YEC vs OEC

[Assyrian]

blood plasma?

 

[busterdog]

blood plasma?

Electric universe, Setterfieldian plasma cosmology plasma!

I guess if you really think about it the transfiguration or the pillar of fire would suggest a form of plasma. But, far be it from me to push the point that far!!!

 

[Assyrian]

I was thinking how the real weapon the enemy is defeated by is described in that other great metaphor
...and they overcame him by the blood of the lamb.

 

[busterdog]

I was thinking how the real weapon the enemy is defeated by is described in that other great metaphor
...and they overcame him by the blood of the lamb.

Rev 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

But, the kingdoms the enemy has constructed, like Jericho, will fall by the presence of the Lord, like the theophany at Jericho and the trumpet of God.

 

[Assyrian]

Not only the antidote to the works of the enemy, but for Christians thinking the Lord is on their side.

 

[busterdog]

Not only the antidote to the works of the enemy, but for Christians thinking the Lord is on their side.

I don't know, the Passover thing was a pretty one-sided affair. The mercy of God was making the choice so absolutely clear in His prophetic Word, that God being on your side was easy to understand.

Certainly its not like he is always on your side the way you might think. As for being on your side in revenge, revenge the Lord's.


Said otherwise, as you would no doubt anticipate, few of us lose the ability to choose the wrong side in many things.

It always facinates me that John was the lone apostle to survive persecution without martyrdom, and he was known for choosing the side of Jesus in a very physical sense. Ie, passionate (though not sexual) sense. Cf. Daniel, who was "beloved." In the letters to the seven Churches, that "first love" is so critical. "Philadelphia" itself announces the same.

The other association of "blood" is the notion of being "one flesh" with the bridegroom and "adopted in", as Paul writes. As Paul also notes, we shall become like Him. That is the other, other flesh and blood.

 

[keyarch]

While contemplating this a thought came to mind that does anyone have any idea how long Adam was in the garden before God created Eve and then also how long were they in the garden together?

Adam was in the Garden and Eve was made on the 6th day, because God made them male and female on the sixth day:
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
They were in the garden until cast out. From the text we have to assume that Cain was born after they left (there could have been other children born before that). Since Seth was born after Cain and Abel when Adam was 130, and after Cain killed Abel (they probably were at least in their teens), I would expect that they were in the garden no more than 110 years.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe it is spelled "Abel".

 

[Assyrian]

I don't know, the Passover thing was a pretty one-sided affair. The mercy of God was making the choice so absolutely clear in His prophetic Word, that God being on your side was easy to understand.

Certainly its not like he is always on your side the way you might think. As for being on your side in revenge, revenge the Lord's.

Said otherwise, as you would no doubt anticipate, few of us lose the ability to choose the wrong side in many things.

It was your mention of theophany at Jericho that got me thinking along those lines. Jos 5:13 One day, Joshua was near Jericho when he saw a man standing some distance in front of him. The man was holding a sword, so Joshua walked up to him and asked, "Are you on our side or on our enemies' side?" 14 "Neither," he answered. "I am here because I am the commander of the LORD's army." Joshua fell to his knees and bowed down to the ground. "I am your servant," he said. "Tell me what to do." Yes it is true, The LORD is on my side Ps118:6. But sometimes we need reminding who is Lord in this relationship

It always facinates me that John was the lone apostle to survive persecution without martyrdom, and he was known for choosing the side of Jesus in a very physical sense. Ie, passionate (though not sexual) sense. Cf. Daniel, who was "beloved." In the letters to the seven Churches, that "first love" is so critical. "Philadelphia" itself announces the same.

The other association of "blood" is the notion of being "one flesh" with the bridegroom and "adopted in", as Paul writes. As Paul also notes, we shall become like Him. That is the other, other flesh and blood.

Not that John got off because him and Jesus were friends. Maybe Jesus wanted to leave the church in the care of someone for whom that passion that first love, never died who would preach the love of God and the love for your brother to the end.

And if you are going to leave one apostle in charge, pick the youngest, they last longer.

 

[Tissue]

Theologians that did not interpret 'yom' as a literal, 24-hour day: Philo, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, CS Lewis...

 

[busterdog]

It was your mention of theophany at Jericho that got me thinking along those lines. Jos 5:13 One day, Joshua was near Jericho when he saw a man standing some distance in front of him. The man was holding a sword, so Joshua walked up to him and asked, "Are you on our side or on our enemies' side?" 14 "Neither," he answered. "I am here because I am the commander of the LORD's army." Joshua fell to his knees and bowed down to the ground. "I am your servant," he said. "Tell me what to do." Yes it is true, The LORD is on my side Ps118:6. But sometimes we need reminding who is Lord in this relationship

Sobering.

Not that John got off because him and Jesus were friends. Maybe Jesus wanted to leave the church in the care of someone for whom that passion that first love, never died who would preach the love of God and the love for your brother to the end.

And if you are going to leave one apostle in charge, pick the youngest, they last longer.

And passion (love) covers a multitude of sins. And, tts easier than being good.

 

[huldah153]

Theologians that did not interpret 'yom' as a literal, 24-hour day: Philo, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, CS Lewis...

I would have added Isaac Newton to that list; but left out Justin, Clement, Origen and Augustine because they are on record as believing in a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Tissue]

Not exactly. I haven't the time to bring up the selections at the moment, but if I have time, I'll present the texts.

 

[Biblewriter]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a new race.

I have never seen or heard heard even one convincing reply to my argument that in the Hebrew Isaiah 45:18 explicitly says that God did not create the earth in the state described in Genesis 1:2.

To recap, the Hebrew word translated "in vain" in Isaiah 45:18 is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew dictionary.) This is exactly the same form as exactly the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2, where it is translated "without form."

In addition tho this the Hebrew word translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 is hayah (word number 1961 in Strong's Hebrew dictionary.) While this word can legitimately be translated was, as it is here, it can just as legitimately be translated as became, as was done in Genesis 2:7 and 10.

So there is no solid basis for claiming that the Bible teaches that the earth did not exist before the creation of Adam.

While some claim that the days of Genesis 1 are actually periods of time, that is not the essential meaning of the Hebrew word yom (word number 3117 in String's Hebrew Dictionary.) That is, this is an interpretation of the word, not a legitimate translation. I do not think such interpretation is appropriate without a specific scriptural basis. And there is no such scriptural basis. There is not even one scripture that even suggests that the meaning here is a period of time, not a twenty-four hour day.

The Bible does not say that Adam was created six thousand years ago, but adding up all the time periods specifically mentioned in the Bible between Adam Christ we find four thousand years between these events.

So I conclude that the Bible teaches that God made us and our present ecosystem six thousand years ago, but that the heavens and the earth are older than that. How much older is not even hinted at.

 

[juvenissun]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a new race.

I have never seen or heard heard even one convincing reply to my argument that in the Hebrew Isaiah 45:18 explicitly says that God did not create the earth in the state described in Genesis 1:2.

I am not sure what to argue. May be there is nothing to argue about.

Thanks to bring up Isa 45:18. and linked it to Gen 1:2. To me, this is a perfect linkage. It says the state of earth as said in Gen 1:2 DID happen (geoscientists called it "the early earth"). And Isaiah said it was not God's intention to let the earth be that way (so, we could not live on it). As a result, the earth "became" what it looks like today. I don't see any problem in this. In fact, if we looked around the space, there is NO other planet/satellites in the solar system like the earth. And there is no other planets in other solar systems like the earth. God could make the earth just be another one of those billions and billions of "in vain" planets. But instead, God makes it so unique that we (Adam) can live on it to fulfill His purpose.

 

[juvenissun]

While some claim that the days of Genesis 1 are actually periods of time, that is not the essential meaning of the Hebrew word yom (word number 3117 in String's Hebrew Dictionary.) That is, this is an interpretation of the word, not a legitimate translation. I do not think such interpretation is appropriate without a specific scriptural basis. And there is no such scriptural basis. There is not even one scripture that even suggests that the meaning here is a period of time, not a twenty-four hour day.

As a YEC, I do not really appreciate the 24-hour DAY understanding. I do not know what a DAY is. But since the sun is made on DAY 4, there is no way the DAYS before that are "24-hour" day. Besides, a day on earth at earlier time was probably not even a 24-hour day.

 

[busterdog]

As a YEC, I do not really appreciate the 24-hour DAY understanding. I do not know what a DAY is. But since the sun is made on DAY 4, there is no way the DAYS before that are "24-hour" day. Besides, a day on earth at earlier time was probably not even a 24-hour day.

True, but once there was a sun, would the length of a day change? The pattern was made in heaven. The pattern is more essential than the sun itself.

Interesting part about the nature of the day is that the giver of light at the end of the book is God himself and not the sun. Must the pattern change again? Why must it change? The Sabbatical pattern was made "for man" as Jesus tells us. It is a direct work of the father and a pattern for our benefit. It neednt require the existence of a sun.

Interesting part of the word Yom also involves the notion of God as light giver. While there is something to the notion of a "spiritual death" in Genesis three, as in "in that yom, muwth muwth", the latter translated as ye shall die. In the concordance there is a suggestion that yom in its origin is a glow or warmth. Recall that Jesus will destroy the works of the enemy by the brightness of his appearing. Adam perhaps successfully hide (or was allowed to hide) from the yom of His appearing in Eden. (Note that God arrives later, after the eating of the forbidden fruit, and in the "morning", so the fruit was not consumed "in that day".

Have a look at the Gesenius Lexicon.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3117&t=KJV

Note: "to glow with anger", which perhaps records the remembrance of the Gen. 3 event a portion of the meaning of yom.

As much as I prefer the literal use of the word yom, which is consistent in the OT as a 24 hr day, there is a hint of the use of this word being bent or having an exceptional loophole or unexpected use both here and in prophetic scripture. The return of Jesus for the Church has been "imminent" for centuries. There is the odd lacunae between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. Even Jesus stops at a comma in reading the Torah, which separates "the acceptable year of the Lord" and "the day of vengeance" in Luke 4. The ten virgins experience the return of the bridegroom at night, following which, according to many commentators is the "Day of the Lord."

It is this odd pause that allows for many odd things. The fullness of the Gentiles is a function of delay, not to mention our own personal salvation.

Even Jesus did not know the day of His return, but only the father. In Is. 53, we are told that by His stripes we "were" (not are or will be) healed. Collosians tells us that Satan was defeated publicly.

Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Yet, the disarmed powers seem to have considerable power at the moment. Also recall the odd way in which Jesus even compares the father to the unjust Judge in teaching about the persistence of prayer. The time element becomes very important in addressing prayer and our expectations. Recall the delay between Daniel's prayer, the dispatch of the angel and the intervening battle with the Prince of Persia.

So, to you and Biblewriter, I dont see a firm conclusion on all meanings of yom. There is however a case of oddities. Not contradiction, but unresolved mystery. Not just confusion, but a consisent and deliberate matter of our inability to penetrate a truth about the timing of Jesus' ultimate revelation to His Church. Indeed, the very knowledge of blessing and curse in Gen. 3 has to do with foresight, prediction and expectation of those conditions that will allow or frustrate blessings for man, all of which are a function of time.

In short, this is a wierd area. But, the lenght of day in Gen. 3 seems the least wierd in the text. It all gets wierd in Gen. 3 and later.

 

[Van]

The Biblewriter in post 34 lays out one of the arguments for "the gap theory" where the six days of creation become the six days of recreation. It also lays out an argument against the "day-age theory' of creation.

First "yom" does not necessarily refer to a 24 hour day, sometimes it simply refers to an indeterminate period of time. For example look at Genesis 2:4 and the line, in the day that the Lord made the heavens and the earth. Now if you look back to Genesis 1:8 you see that God made heaven on day 2. So more than one day is referred to as a day because according to the gap theory, earth was created before day one and "made" or recreated on day 3.

Turning now to the meaning of the earth was without form and void, lets back up to verse one, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is an overview statement, describing what will be described in the six days of creation. It does not mean the earth was created prior to day one. Verse 2 says the earth was without form and void. But Isaiah 45:18 says God created the earth to be inhabited. Therefore one of two views can be adopted, the gap theory which says the earth was created beforehand to be inhabited, but was ruined, or the day age theory view that Genesis 1:2 is telling us God had not yet made or fully formed the earth on day one, which occurs later on day 3. So when God established the earth on day 3, He established it to be inhabited.

 

[mark kennedy]

"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e. a 24-hour period. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ (23 times each) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + ‘night’ (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day." (Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis)

I have answered this question so many times that it hardly seems like a question at all. I'm a YEC simply because the Scriptures carry much more weight with me then the secular philosophers who seek to undermine Christian conviction regarding the historicity of Scripture. I really have no problem with OEC so long as it does not start it's Darwinian decent into the New Testament.

If you want to take Genesis 1 figuratively there are exegesis available that support it. If not then you will find ample support to the contrary but the most important thing to consider is what the author intended and clearly, the writer simply mean a 24 hour day.

 

[Van]

This is a fact, Yom sometimes, as in Genesis 2:4 refers to an indeterminate period of time. After the creation week we had the Sun and the Moon and the earth setting the duration of the days. So to cite examples of days after the creation week as support for the duration of the creation days does not follow. How do we know that what the author meant was the whole meaning? Matthew demonstrates that verses apparently meaning one thing to the original audience, could also include another meaning not necessarily known by the original prophet.