the museum there. Seen Henry Morris (1992) and some of the other "6-literal day" positionists. I did not get the chance to talk to the Henry and the top people there since they were to busy for me to want to bother them. But i spent a couple hours chatting with the secondary level of staff and researchers. Extremely interesting and knowledgable people there. Well supported positions.
They refuted the Gap Theory and some of the other main positions. Within the Church these refutations are on a friendly basis. Proper debate methods are adheared to and proper respect for a ligitimately believed other person's viewpoint.
Last edited by kobuk; 20th March 2007 at 04:36 AM.
I am really supprised you didn't include a fifth option, other.
I'm one who holds to the opinion that both young and old have their credits. However, being Fundamentalist, I do not see it as an issue. Genesis 1 & 2 give us the account of the creation. And I accept it as such. To me it does not matter whether it took God a milli-second, six seconds, six minutes, six hours, six days, six months, six years,or six billion years. What is of utmost importance to me is that God created it. That is all that matters to me. One day we will be able to ask the who, what, when, where, and how's, but till then, all I need to know is that my God created it. plain and simple.
To me it is a simple matter, God said it, Jesus created it, and the Spirit moved upon it and from chaos came order.
That's how I see it.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Originally Posted by arunma
Yes, that's how I understand the creation account as well...except that I don't really see any merit in YEC.
I second this. As I see it, the important thing is that God created everything, not when. Though if I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Framework Interpretation variant of OEC.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. No guilt of life, no fear of death This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. No guilt of life, no fear of death This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘Til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand
Linear Mode
