What are some logical, alternative interpretations or ways of understanding...

[Neogaia777]

(2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day "is as" a thousand years, and a thousand years "is as" one day.

(Psalms 90:4) "For a thousand years in Your sight, Are "like" yesterday when it is past, And "like" a watch in the night."

It says, a thousand years "is as" or is "like" (a "day", or "yesterday" or "a night" or "watch in the night") A "Night" is not even a complete day... And, where it says "is as" or is "like" it is only "likening" a day or night to a thousand years of ours, and the fact that it says "is as" or is "like" may or may not mean "literally", or exactly "like", because he is only "likening" one of his days or a night of his, which is not even an "entire day", to a thousand years of ours...

At any rate, scripturally, a literal six days of ours, as we know or define literal currently, a literal six days, is out, I hate to say, scripturally, Biblically...

Nor do I think we can take it to mean a "literal" (the way we currently define literal anyway) Anyways, a literal "thousand years" of ours either, because it says "as is" and is "like", also a complete day (day and night) is not literally the same as a "night" nor is one day the same as say, half a day....

It all amounts to this: "It is not six days of ours..." And, "No one can know the "exact length", or time period, of "one of his days", with precision...

God Bless!

Also, if you take the whole "time, times, and three and a half times" and how they relate that for "a day for a year" and relate that to "a day is as a thousand years" Well, you try and do the math, I'm no good at math...? Point being, one of God's days could be any length of time...

God Bless!

 

[joshua 1 9]

other than literal, the Creation account, Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden

The Literal aspect of Adam and Eve is not actually based on the story, this is based on the Genealogies that we read in the Bible. The story itself can be any sort of an allegory that you want the story to be. God has many levels of meaning and understanding. Adam and Eve represents male and female. If you want to know How did male and female reproductive systems develop, you can find insight into that in the story of Adam and Eve. If you want to know about marriage, you can find that in the story of Adam and Eve. They were actually the first man and the first women. Before Adam and Eve we had male and female, like the animals. Only people do not seem to know the difference between a male and a man or a female and a women.

 

[Luke17:37]

Also, if you take the whole "time, times, and three and a half times" and how they relate that for "a day for a year" and relate that to "a day is as a thousand years" Well, you try and do the math, I'm no good at math...? Point being, one of God's days could be any length of time...

God Bless!

You continue taking 2 Peter 3:8 out of context. 2 Peter 3:8 is not talking about the days of creation, nor the time, times, and half a time spoken of in Daniel and Revelation. It's about God waiting patiently until all who will repent and believe do. That passage rebukes people who don't believe He is coming back, built upon a foundation of rejecting what He said about the creation and the flood. You might believe in the creation and flood, but you're taking a compromised position by refusing to believe the time God says it took (6 ordinary days, just like our days of today), and instead letting your thinking be influenced by the godless millions of years beliefs. This whole thread is you asking for permission to believe anything other than the history Genesis 1 clearly teaches.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The days of Genesis 1 are composed dark and light, night and day, with cardinal numbers... just like our days today are composed of a period of darkness and a period of light. In six days God created the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1) the sea and all that is in them (Genesis 1:1-Genesis 1:31). On the seventh day God rested, giving us a pattern for our 7 day week (which persists even today).

Millions of years (a non-literal reading of the days of creation) is usually proclaimed with the idea that the fossil record supports from millions of years of death before the recent history (the worldwide flood of Noah's day is a Biblical view for the cause of most of these fossils). This view of history violates Scripture which explictly says God created in six days (and when the years of geneologies, etc., and side quest history are added up, amount to about 6,000 years) and that death is a penalty for sin, not a means of creating. If God used death and blamed it on Adam, how then would Jesus' death on behalf of Adam's race actually have any effect? And God is clear that the animals were vegetarian to start with--just like the people. The curse has affected the whole creation (Romans 8:20-22), even the animals, and when Jesus comes back to reign on the earth, He will begin dismantling the curse, returning animals to their Edenic diets and dispositions (Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 65). So then, animal death is part of the curse. The first recorded death in the Bible is when God slew an animal or animals to make clothes of skin for Adam and Eve after they sinned (Genesis 3:21). Animals don't give up their skins without bloodshed. The effect of sin is death (Genesis 2:17), and it's antidote is also the physical death of a spiritually innocent substitute, which is why Jesus had to die physically in order for spiritual life to come to any in Adam's race. A creation based on death completely undermines the gospel. I encourage you to read the book I posted about before (The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years).

If you read Bishop Usshers book there is nothing wrong with what he has written. He begins with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. He pretty much has nothing to say about what took place before that point in time. If your referring to Genesis Chapter One I believe that a day is 1,000 years and the age or era we live in began around 13,000 years ago. This sort of dispensationalism is very widely accepted in the church today. Dr Gerald Schroeder. Believes that a day in Genesis is from God's perspective. If you want to try to line up the Bible with what we know from science then each day is going to need to be half the length of the day before.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am convinced that either way, in time, the "spiritual truth" of scripture whatever that means, and however that interpretation will prove to be, will prove to be better, greater, higher, superior, and even more "real" and more true, than the "truth" that is in, and that we currently know, in and belonging to, this world...

God Bless!

 

[Luke17:37]

If you read Bishop Usshers book there is nothing wrong with what he has written. He begins with Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. He pretty much has nothing to say about what took place before that point in time. If your referring to Genesis Chapter One I believe that a day is 1,000 years and the age or era we live in began around 13,000 years ago. This sort of dispensationalism is very widely accepted in the church today. Dr Gerald Schroeder. Believes that a day in Genesis is from God's perspective. If you want to try to line up the Bible with what we know from science then each day is going to need to be half the length of the day before.

We don't "know" anything from science about the creation of the world. Millions of years is a construct that attempts to explain the creation without the Creator. It's a mockery that Christians like you are rejecting biblical authority (the clear history of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc) and teaching others to do the same in order to avoid being mocked by godless men who must believe in millions of years to make the fairy tale seem palatable.

 

[Neogaia777]

You continue taking 2 Peter 3:8 out of context. 2 Peter 3:8 is not talking about the days of creation, nor the time, times, and half a time spoken of in Daniel and Revelation. It's about God waiting patiently until all who will repent and believe do. That passage rebukes people who don't believe He is coming back, built upon a foundation of rejecting what He said about the creation and the flood. You might believe in the creation and flood, but you're taking a compromised position by refusing to believe the time God says it took (6 ordinary days, just like our days of today), and instead letting your thinking be influenced by the godless millions of years beliefs. This whole thread is you asking for permission to believe anything other than the history Genesis 1 clearly reaches.

Look, I appreciate you trying, but I'm only going to spend a very limited amount of time on just a couple things, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" correct? But, it states later on that the earth had not been formed yet, nor were the heavens established yet, that's just one minor example, of why I just can't buy the "literal" interpretation you believe...

It's like saying or journaling your day and saying speaking to your pet fish in a fishbowl on the counter and trying to explain it to him in fish language and fish terminology and trying to make him be able to comprehend and understand it... "When I woke up this morning, I made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich... and then describing how you made it, how you first looked for a got the bread out of the breadbox, then got the Peanut butter out of the cupboard, then got the jelly out of the fridge, ect, ect, what you did with it after you made it, ect, ect... Knowing their is "no possible way the fish is going to be able to understand any of this... That is similar to our understanding of how, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."

How many, so very many "things" in scripture have a usually much, much, more important to God, "spiritual" meaning, that is meant to be spiritually discerned...? Most every sign, wonder or miracle and parable Jesus talked about has a spiritual interpretation that was all to often very much more important to him for us to discern and know about than the literal, physical interpretation of the things he did... Do you think Genesis or the creation account or Adam and Eve or the Garden or the serpent is any different... Even if, even "if" it was literal, I am still, much, much more interested in it's "spiritual" meaning and interpretation, and that is, kinda my point with you...

I'll leave you with just one more example, and I'll be done... Since we know there will not be another literal flood, what does Jesus mean mean by the last days being "like", notice "like" or likened to, the days of Noah and the flood and he talks about another "ark" an certain ones going in and shutting the door, and the time of the end being "like" that...? Is that meant to be interpreted literally too...? And, what if the whole point of Noah and the Flood happening or happened, to point to the future time of the end, and the physical event pointing to a symbolic, spiritual event that is "like" the flood and the ark in Noah's days, if Jesus "likened" something that happens in the end times to Noah and the flood event, why can't it possibly work both ways, that is once we reach the time of the end and come to know "how" the event of Noah and the flood in the OT "relates" or is "likened to" what happens in the time of the end, will it shed more light on what the true event might have actually been, or at the very least it will shine more light on what it spiritually was about, in the OT...?

I'm interested in the spiritual interpretations and meanings behind even all the literal events of the Bible, because even God seems to suggest that that is more important...? I'm trying to figure out how to make the spiritual interpretation, logical...

God Bless!

 

[Luke17:37]

Look, I appreciate you trying, but I'm only going to spend a very limited amount of time on just a couple things, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" correct? But, it states later on that the earth had not been formed yet, nor were the heavens established yet, that's just one minor example, of why I just can't buy the "literal" interpretation you believe...

It's like saying or journaling your day and saying speaking to your pet fish in a fishbowl on the counter and trying to explain it to him in fish language and fish terminology and trying to make him be able to comprehend and understand it... "When I woke up this morning, I made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich... and then describing how you made it, how you first looked for a got the bread out of the breadbox, then got the Peanut butter out of the cupboard, then got the jelly out of the fridge, ect, ect, what you did with it after you made it, ect, ect... Knowing their is "no possible way the fish is going to be able to understand any of this... That is similar to our understanding of how, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."

How many, so very many "things" in scripture have a usually much, much, more important to God, "spiritual" meaning, that is meant to be spiritually discerned...? Most every sign, wonder or miracle and parable Jesus talked about has a spiritual interpretation that was all to often very much more important to him for us to discern and know about than the literal, physical interpretation of the things he did... Do you think Genesis or the creation account or Adam and Eve or the Garden or the serpent is any different... Even if, even "if" it was literal, I am still, much, much more interested in it's "spiritual" meaning and interpretation, and that is, kinda my point with you...

I'll leave you with just one more example, and I'll be done... Since we know there will not be another literal flood, what does Jesus mean mean by the last days being "like", notice "like" or likened to, the days of Noah and the flood and he talks about another "ark" an certain ones going in and shutting the door, and the time of the end being "like" that...? Is that meant to be interpreted literally too...? And, what if the whole point of Noah and the Flood happening or happened, to point to the future time of the end, and the physical event pointing to a symbolic, spiritual event that is "like" the flood and the ark in Noah's days, if Jesus "likened" something that happens in the end times to Noah and the flood event, why can't it possibly work both ways, that is once we reach the time of the end and come to know "how" the event of Noah and the flood in the OT "relates" or is "likened to" what happens in the time of the end, will it shed more light on what the true event might have actually been, or at the very least it will shine more light on what it spiritually was about, in the OT...?

I'm interested in the spiritual interpretations and meanings behind even all the literal events of the Bible, because even God seems to suggest that that is more important...? I'm trying to figure out how to make the spiritual interpretation, logical...

God Bless!

I think you just don't want to believe it; you prefer the wisdom of man. At the first moment of God's creation, it was still very much unformed, as it did not resemble the final product.

When speaking to Nicodemus (John 3), Jesus told him you if you don't accept our (the triune God) testimony about the physical things (such as creation and the flood) how will you accept our testimony about spiritual things? Both the physical and spiritual things the Scriptures teach us are important for us to believe. It's challenging to believe the literal gospel (that Jesus literally died for the forgiveness of sins, was buried, and physically rose from the dead on the third day) if you have no historical foundation for it - that God created everything good (no death, no sin); man rebelled; death/sin came to all mankind as a result of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12) and the curse affected the whole creation (Romans 8:20-22; examples in Genesis such as thorns, suffering, diet changes, childbirth pain, relational problems, etc.); God promised a Savior (Genesis 3:15); the literal shedding of blood is necessary to cover sins (Genesis 3:21, Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22)...

In comparing the day of His return to the days of the flood, Jesus is describing the sudden death of the wicked at His return just like the rebels died in the flood of Noah's day. Many people will physically die (see Zechariah 14:12-13, Revelation 19:21) when Jesus returns, just as the people caught in the worldwide flood died.

 

[MasonP]

I swear, I'm not trying to "con" you at all,

It's you who is being conned not me.

and, I didn't just "read it in an old book" But, I "experienced it" to the point of being unable to deny it with many experiencial proofs and evidence,

Like the fear you "experience" when you watch a horror movie, do you put that fear down to a supernatural God as well?

that I tried hard to push away, reject, and deny, but became "undeniable", in the end...

You don't push it away because it gives you comfort, you believe because you want to believe, whether it's true or not doesn't even come into it.

Praise be to Allah!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We don't "know" anything from science about the creation of the world. Millions of years is a construct that attempts to explain the creation without the Creator. It's a mockery that Christians like you are rejecting biblical authority (the clear history of Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, etc) and teaching others to do the same in order to avoid being mocked by godless men who must believe in millions of years to make the fairy tale seem palatable.

OEC and especially Gap theory ties earth's history up pretty neatly, reconciling science and the bible account. The 'heavens and earth' of Genesis 1:2 onward is the second to last recorded ruin/restoration event, the flood being the last. Verse two describes the earth in chaos, not a snapshot of an orderly 'work in progress', which surely wouldn't appear as total disorder.

 

[Luke17:37]

OEC and especially Gap theory ties earth's history up pretty neatly, reconciling science and the bible account. The 'heavens and earth' of Genesis 1:2 onward is the second to last recorded ruin/restoration event, the flood being the last. Verse two describes the earth in chaos, not a snapshot of an orderly 'work in progress', which surely wouldn't appear as total disorder.

Gap theory and OEC is destroyed by Exodus 20:11 which combines Genesis 1:1 ("heavens and earth") with the rest of the chapter. Also, by Jesus' comment, when He said God made them male and female from the beginning of creation, also rebukes these extrabiblical theories, since if there were millions of year between the start of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve, Jesus would have been lying. And Jesus cannot lie.

There is no reason to pander to the godless world's way of thinking. They require millions of years to give their theory an appearance of plausibility, but it is still stupid. Matter/life does not come from nothing. Their belief is created as a consequence of their rejection of the Creator. You are sitting on the fence and being a friend to God's enemies by preferring their wisdom over God's wisdom when it comes to the age of the earth. The wisdom of the wise is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the perishing. God is all powerful is fully capable of creating the universe in 6 normal days. He could have done it instantaneously but I think He took seven days for our sakes. He gave us a seven day week and a Sabbath rest, which points to Jesus and the spiritual rest we can have through Him (Hebrews 3-4).

 

[Papias]

First of all, it's sad to see some people hijack someone's thread. It's very inconsiderate. Neogaia asked for Theistic Evolution supporters to answer her question about what interpretations of Genesis they find work well.

Instead, some creationists jumped in to push their own agenda (which is OK, on threads that ask those questions, but not on threads that don't).

Neogaia, I'm sorry you had to put up with that behavior.

Here are some short answers about how I read Genesis that cover many doctrines of Christianity that you might find useful.

In a theistic evolution view, core Christian doctrines work quite well.

There are many theistic evolution ways to see the core doctrines of Christianity, just as there are many creationist descriptions, depending on the person and denomination. However, these may at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location garden, just as Ezekiel's army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall:The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God. This view is explicitly supported by the Pope, and many other Christian leaders.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God's sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel's army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian's view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel's army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons; not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph's time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.


I hope all that helps.

Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

I believe he literally went (or made the "transition" that I talked about), that he literally made the transition from the physical to the spiritual when he was resurrected...? Are you talking about that...?

God Bless!

Jesus had a physical body when he resurrected.

 

[-57]

Which one is it? Did ONE man sin, or did ALL man sin?
It's one or the other.

Obvious self-contradiction is an obvious self-contradiction. In the very same sentence, of all things.



Unless you go for the second part of the sentence, which states that "all" men sinned, which would be the entire population.



"There can be only one" - Duncan Macleod

Sorry....it's really a waste of time talking bible with an atheist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry....it's really a waste of time talking bible with an atheist.

Run, Forrest, run!

 

[MasonP]

Sorry....it's really a waste of time talking bible with an atheist.

I think it's a waste of time talking bible with anyone.

 

[-57]

I think it's a waste of time talking bible with anyone.

Considering you don't believe in the bible...I expect that answer.

 

[bhsmte]

Jesus had a physical body when he resurrected.

How do you know this?

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry....it's really a waste of time talking bible with an atheist.

If you talk about it in the sense that your personal interpretation is the end all be all, i agree, it is a waste of time.

 

[lesliedellow]

As the man says, the ancients didn't ask the same questions we do, but fundamentalists try to read back into their minds our ways of thinking.