6,000 Years?

Jipsah · Monday at 3:57 PM

Platte said:
So tell us. How was there an evening and a morning without the sun?

Well, it just had to wait until your lot came along and correct the Genesis account with a "light source" that worked just like the as-yet-uncreated sun to provide the evenings and mornings the verses require. Gotta admire your creativity, you've saved the Bible from just being wrong...

...unless it was a bit of literary flair that the scribes used to delimit distinct time periods, and wasn't necessarily meant to be taken literally at all. And anyway, you "sola" folks have lots of stuff, even in the New Testamant, that you toss away as "oh, that's not meant to be literal, that's just a figure of speech/metaphor/poetic/literary/other that's just used for decoration or dramatic effect or what have you.

Trick is y'all are sola right up until you ain't, then like the song says, you " dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't" and either "interpret away: "Scriptures that offend against your denomination's doctrines, or, as in this case, come up with stuff that Scripture somehow missed, like your pre-release beta test version of the sun.

But I'll leave the job of sanitizing Genesis up to you. All I need to know about the Creation is in John 1.

Jipsah · Monday at 4:05 PM

Platte said:
So tell us. How was there an evening and a morning without the sun?

I don't believe there was either until the sun was created. It's what in a deed or other contract we'd call a "scrivener's error". No sun, no evening, and no morning. Your lot aggreee with that, hence your necessity of substituting another sun of your own creation.

Platte · Monday at 4:43 PM

Jipsah said:
I don't believe there was either until the sun was created. It's what in a deed or other contract we'd call a "scrivener's error". No sun, no evening, and no morning. Your lot aggreee with that, hence your necessity of substituting another sun of your own creation.

What was created on Day one?

Jipsah · Monday at 9:23 PM

Platte said:
What was created on Day one?

Been over that, haven't we? Simply having light doesn't get you evenings and mornings. They require a sun, which according to Genesis wasn't created until Day 4. No good trying to jam in another "light source" providing evenings and mornings; it just isn't there. (You are at least claiming to be "sola scriptura", aren't you?) You're aground on your own doctrine.

Platte · Tuesday at 6:18 AM

Jipsah said:
Been over that, haven't we? Simply having light doesn't get you evenings and mornings. They require a sun, which according to Genesis wasn't created until Day 4. No good trying to jam in another "light source" providing evenings and mornings; it just isn't there. (You are at least claiming to be "sola scriptura", aren't you?) You're aground on your own doctrine.

You’re right. The light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error. Genesis is full of scrivener's errors.

tampasteve · Tuesday at 7:35 AM

FaithT said:
You don’t think Ken Ham is genuine? My drama teacher from high school just visited his Ark Encounter.

I have to say, I went there, along with the Creation Museum last month, I found both quite enjoyable. I took a lot of their "conclusions" with skepticism, but it was still a good time.

tampasteve · Tuesday at 7:59 AM

Platte said:
Well then you of all people should know. Tell me about the considerations these fields understand and have formulated regarding the environment in a world pre flood that allowed a man to live to be a 1000 years old. What changes did the flood cause to the environment that changed this as God reduced a lifespan to 120 years? Certainly these fields have made many considerations for this - especially in the aging and dating spectrum.

Near East cultures use age as a way to convey how important or respected someone is, so generally I take the extremely long ages in that light. I don't believe that people actually lived 1,000 years.

Platte said:
So sayeth Jipsah

It can really only be symbolic, God has no need to actually rest. It was to be an example for us.

Platte · Tuesday at 10:18 AM

tampasteve said:
Near East cultures use age as a way to convey how important or respected someone is, so generally I take the extremely long ages in that light. I don't believe that people actually lived 1,000 years.

Wow

davetaff · Tuesday at 10:24 AM

Hi
Christs millennial reign is the Fathers sabbath rest

love and peace
Dave

FaithT · Tuesday at 7:31 PM

tampasteve said:
I have to say, I went there, along with the Creation Museum last month, I found both quite enjoyable. I took a lot of their "conclusions" with skepticism, but it was still a good time.

What made you find their conclusions questionable?

Jipsah · Tuesday at 8:57 PM

Platte said:
You’re right. The light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error. Genesis is full of scrivener's errors.

As far as you know, could be. But I trust your lot can easily fix them just be inserting stuff that the writer of Genesis left out. Like your hitherto unknown sun that existed before the sun created on the 4th day. Right? I mean, if the Bible refuses to conform to your "sola scriptura

" doctrines, it's up to you to jump in and put it right, innit? Even if, or maybe especially if, it's a crucial item thst the writer of Genesis may have just overlooked.

BTW, you need to get need to couple of other Scriptures sorted out. We talked about 2 Peter 3:8 "“But do not forget this one thing dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.” That error obviously can't be let stand. Twenty four hours is 24 hours, by cracky, and God has to abide that rule just like everyone else! You'll want to fix Psalms 90:4 too. “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” That obviously won't do. I mean, folks could take that to mean that time just doesn't mean anything to God at all! Totally unacceptable, right?

David Lamb · 2025-09-03T02:07:28-0500

Platte said:
You’re right. The light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error. Genesis is full of scrivener's errors.

How can you state so certainly that the light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error? Or that Genesis is full of such errors?

davetaff · 2025-09-03T02:53:25-0500

David Lamb said:
How can you state so certainly that the light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error? Or that Genesis is full of such errors?

Hi
There are no errors in Gods word there may be things we do not understand but there are no errors

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

The light God brought into the world on day one was Jesus Christ the light of the world through whom all things were created.

Love and Peace
Dave

Aaron112 · 2025-09-03T03:01:10-0500

davetaff said:
Hi
Christs millennial reign is the Fathers sabbath rest

love and peace
Dave

No. Read Genesis again , without listening to other voices/ traditions.

Aaron112 · 2025-09-03T03:03:20-0500

tampasteve said:
I don't believe that people actually lived 1,000 years.

No worries, if that unbelief is not associated with errors in other areas of truth and life and Scripture.

David Lamb · 2025-09-03T04:11:13-0500

davetaff said:
Hi
There are no errors in Gods word there may be things we do not understand but there are no errors

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

The light God brought into the world on day one was Jesus Christ the light of the world through whom all things were created.

Love and Peace
Dave

I agree that there are no errors in God's word.

tampasteve · 2025-09-03T07:43:44-0500

FaithT said:
What made you find their conclusions questionable?

To be frank, I was on "their side" for a few months early this year. However, I just can't square the way that they explain fossils and evolution ( "kinds") with the reality of what we see in the fossil record or how things are placed in the different strata. They will point to places where the strata are all mixed up or something doesn't make sense, such as a petrified tree buried across multiple strata, but ignore that those are the exceptions to what we see everywhere else, not the majority or even common evidence. They ignore fossils that are clearly transitional, explaining them away as not transitional, but really just whatever creature it is supposed to be transitioning to.

Fossils are a big one for me as it is a hobby of mine, I am in the field unearthing them, and we find the fossils that should be where we know that they should be based on geology.

Honestly, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that either God is cruel and trying to trick people with what evidence he has placed around the Earth for us to find, or that the YEC can't be correct. On the flip side, I think that many VOEC and secular evolutionists ignore other facts that are hard to explain, like those strata that are exceptional, or soft tissues in fossils of dinosaurs, and similar issues. I am of the belief that the truth is somewhere in the middle and we don't know it yet, if we ever will.

Aaron112 said:
No worries, if that unbelief is not associated with errors in other areas of truth and life and Scripture.

It isn't. The thing is, I also strongly believe that we need to take the customs and practices of the Hebrews and associated near east cultures into consideration and within their context, and this is one of those times that it probably matters. I am open to the idea that certain people had unusually long lives or even that it was common at first. Maimonides taught that only the named individuals had extra long lives and that the rest of the population had normal length lives. Others teach that since Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life their children inherited extra longevity from that, which weakened over the ages.

Honestly, I don't find it super relevant to deep thought or discussion as belief for or against isn't salvific, even if it is interesting to ponder.

Platte · 2025-09-03T10:01:55-0500

David Lamb said:
How can you state so certainly that the light God created on day 1 was just a scrivener's error? Or that Genesis is full of such errors?

Sorry I was being facitious....Ridiculing the person who said it before me...that acutally meant it.

Platte · 2025-09-03T10:19:36-0500

(new thread will be coming)

Isn't this important?:

The scientific consensus is that there is no empirical basis to support the concept of life after death

Jipsah · 2025-09-03T19:09:28-0500

Platte said:
Sorry I was being facitious....Ridiculing the person who said it before me...that acutally meant it.

Kinda like the "sola scriptura" bloke who has to invent an extra "sun" to"explain" how there were "evenings" and "mornings" before the real sun was created. Homey is full-on sola until it threatens his denominational doctrinal presuppositions, at which point he adds stuff to the Creation narrative that Scripture itself never once even suggests. It's simply saying "our dogma requires that there must have been a sun to cause evenings and mornings to exist, se we'll just claim there was a secret sun that the Bible doesn't mention.

Right.

It's matter of having to save the doctrine from being destroyed by the Bible

6,000 Years?

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will be saved

Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will be saved

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will be saved

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Similar threads