6,000 Years?

[Valletta]

Why do you bring up this quote? All this Passage is saying is that we are to remember the reason/judge/discern why we are taking the Lord's Supper, which is not just to fill our bellies and drink wine; rather, the purpose is to drink and eat in remembrance of Lord Jesus when he offered his body and blood for our sins on the cross.

No, the passage says "without discerning the body of Christ" and not without discerning "the purpose" as you claim..

Yes, we know what the words mean, just as we know what "door" that we must enter through (John 10:7-10), or "vine" (John 15:1-9) that the branches must remain in. Notice, Lord Jesus did not say he represents the door or vine, but that he literally is the "door" and the "vine."

You need to understand the context. In your examples no one thought Jesus was a vine or a door. When Jesus told the people He was a door they did not say "How can this man be made of wood?" In John 6 His own disciples question Him, and Jesus gets more emphatic, they are truly to EAT His Body and drink His Blood.

Lord Jesus plainly stated that what they were drinking (which represented the blood of the New Covenant) was actually the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

No, you say He did, Jesus did not say such a thing. I have corrected you on this mistake, perhaps you were unaware of the Passover ceremony and the explanation went right by you. There are four cups in the Passover meal, the seder. The haggadah is the order.. The third cup of the haggadah is the "blessing" cup. Jesus tells us this cup is His blood. The following passage refers to this "cup of blessing:"

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

Jesus apparently ends the meal, but a practicing Jew of the time would ask "Why did they not drink the fourth cup?" After telling us about the third cup of His Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant as per your quotation, THEN Jesus says he will not drink WINE(the fourth cup) until the day when He drinks it anew in His Father's kingdom. His own blood was the third cup, but the fourth cup was not yet to be drunk. The Jewish rituals, words and all, are what make a lamb a sacrifice rather than just slaughtered for normal consumption. Jesus was a practicing Jew. On the cross Jesus turns down wine laced with myrr. But just before Jesus died on the cross and said "It is finished" Jesus was offered wine on a hysopp branch (this is original Passover sacrificial ritual, the blood of the Passover lamb was sprinked from a hyssop branch) in order that the Passover meal would be completed. That's the whole purpose for Jesus drinking wine at the end, Jesus could have held out another longer without drinking anything but at that time wanted to bring the ritual Passover celebration, started at the Last Supper, to a conclusion.

Many early Christians had divergent views about many doctrines. Even today we see this happening.

Yes, as I have explained, the three leaders of the reformation all had their own different ideas on the Holy Eucharist, and there are many, many varied opinions outside of Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[setst777]

No, the passage says "without discerning the body of Christ" and not without discerning "the purpose" as you claim..

You are trying to reinterpret what you think "discerning" means outside of its context. The way I explained it is contextual, as the Passage itself relates to us:

1 Corinthians 10:14-22
14 So then, my dear friends, run away from the worship of false gods! 15 I’m talking to you like you are sensible people. Think about what I’m saying. 16 Isn’t the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Isn’t the loaf of bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one loaf of bread, we who are many are one body, because we all share the one loaf of bread. 18 Look at the people of Israel. Don’t those who eat the sacrifices share from the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That food sacrificed to a false god is anything, or that a false god is anything? 20 No, but this kind of sacrifice is sacrificed to demons and not to God. I don’t want you to be sharing in demons. 21 You can’t drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you can’t participate in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or should we make the Lord jealous? We aren’t stronger than he is, are we?

Notice that in the explanation Paul gave, he never mentions that we drink the blood of Christ or eat the body of Christ; rather, the cup they shared is in remembrance of Lord Jesus, and the loaf of bread they shared remains a loaf of bread but we eat of the bread to share in Christ. I the same way, the those who worship at a false alter, are drinking and eating what is sacrificed to false gods (demons).

No mention is made about eating the loaf of bread or taking the cup has anything to do with the bread transforming into the flesh of Christ, or that the cup transforms into his blood. That is man-made teaching.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (WEB) 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

There is no teaching in the Passages just quoted that teach anything about literally eating Christ's body or drinking his blood. That is man-made interpretation.

You need to understand the context. In your examples no one thought Jesus was a vine or a door. When Jesus told the people He was a door they did not say "How can this man be made of wood?" In John 6 His own disciples question Him, and Jesus gets more emphatic, they are truly to EAT His Body and drink His Blood.

I gave you the context, and you are rejecting what Lord Jesus stated; in that, they were literally drinking the fruit of the vine during the Lord's Supper. They share in the blood of Christ by drinking the fruit of the fine in remembrance of him.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

Lord Jesus is the Bread of Life that we come to (eat) to have life. This is Lord Jesus' own explanation as follows:

John 6:35 (WEB) 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me [eating] will not be hungry, and whoever believes [drinks] in me will never be thirsty.

You cannot benefit spiritually by eating flesh and drinking blood; rather, salvation is by coming to Lord Jesus and believing in him. This is Spiritual - from a heart of faith because Lord Jesus redeemed us with His blood, and the sacrifice of his body.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

No, you say He did, Jesus did not say such a thing. I have corrected you on this mistake, perhaps you were unaware of the Passover ceremony and the explanation went right by you. There are four cups in the Passover meal, the seder. The haggadah is the order.. The third cup of the haggadah is the "blessing" cup. Jesus tells us this cup is His blood. The following passage refers to this "cup of blessing:"

There is no such thing as four cups in the Lord's Supper. Lord Jesus gave them all to drink the blood of the covenant - which Lord Jesus stated was the "fruit of the vine." You reject Lord Jesus' explanation of what he actually gave them to drink.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

Jesus apparently ends the meal, but a practicing Jew of the time would ask "Why did they not drink the fourth cup?" After telling us about the third cup of His Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant as per your quotation, THEN Jesus says he will not drink WINE(the fourth cup) until the day when He drinks it anew in His Father's kingdom.

That is not what Lord Jesus stated. He said the following:

Matthew 26:29 (WEB) 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

What is THIS fruit of the vine referring to? THIS fruit of the vine is referring to what Lord Jesus just gave them all to drink in the Lord's Supper. There is nothing here about a third or fourth cup.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

Nothing about a fourth cup is taught here. That is your own imagination.

His own blood was the third cup, but the fourth cup was not yet to be drunk. The Jewish rituals, words and all, are what make a lamb a sacrifice rather than just slaughtered for normal consumption. Jesus was a practicing Jew. On the cross Jesus turns down wine laced with myrr. But just before Jesus died on the cross and said "It is finished" Jesus was offered wine on a hysopp branch (this is original Passover sacrificial ritual, the blood of the Passover lamb was sprinked from a hyssop branch) in order that the Passover meal would be completed. That's the whole purpose for Jesus drinking wine at the end, Jesus could have held out another longer without drinking anything but at that time wanted to bring the ritual Passover celebration, started at the Last Supper, to a conclusion.

That is all your imagination. Neither Lord Jesus nor his Apostolic Writers ever taught anything about a third of fourth cup.

What Lord Jesus gave them to drink is the blood of the new covenant, which is the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine

Therefore, the fruit of the vine represents the blood of the covenant. That is Lord Jesus own explanation.

Yes, as I have explained, the three leaders of the reformation all had their own different ideas on the Holy Eucharist, and there are many, many varied opinions outside of Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox.

I will believe what the Scriptures state. No man or his traditions and interpretations will be my master. Only Lord Jesus is my Lord and Master, and His Words I believe.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine

Colossians 2:1-4 (NIV) 2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

 

[Platte]

Perhaps you are wearing blinders; numerous artifacts have been discovered that date back significantly further than 6,000 years ago, including stone tools from sites like Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, cave paintings in the Sahara desert, and the monumental structures at Göbekli Tepev, which are estimated to be between 10,000 and 12,000 years old; all of these predate the time frame typically associated with the concept of "Creation" in religious narratives.

Now I know you will likely go off on a tangent of creationist misinformation so maybe I can anticipate some and address some of it save you time.

Here is an example of creationists misinformation

Creationists like to argue against carbon dating by claiming that the method is unreliable due to contamination, atmospheric carbon fluctuations, and the assumption of a constant decay rate, which they believe contradicts a young Earth timeline; however, scientists uses rigorous calibration process, to limit dating range of carbon dating.​

​

However, It is not difficult to find evidence supporting the consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily.The consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily supported by the fact that each radioactive isotope has a unique and constant half-life, which is solely determined by the nucleus and not affected by external conditions like temperature or pressure, thus allowing for consistent measurements across various samples of the same isotope; this consistency is further validated by extensive experimental observations and the reliability of radiometric dating methods that depend on predictable decay rates to determine the age of materials. Source...​

​

I will go into other aspects depending on how you respond. If do you choose to respond please include the sources for you claims.

In order to use carbon dating you must know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the item was living....You also have to have the same ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere as we have today.... We do not know either these definitely from over 6000 years ago.


Here was an interesting Google AI response: To live to 1,000 years old, the most significant environmental change needed would be a drastic reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. That would mean much lower amounts of C14 in a subject. It would certainly throw carbon dating off.

I believe the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

 

[Platte]

However, It is not difficult to find evidence supporting the consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily.The consistency of radioactive decay rates across different samples is primarily supported by the fact that each radioactive isotope has a unique and constant half-life, which is solely determined by the nucleus and not affected by external conditions like temperature or pressure, thus allowing for consistent measurements across various samples of the same isotope; this consistency is further validated by extensive experimental observations and the reliability of radiometric dating methods that depend on predictable decay rates to determine the age of materials. Source...

I’m not disputing the decay rate perhaps the decay rate is consistent. But you have to know the original amount of C14 in the subject in order to use that decay rate and estimate an age based on its current decay amount. The original amount of C14 is not verifiable. Assumptions are made to determine that. Funny thing is you can’t use carbon dating on a subject that’s died in the past 100 years to estimate age because of the advanced and widely variable amount of carbon in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels and due to nuclear testing this century. Makes it impossible to accurately determine the starting amount of C14

 

[Jerry N.]

Here are some, but there are many more, supporting passages that parallel the Tabernacle in particular, and priests of the tabernacle, to Eden or Genesis, and Adam and Eve:

Notice that the tabernacle, much like Genesis 1, is completed in 7 events.

In the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, the tabernacle was set up.
1. And Moses raised the tabernacle, and he placed its bases, and he set up its frames, and he placed its bars, and he raised its pillars. And he spread the tent over the tabernacle; he placed the covering of the tent over it, above it, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
2. And he took and he put the testimony into the ark, and he placed the poles on the ark, and he put the atonement cover on the ark, above it. And he brought the ark into the tabernacle, and he set up the curtain of the screening, and he shielded the ark of the testimony, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
3. And he put the table in the tent of assembly on the north side of the tabernacle outside the curtain. And he arranged on it an arrangement of bread before Yahweh, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
4. And he placed the lampstand in the tent of assembly opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle. And he set up the lamps before Yahweh, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
5. And he placed the gold altar in the tent of assembly before the curtain. And he turned fragrant incense into smoke on it, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
6. And he set up the entrance screen for the tabernacle. And the altar of burnt offering he placed at the entrance of the tabernacle of the tent of assembly, and he offered on it the burnt offering and the grain offering, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
7. And he placed the basin between the tent of assembly and the altar, and he put there water for washing. And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet from it. At their going into the tent of assembly and at their approaching the altar, they washed, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
-. And he set up the courtyard all around the tabernacle and the altar, and he put up the screen of the gate of the courtyard, and Moses completed the work.
Exodus 40:17‭-‬33

Let us go to his dwelling places; Let us worship at his footstool. Arise, O Yahweh, to your resting place, you and your mighty ark. For Yahweh has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation. “This is my resting place forever; here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.
Psalms 132:7‭-‬8‭, ‬13‭-‬14
(Gods resting place is enthroned in His temple, and this is what God does on the 7th day.)

From Exodus and the tabernacle in parallel to Genesis:

and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
Genesis 2:12

This is the offering that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze,
Exodus 25:3

onyx stones and gems to be set in the ephod and for the breastpiece.
Exodus 25:7

He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 3:24

You shall make two cherubim of gold; you shall make them of hammered work, at the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exodus 25:18

So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.
Genesis 2:3

You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people.
Exodus 31:14

God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day.
Genesis 1:31

And *Moses saw* all the work, and *behold*, they had done it; as the Lord had commanded, so had they done it. Then *Moses blessed them*.
Exodus 39:43

The Hebrew word ‘abad (עבד) can be translated as “to work,” “to serve,” or “to worship.” It is a common verb and is often used for cultivating the soil (Genesis 2:5, 3:23, 4:2,12). However, the word is also commonly used in a religious sense of serving God (Deuteronomy 4:19) and in priestly texts, especially regarding the tabernacle duties of the Levites (Numbers 3:7-8, 4:23-24, 4:26).

The second Hebrew word, translated as “to keep,” is shamar (שמר), which is commonly used for a priestly service of worship, as well as in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (Leviticus 18:5). The word is also used for the Levitical responsibility of guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Numbers 1:53, 3:7-8)

From Genesis to Exodus to Jesus: What Biblical Typology Might Say about Modern Day Israel

I have often read and taught on the temple-imagery in Genesis 1–2, where the Garden of Eden is portrayed by Moses as the prototypical tabernacle. I have also read and taught how the tabernacl…

davidschrock.com

-typology-might-say-about-modern-day-israel/

The book of Ezekiel has many parallels, as do 1 kings, among others.

The tabernacle was additionally constructed with artwork of the garden of Eden. As was Solomons temple. Such as luscious palms etched on the walls, the cast metal mirror bowl that retains the sea (like the raqia), sacred space and cherubim guarding the ark of the covenant just like in Genesis etc.

I see that the parallels are numerous. It also fits with Christ being the second Adam and the Son of Man. Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Jerry N.]

Another useful resource:

Not just the tabernacle and Solomons temple, but temples just more broadly, and across the region were paralleled with creation. It was common to decorate them in accordance with creation texts, as they served as sacred space.

Which helps frame Adam and Eves position as keepers of that initial sacred space, a position later held by regular people priests.

A very interesting video. Thank you. Since temples and churches, particularly Roman Catholic and Orthodox, mimic the design of the Temple in Jerusalem, I wonder if there is a tradition of the arrangement of Eden that has been preserved in human culture. I have seen several Buddhist temples and shrines, and they are not dissimilar. Has it been handed down by cultural tradition, or is it in human psyche, or both? If it is oral tradition, then Noah had to tell his children.

 

[Jerry N.]

A very interesting video. Thank you. Since temples and churches, particularly Roman Catholic and Orthodox, mimic the design of the Temple in Jerusalem, I wonder if there is a tradition of the arrangement of Eden that has been preserved in human culture. I have seen several Buddhist temples and shrines, and they are not dissimilar. Has it been handed down by cultural tradition, or is it in human psyche, or both? If it is oral tradition, then Noah had to tell his children.

I’m not trying to get off topic. Traditions probably have a limited lifespan. I don’t know how long that might be, but the tradition of the floor plan of temples would seem to deteriorate in more than 6000 years without divine intervention. In many pagan cultures, groves of trees were/are used, which are even closer to Eden. It might add credence to 6000 years from Adam to now.

 

[Job 33:6]

A very interesting video. Thank you. Since temples and churches, particularly Roman Catholic and Orthodox, mimic the design of the Temple in Jerusalem, I wonder if there is a tradition of the arrangement of Eden that has been preserved in human culture. I have seen several Buddhist temples and shrines, and they are not dissimilar. Has it been handed down by cultural tradition, or is it in human psyche, or both? If it is oral tradition, then Noah had to tell his children.

I did not know that. But that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing. I should read up on temples of other religions. But yes. Personally, I think that this is one of the most important themes of the old testament. And it's one that unfortunately is rarely talked about.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see that the parallels are numerous. It also fits with Christ being the second Adam and the Son of Man. Very interesting. Thank you.

Yes, that makes sense as well.

Temples in the Bible are always constructed in stages of 7. Solomons temple for example, was constructed in 7 years. With a 7-day celebratory feast and a 7 day inauguration ceremony. It was completed on the 7th month as well.

When we read Genesis, we see echos of this temple theme, within the text. Such as God resting on the 7th day.

I'm the ancient near east, particularly in neighboring creation texts, it's worth noting that upon completion of temples, gods would rest on their thrones.

1:1 When heaven had been separated from the earth, the distant trusty twin,

1:2 (And) the mother of the goddesses had been brought into being; When the earth had been brought forth (and) the earth had been fashioned; When the destinies of heaven and earth had been fixed; (When) trench and canal had been given (their) right courses, (And) the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates had been established

1:3 (Then) Anu, Enlil, Šamaš, (and) Ea, the great gods, (And) the Anunnaki, the great gods, Seated themselves in the exalted sanctuary and recounted among themselves what had been created.

You see? When they had completed their work, they seated themselves in the sanctuary.

Another example...

[1] When on high heaven was not named, and the earth beneath a name did not bear –

[2] primeval Apsu [fresh water] was their progenitor, life-giving Tiamat [salt water], the bearer of all; their waters together they mingled, no canebrake yet formed, no marsh discoverable – when of the gods none had appeared, names were not borne, destinies not decided,

[3] the gods were given shape within them, Lah̬mu and Lah̬amu made to appear, names they bore.

Notice number 2 here speaks of the primordial apsu. The watery deep as we know it in the Bible.

These texts are Kar 4 and Enuma Elish.

Another thing worth noting is that the Baal cycle, also includes a 7-day temple in association with creation as well. Of the Canaanites.

On the seventh day the fire escaped from the mansion, the flames from the palace. The silver had turned into plates, The gold had been turned into bricks. Mightiest Baal did rejoice, (saying): “I have built my mansion of silver, my palace of gold.
-Baal cycle.

In the ancient near east creation texts, Atrahasis, the first humans are made to work and keep the sanctuary as well.

“They will [...] take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods.”

So these are normal concepts of the ancient near east. Not so much about the age of the earth. Rather Genesis fits in with a historical context in which, when God rests, he's taking up the throne. And these 7 days fits in well with things like temple construction and/or dedication in which after the completion of temples, ancient isrealites would inaugurate the temple over a 7-day period, celebrating the time in which God rested upon the throne and blessed man.

The 7th day is also highlighted here:
Genesis 2:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their multitude. [2] On the sixth day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. [3] So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

You can see tripartite repetition of "the 7th day" indicating the holiness and climactic nature of "The Seventh Day!!!!".

"the 7th day!"
"the 7th day!"
"the 7th day!"

This is about a celebration in some sense, or something to be excited about. Not just in terms of creation. But in terms of God looking upon creation, declaring it very good, then coming to dwell with us in His temple.

Or at least that's sort of how the temple inauguration interpretation of Genesis goes.

 

[Jerry N.]

I did not know that. But that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing. I should read up on temples of other religions. But yes. Personally, I think that this is one of the most important themes of the old testament. And it's one that unfortunately is rarely talked about.

Thanks.

 

[Jerry N.]

Yes, that makes sense as well.

Temples in the Bible are always constructed in stages of 7. Solomons temple for example, was constructed in 7 years. With a 7-day celebratory feast and a 7 day inauguration ceremony. It was completed on the 7th month as well.

When we read Genesis, we see echos of this temple theme, within the text. Such as God resting on the 7th day.

I'm the ancient near east, particularly in neighboring creation texts, it's worth noting that upon completion of temples, gods would rest on their thrones.

1:1 When heaven had been separated from the earth, the distant trusty twin,

1:2 (And) the mother of the goddesses had been brought into being; When the earth had been brought forth (and) the earth had been fashioned; When the destinies of heaven and earth had been fixed; (When) trench and canal had been given (their) right courses, (And) the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates had been established

1:3 (Then) Anu, Enlil, Šamaš, (and) Ea, the great gods, (And) the Anunnaki, the great gods, Seated themselves in the exalted sanctuary and recounted among themselves what had been created.

You see? When they had completed their work, they seated themselves in the sanctuary.

Another example...

[1] When on high heaven was not named, and the earth beneath a name did not bear –

[2] primeval Apsu [fresh water] was their progenitor, life-giving Tiamat [salt water], the bearer of all; their waters together they mingled, no canebrake yet formed, no marsh discoverable – when of the gods none had appeared, names were not borne, destinies not decided,

[3] the gods were given shape within them, Lah̬mu and Lah̬amu made to appear, names they bore.

Notice number 2 here speaks of the primordial apsu. The watery deep as we know it in the Bible.

These texts are Kar 4 and Enuma Elish.

Another thing worth noting is that the Baal cycle, also includes a 7-day temple in association with creation as well. Of the Canaanites.

On the seventh day the fire escaped from the mansion, the flames from the palace. The silver had turned into plates, The gold had been turned into bricks. Mightiest Baal did rejoice, (saying): “I have built my mansion of silver, my palace of gold.
-Baal cycle.

In the ancient near east creation texts, Atrahasis, the first humans are made to work and keep the sanctuary as well.

“They will [...] take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods.”

So these are normal concepts of the ancient near east. Not so much about the age of the earth. Rather Genesis fits in with a historical context in which, when God rests, he's taking up the throne. And these 7 days fits in well with things like temple construction and/or dedication in which after the completion of temples, ancient isrealites would inaugurate the temple over a 7-day period, celebrating the time in which God rested upon the throne and blessed man.

The 7th day is also highlighted here:
Genesis 2:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their multitude. [2] On the sixth day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. [3] So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

You can see tripartite repetition of "the 7th day" indicating the holiness and climactic nature of "The Seventh Day!!!!".

"the 7th day!"
"the 7th day!"
"the 7th day!"

This is about a celebration in some sense, or something to be excited about. Not just in terms of creation. But in terms of God looking up on creation, declaring it very good, then coming to dwell with us in His temple.

I wish I had known more when I saw the temples. There is something very universal going on.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks.

I just added more text to that. Sometimes I add content in pieces so that I don't lose it. But I could probably write a book on it, I have so much content stored up. And I reference multiple books in my posts (thank you, kindle, for allowing me to snap my fingers and access multiple books at once).

 

[Job 33:6]

I wish I had known more when I saw the temples. There is something very universal going on.

And if you like this kind of content, I would recommend a book called "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation".

In this book, you get, it's 5 scholars. And they all take turns sharing their interpretation of Genesis. Then the other 4 critique it. And then they rotate to another topic in Genesis. And that way you get multiple ways of interpretation Genesis and you can see some of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

 

[tampasteve]

I generally agree with what you're saying. To those who interpret scripture in a YEC way, the AiG article is logical and helpful.

Thanks, I really appreciate the way you are interacting, I find it respectful, and even if we don't agree we can at lease understand one another - and that is a rare quality on most forums.

Now this is what interests me.

I guess I don't understand how someone can go from "scientists haven't figured out the taxonomic status of red wolves" to "the earth is 6,000 years old", especially after you said earlier that evolution within "kinds" is required in YEC. Wouldn't a red wolf still be in the dog kind, whether it's a hybrid or new species?


That I can understand. I just have a difficult time understanding how anyone can justify YEC by citing science.

Much of my "beef" with mainstream science is the way that things are talked about as certainties. Going back to taxonomy of species, scientists will author papers or make statements that are definitive, arguing their position as the only true reality. But the real truth is that they don't always know. Wolves in North America being my personal example. Are red wolves a hybrid, their own species evolved from a common ancestor, or something else? Are Algonquin wolves actually red wolves? Are they a hybrid grey wolf/coyote,, their own species evolved from a common ancestor? Science purports answers, but then there is continued debate. To me it does not actually matter - hybrid grey wolf/coyote, separate species, whatever, they fill a ecological niche and that's what matters. But science can't say with any clarity - and let's be honest, this is a pretty basic genetic question.

That base level of uncertainty started me questioning the entire foundation of mainstream science. Where the science and where the investigation starts from are incredibly important to me as Christian.

Was there something in particular that concerned you about OEC? Aside from just broad concerns about a slippery slope?

That's amazing to hear, TS, and in my saying this, I'm being neither critical nor approving. I'm just surprised. I don't know many people who have moved in that direction of interpretation.

However, even so, I'm sure you have had some useful and thoughtful reasons that nudged you into that direction.

Peace.

The slippery slope is a real concern. It feels like OEC is trying to reconcile evolutionary science and scripture/theology, which I suppose that it is. That's a problem for me. If scripture is to be reliable to prophesy the Messiah, it needs to be reliable and plainly interpretable in all aspects, including the creation narrative. Maybe that's not a problem for other people, but for me it is. I find reading Gen 1 in anything other than an actual 6 days to be dishonest, to try and reconcile something that does not need to be reconciled. Let's start at the 6 days being truth and then go from there. I am not saying people that see it differently are being dishonest, I am just explaining my thought on how I got here.

To me it seems that much is based on where people start with their search for truth. If one starts with a idea that "OK, this is what the Bible says, so how could it have happened" I think that is a religious stating point. That is the place I am starting at now. If one says "OK, this is what seems to be happening, how can I reconcile that with the Bible?" one starts at a different place, but I am not satisfied with that starting point. I feel that as a Christian that is Bible believing I have to start there and then can use science to investigate the natural world. Starting the other way around seems backward as we live in a world made by our God, not in a world made by nature that acquired a God.

 

[Jerry N.]

I just added more text to that. Sometimes I add content in pieces so that I don't lose it. But I could probably write a book on it, I have so much content stored up. And I reference multiple books in my posts (thank you, kindle, for allowing me to snap my fingers and access multiple books at once).

I would like to read your additional posts if you want to add. A friend of mine has encouraged me to get Kindle. After I read for a little while, the words dance about because of my eyesight. He said that Kindle may help. What do you think?

 

[Jerry N.]

And if you like this kind of content, I would recommend a book called "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation".

In this book, you get, it's 5 scholars. And they all take turns sharing their interpretation of Genesis. Then the other 4 critique it. And then they rotate to another topic in Genesis. And that way you get multiple ways of interpretation Genesis and you can see some of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

I found it in PDF. It looks like a good read.

 

[Job 33:6]

The slippery slope is a real concern. It feels like OEC is trying to reconcile evolutionary science and scripture/theology, which I suppose that it is. That's a problem for me. If scripture is to be reliable to prophesy the Messiah, it needs to be reliable and plainly interpretable in all aspects, including the creation narrative. Maybe that's not a problem for other people, but for me it is.

How do you feel about the fact that, the text must be plainly interpretable, yet realistically none of us are able to read ancient Hebrew and thus can't even read what God has revealed? We have to rely on PHD Hebrew scholars to translate it for us?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The slippery slope is a real concern. It feels like OEC is trying to reconcile evolutionary science and scripture/theology, which I suppose that it is. That's a problem for me. If scripture is to be reliable to prophesy the Messiah, it needs to be reliable and plainly interpretable in all aspects, including the creation narrative. Maybe that's not a problem for other people, but for me it is.

To me it seems that much is based on where people start with their search for truth. If one starts with a idea that "OK, this is what the Bible says, so how could it have happened" I think that is a religious stating point. That is the place I am starting at now. If one says "OK, this is what seems to be happening, how can I reconcile that with the Bible?" one starts at a different place, but I am not satisfied with that starting point. I feel that as a Christian that is Bible believing I have to start there and then can use science to investigate the natural world. Starting the other way around seems backward as we live in a world made by our God, not in a world made by nature that acquired a God.

As surprising as it may sound, I actually fully understand what you're saying. I personally think there is a 3rd way to handle the divide between modern science and biblical faith, but I'm not going to get into that. It's enough for me to be charitable to all of my fellow Trinitarian brethren, despite whatever position on 'origins and the bible' they may have. Besides, for me, 'origins and the bible' is a secondary issue rather than a primary issue.

Anyway, thanks for further unpacking and explaining your thoughts on this. It helps me to empathize with how other Christians are working through these issues.

Peace, and have a blessed day, TS!

 

[Job 33:6]

I would like to read your additional posts if you want to add. A friend of mine has encouraged me to get Kindle. After I read for a little while, the words dance about because of my eyesight. He said that Kindle may help. What do you think?

I read a lot of books. At this point, dozens per year. And it becomes completely unrealistic to try to do this with hard copy books.

Kindle alternatively usually has cheaper prices. It's a lot easier to do word searches to fly straight to the references you want. It's just much easier to handle.

And in fact, I referenced 3 different books just while speaking to you. And it only takes me 10 seconds or so to open one up, type in "Enuma Elish" and fly straight to the text to copy here to you.

So, I would personally recommend a kindle reader. But I have plenty of hard copy books too, so I guess it's about what people are comfortable with. Some people just like having a regular book that they can just toss in the closet when they're done. Kindles you have to worry about dropping it and such.

 

[Jerry N.]

Going back to taxonomy of species, scientists will author papers or make statements that are definitive, arguing their position as the only true reality. But the real truth is that they don't always know.

My wife is taking a course on parasites. It makes interesting conversation at breakfast. No two books agree on taxonomy, and they don't even agree on the Latin names. She has trouble finding Polish names that correspond to the English because the Latin names are different. It is important for treatments.