How to explain 13.8 billion years?

dad · Jan 21, 2017

prodromos said:
God made man in one step just as is described in the Scriptures.

No, woman is also man kind. That was another step. Also first God formed Adam, then He breathed life into him. That is in no possible way evolving from some ugly ape.

One of the clear demonstrations of Jesus' divinity was when He made new eyes from clay for the man born without eyes in John 9, just as He had made Adam from the dust of the earth.

Healing is not exactly a new creation.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

JackRT said:
Isaiah 14:12

”How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,

Click to expand...

That does not fit Jesus then.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

DamianWarS said:
since you chose to ignore the rest of what I said let me repeat myself. "lucifer" is a latin word and it is not the proper name of satan.

So what? Spirits have many names! Jesus has many names and titles.

in the latin vulgate the word lucifer is used to figuratively refer to Satan... but it also is used to refer to Jesus. It's just a word and there is nothing special about it.

Looking at the Hebrew we see this for the word.

shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1. of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

While Jesus is called the Morning Star, He sure ain't that one!

The fact that you refuse to accept this and continue to perpetuate a myth shows that despite our modern technology and wide access to scripture (not to mention me telling you) myths still prevail over truth. This is an example of how what we believe and what we feel or our "heart values" often trumps truth or literal events. This was a 1000 times greater in an ancient's mind. from creation to Moses was 2000 years so that was a whole lot of time for a myth to take root.

Rubbish. The context of the chapter talking about Lucifer is clear, it is Satan.

We can't stop it today (which you prove) what makes you think an ancient with no access to scripture, no leader, no law, little knowledge of God, and enslaved by a much more powerful and articulate nation, was able to?

People will never stop using the spirit to understand Scripture ..and those that do not see prophesy or Scripture with anything but their own wisdom will continue to miss the meaning.

JackRT · Jan 21, 2017

The word translated as "Lucifer" (day star) in Isaiah and in Revelation is used in two quite different meanings in the two books. In Isaiah it is used ironically in reference to a king with an immense ego. On the other hand John uses it metaphorically in Revelation in the sense of light breaking into the world.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

JackRT said:
The word translated as "Lucifer" (day star) in Isaiah and in Revelation is used in two quite different meanings in the two books. In Isaiah it is used ironically in reference to a king with an immense ego. On the other hand John uses it metaphorically in Revelation in the sense of light breaking into the world.

No. One is for Jesus the other for Satan. Nothing metaphorical about it. It is spiritual.

Open Heart · Jan 21, 2017

dad said:
Says you. He says He formed man and breathed life into him, and then took a bone and created Eve for the guy. He says He put them in a nice garden. Why would anyone care what you say about thing you know nothing about?

You don't seem to know anything about genre do you? Do you also think there was a historical good Samaritan on the road to Jericho? I bet you also think that myths and parables are lies.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

Open Heart said:
You don't seem to know anything about genre do you? Do you also think there was a historical good Samaritan on the road to Jericho? I bet you also think that myths and parables are lies.

Genre?

DamianWarS · Jan 21, 2017

dad said:
So what? Spirits have many names! Jesus has many names and titles.

Looking at the Hebrew we see this for the word.

shining one, morning star, Lucifer

of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

While Jesus is called the Morning Star, He sure ain't that one!

Rubbish. The context of the chapter talking about Lucifer is clear, it is Satan.
People will never stop using the spirit to understand Scripture ..and those that do not see prophesy or Scripture with anything but their own wisdom will continue to miss the meaning.

Isaiah 14 is figuratively referring to Satan; I have never denied that and have directly said it so. Please read my responses more carefully before you jump to a false conclusion.

Again I will repeat what I have been saying. "lucifer" is a latin word and it is nothing more than that. If you want proof here is a quote from the Latin vulgate:

Isaiah 14:12 (refers to Satan)
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

2 Peter 1:19 (refers to Jesus)
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

If you search your strong's dictionary for the Hebrew word "heylel" (H1966) it will use the word "Lucifer" as you have already found out. But don't use this to assume that this means God gave Satan this name to him because no where does it say this. Strong's points to the word Lucifer because it's a concordance for the KJV and the KJV chose to keep the Latin word "Lucifer" in the Isaiah text.

I don't know why the KJV does this but I do know it translated with help from to the Latin Vulgate as well as Greek/Hebrew. I would suggest that the word "lucifer" already had strong connection to Satan and the KJV felt the Latin word was still meaningful in the Isaiah context. No other mainstream version uses the word "lucifer", just the KJV (and NKJV)

I will pull this back to the topic. You have proven again that despite this information being widely available you only search skin deep and continue to defend a myth. The Ancient Hebrews of the time of Moses were a 1000 times worse and their largest resource to "check" information wasn't from written material but orally through what was told to them (probably what their grandfather's told them).

So why is it so hard to accept that the ancient Hebrews had a preference of myth over truth? The same reason why calling Jesus, Lucifer is so hard to accept; because it is a deep set belief and what you believe often will trump logic and truth even when it's spelled out to you.

Often we dichotomize things in our mind and feel if we reject in the literal timeline of a 6 day creation and concede to its metaphor then we are accepting evolution or that Jesus and the entire bible are also a metaphor. Well don't do this... because i'm not saying any of that. What I am saying is Genesis 1 is not about a literal timeline and we should not use it as such.

Open Heart · Jan 21, 2017

prodromos said:
One of the clear demonstrations of Jesus' divinity was when He made new eyes from clay for the man born without eyes in John 9, just as He had made Adam from the dust of the earth.

Jesus did not make new eyes out of clay in John 9. He made mud and anointed the man's eyes, meaning he blessed them.

Open Heart · Jan 21, 2017

prodromos said:
What question are you talking about

OP

Open Heart · Jan 21, 2017

SkyWriting said:
Scripture describes how men, even the faithful, are often deceived.

In this particular case, *IF* there is any deception going on, it is by God.

I don't believe that is the case.

4x4toy · Jan 21, 2017

JackRT said:
The word translated as "Lucifer" (day star) in Isaiah and in Revelation is used in two quite different meanings in the two books. In Isaiah it is used ironically in reference to a king with an immense ego. On the other hand John uses it metaphorically in Revelation in the sense of light breaking into the world.

2 Corinthians 11:12-16 vs John 8:12 .... 2 Peter 2:9 .. It is so magnificent that we can not lean on our own understanding but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God ..

dad · Jan 21, 2017

DamianWarS said:
Isaiah 14 is figuratively referring to Satan; I have never denied that and have directly said it so. Please read my responses more carefully before you jump to a false conclusion.

Again I will repeat what I have been saying. "lucifer" is a latin word and it is nothing more than that. If you want proof here is a quote from the Latin vulgate:

Isaiah 14:12 (refers to Satan)
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

2 Peter 1:19 (refers to Jesus)
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

If you search your strong's dictionary for the Hebrew word "heylel" (H1966) it will use the word "Lucifer" as you have already found out. But don't use this to assume that this means God gave Satan this name to him because no where does it say this. Strong's points to the word Lucifer because it's a concordance for the KJV and the KJV chose to keep the Latin word "Lucifer" in the Isaiah text.

I don't know why the KJV does this but I do know it translated with help from to the Latin Vulgate as well as Greek/Hebrew. I would suggest that the word "lucifer" already had strong connection to Satan and the KJV felt the Latin word was still meaningful in the Isaiah context. No other mainstream version uses the word "lucifer", just the KJV (and NKJV)E]

Lots of words to say nothing. So you admit Lucifer is Satan in Isa 13. Great.

I will pull this back to the topic. You have proven again that despite this information being widely available you only search skin deep and continue to defend a myth.

Speaking of the accuser of the saints cut the accusations.

So why is it so hard to accept that the ancient Hebrews had a preference of myth over truth?

Who cares I am concerned with God's word.

The same reason why calling Jesus, Lucifer is so hard to accept; because it is a deep set belief and what you believe often will trump logic and truth even when it's spelled out to you.

Your opinion may be spelled out.

Often we dichotomize things in our mind and feel if we reject in the literal timeline of a 6 day creation and concede to its metaphor then we are accepting evolution or that Jesus and the entire bible are also a metaphor. Well don't do this... because i'm not saying any of that. What I am saying is Genesis 1 is not about a literal timeline and we should not use it as such.

So believing in a real creation rather than evolution is a start. Even with the timing wrong.

Carolyn1063 · Jan 21, 2017

ADisciple said:
I agree with the one person who said the Bible said the Earth was created in 6 days (and God rested on the 7th). There is no mention of when the universe was created, how old it was, etc.

Folks regularly mix the two up and say ... well, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then why is the universe blah blah blah. What does the age of the Earth have to do with the age of the Universe? Two separate things.

I believe the Bible ... the Earth is around 6,000 years old, having been created in 6 literal days. The universe? Haven't a clue. I like what another person said: That God could have created a mature Universe for all we know.

The Earth is younger than the Universe - it is 4.54 billion years old

ADisciple · Jan 21, 2017

Carolyn1063 said:
The Earth is younger than the Universe - it is 4.54 billion years old

How did you come to that age of the Universe as being 4.54 billion years old? And yes, the Earth is younger than the Universe. The Universe is the Heaven of God ... I think.

Carolyn1063 · Jan 21, 2017

ADisciple said:
How did you come to that age of the Universe as being 4.54 billion years old? And yes, the Earth is younger than the Universe. The Universe is the Heaven of God ... I think.

No, I said the EARTH is 4.54 billion years old - the Universe is 13.5 billion years

dad · Jan 21, 2017

Carolyn1063 said:
The Earth is younger than the Universe - it is 4.54 billion years old

No, actually the universe was created the same week as the earth, according to what I can understand of the bible, and science.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

ADisciple said:
How did you come to that age of the Universe as being 4.54 billion years old? And yes, the Earth is younger than the Universe. The Universe is the Heaven of God ... I think.

I believe that the heaven of heavens where God is is beyond the stars. Outside our universe basically.

Open Heart · Jan 21, 2017

dad said:
Genre?

Genre, as in "This is a Murder Mystery," and "That is a Science Research Paper," and "This other thing is a Historical Treatise."

The Bible is a collection of many different books, many of which are collections of different documents themselves, all of which include many different genres: Letters, parables, genealogies, court documents, historical narratives, legends, poems, songs, myths, laws, apocalyptic literature... you get the idea. To fully understand the truths the Bible teaches, you have to read its genres with understanding.

dad · Jan 21, 2017

Open Heart said:
Genre, as in "This is a Murder Mystery," and "That is a Science Research Paper," and "This other thing is a Historical Treatise."

The Bible is a collection of many different books, many of which are collections of different documents themselves, all of which include many different genres: Letters, parables, genealogies, court documents, historical narratives, legends, poems, songs, myths, laws, apocalyptic literature... you get the idea. To fully understand the truths the Bible teaches, you have to read its genres with understanding.

The bible genre is truth. Evilution is in the fiction dept.

How to explain 13.8 billion years?

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Undefeated!

Member

Always Learning

Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Similar threads