7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

[Foghorn]

It's because there is NO end, no evening to the Great Sabbath, the 7th Day which is Eternity. EVERY other Day has an ending and a beginning EXCEPT the 7th Day. Eternity is FOREVER and has no end. Amen?

I will admit that is quite interesting. I will chew on that for a while.

 

[-57]

Have you noticed that I support my views with Scripture? I can also support them Scientifically and Historically. This changes my religious views into Facts since they are supported in every way. So continue to believe ancient man's theology if you wish, but you will never understand God's Truth of the Creation. Amen?

You've been refuted verse by verse. So, once again....if you can present a web site from a respected denomination perhaps I'll take a look. But as far as I can tell you are the only one with your belief. Until you can do that I consider refuting you pretty much a waste of time.

 

[-57]

If so, then your not hearing correctly.

It's obvious Jesus was dead for three days, literally.
Scripture teaches it, and there was no reason to think otherwise according to context.

However, the only thing you have about is creation is the word day, which you said yourself has different meanings.

Imagine on day 6, God created animals, then Adam, then brought all the animals to Adam to name, then after this long process, Adam became lonely, so God put him to sleep and took part of his side and created Eve.

Now God can do anything in a day, or an instant. But man cannot.

Oh, OK...so now you look at the normal context of how "day" is used when referring to the time period Jesus was in the grave...YET...still refuse to recognize the normal context when the word "day" is bracked by morning and evening as well as provided a numerical reference. Even the ten commandmenst recognizes literal days.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Just because you want to have faith in evolutionism and an old earth (perhaps you even believe in the gap theory) it doesn't give you the right to change the bible.

 

[-57]

No, but I sure am interested in how you come to that conclusion. Care to explain?

You're theo-evoism fails to explain "original sin" and mankinds "sin nature". T.U.L.I.P. disagree's with your opinion of why we sin.

 

[Foghorn]

Oh, OK...so now you look at the normal context of how "day" is used when referring to the time period Jesus was in the grave...YET...still refuse to recognize the normal context when the word "day" is bracked by morning and evening as well as provided a numerical reference. Even the ten commandmenst recognizes literal days.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Just because you want to have faith in evolutionism and an old earth (perhaps you even believe in the gap theory) it doesn't give you the right to change the bible.

I think we may have a misunderstanding here?
I am probably 80% old earth, 20% new earth.
I was up until about a month ago 100% new earth.

I have been studying into this and I am not 100% convinced of either one yet. Just because I may agree with an old earth does not mean I agree with and have faith in evolution. I do believe in micro evolution, it's pretty obvious, however, macro evolution I disagree with and they have no proof.

Also, there are many old earth believers out there, and they are Christians just as new earth believers are.
During these discussion, I want to learn, hey you may be correct, I dunno?

I may challenge you and expect to be challenged by you and others.

I believe (I hope) we have one thing in common, we believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ.

 

[Foghorn]

You're theo-evoism fails to explain "original sin" and mankinds "sin nature". T.U.L.I.P. disagree's with your opinion of why we sin.

How so? Just because you make a statement does not prove anything.

Please tell me how believing in an old earth fails to explain original sin?

 

[Foghorn]

You're theo-evoism fails to explain "original sin" and mankinds "sin nature". T.U.L.I.P. disagree's with your opinion of why we sin.

Are you a Calvinist?

 

[Foghorn]

Double post

 

[Hoghead1]

But, Foghorn, it is illogical to believe in micro-evolution and then not in macro. You cannot have one without the other. Tat is a common mistake many people make.

 

[Foghorn]

But, Foghorn, it is illogical to believe in micro-evolution and then not in macro. You cannot have one without the other. Tat is a common mistake many people make.

That's simply a false statement.

Do you understand what these mean? I think if you do you wouldn't say such things.

 

[Foghorn]

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
{EDIT} Oh, if you would like the source of this, here is the link. Also, it may help to know the author is a young earth believer. http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/

Hope this helps.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, I well understand what they mean, Foghorn, which is why I said what I said and am now wondering if you know what they mean. Any scientist will back my assumptions that it is illogical to posit micro without macro. It was from the scientific community that I learned of this. Funny you have missed this in the literature. The reason is that denying macro is about lit saying teh laws of physics stop at your stove, or that gravity applies to me and the other critters out there but not to the space between us. Laws of science e apply everywhere and that means between the species as well. Put another way, If you accept micro but no macro, you are claiming the process must stop at some point. But that is totally arbitrary. Where is the evidence that it does stop? Who can say where it stops?

 

[Foghorn]

Yes, I well understand what they mean, Foghorn, which is why I said what I said and am now wondering if you know what they mean. Any scientist will back my assumptions that it is illogical to posit micro without macro. It was from the scientific community that I learned of this. Funny you have missed this in the literature. The reason is that denying macro is about lit saying teh laws of physics stop at your stove, or that gravity applies to me and the other critters out there but not to the space between us. Laws of science e apply everywhere and that means between the species as well. Put another way, If you accept micro but no macro, you are claiming the process must stop at some point. But that is totally arbitrary. Where is the evidence that it does stop? Who can say where it stops?

I disagree. Read the above post and check out the website.

 

[Foghorn]

I can't wait to hear a reply as to how an old earth belief is not compatible with original sin. Anyone?

 

[Foghorn]

7 day creation isn't literal. We have scientific evidence that the earth 4.5 billion years old. Anyone who disagrees with that fact is simply being indenial.

I do believe in an old earth creation. But I do not believe one can accurately give it a date.

 

[OzSpen]

You could also say that there is no way that Noah could fit all the animals on the ark, but the animal species were probably not as diverse as they are today.

For example, in Adam's and Noah's times, there probably were not horned owls and snow owls, they probably just had one species of owl.

Also, Adam could have named the species collectively. So instead of having owls, cardinals, and crows, he probably just called them all birds.

That's a red herring fallacy of a reply as you did not deal with the topic I was pursuing.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi oz,

Just a couple of points to make. When St Augustine of Hippo wrote, what does 'kind' mean? This is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to take the word of people now deceased to verify things if it is not crystal clear what they are saying.

Ted,

Are you telling me that you will not debate the meaning of words, syntax, etc of any exegete or theologian who is dead about which you have questions?

You are going to have a lot of gaps in your knowledge.

St Augustine of Hippo did not accept 6 literal 24-hour days of creation. See The City of God (Bk 11, ch 6) where he wrote, 'What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!'

You go and read the chapters before and after the link I gave you in The City of God. It's pretty obvious what Augustine was talking about. He did not know the length or nature of the 'days' of creation.

When you have this approach to scholarship, I have nothing further to add.

Oz

 

[Aman777]

You've been refuted verse by verse. So, once again....if you can present a web site from a respected denomination perhaps I'll take a look. But as far as I can tell you are the only one with your belief. Until you can do that I consider refuting you pretty much a waste of time.

I see. You want the agreement of the religious community to be ABOVE God's Holy Word. Jesus said of the respected religion of His day:

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[miamited]

morning oz,

You asked:

Are you telling me that you will not debate the meaning of words, syntax, etc of any exegete or theologian who is dead about which you have questions?

No, I'll debate such issues, I just said that I was hesitant to accept them for myself. I mean really, how would you ever know? If some dead and gone person writes that they hate okra, then I know they hate okra. If, on the other hand they write, there are some vegetables that they detest. I might assume that okra is one of them because I'm not particular fond of it, but I wouldn't know with any certainty that they were including okra in their list.

In this particular example, to say that we don't know what 'kind' of days they were might mean length, but may just as well mean days of upheaval and miraculous things happening all over the place. Personally, if I were writing about the days of creation and I meant to convey that I couldn't be sure the 'length' or 'duration' of each day, I would likely write that we can't be sure of the 'time', 'length' or 'duration' of the days.

Finally, as still exists on this particular issue, there are large and great camps of people who feel that they can't really understand or assign a length to the creation days. Some of them seemingly wise and many of them strong in their religion and these camps have existed for centuries. St. Augustine would just be one in that camp. As he writes, we can't be 'sure'... This would include that he is also open to the idea that they were just regular days in length.

But, I can't talk to him. I can't question what he really intended to mean. I can only do what you have suggested. Debate and discuss the issue and possibly go with what I feel holds the greatest weight, but I can't be 'sure'.

As I wrote, for me, the issue is answered by the inclusion of 'evening and morning' for each day. There is now, nor has ever been, as far as I am aware, any writing that portrays eons, ages, decades or centuries as consisting of an 'evening and morning'. So, the idea that God, who made Himself man and intended His words to be understood by man so that He could reveal the truth to man, would have described some great and lengthy period of time as an 'evening and morning' seems a bit far fetched for me to believe in this debate. I know that God wrote the Scriptures to me and to you and to everyone to understand. He might have better caused to be written that there was a 'beginning and ending' of each day. That leaves open lots of questions about the length of the days, but evening and morning pretty much nails it that those days were just like these days today. Each and every day that mankind has lived has consisted of an 'evening and morning'.

Now, let's suppose that I did go and read the passage you quoted in context of the whole of the work. The best I could come up with is that St Augustine, like so many, many others of great religious standing apparently didn't understand the words 'evening and morning' to be meaningful to the understanding of this place of the Scriptures. Otherwise, it would seem to be a fair question one might ask themselves, 'What period of time could it be that God would write that for each period there was 'evening and morning? Surely, no one has ever referred to an age as consisting of an 'evening and morning'.

An evening is an equal division of a day with the morning being the other half. Even today, we will greet someone with 'good morning' starting sometime shortly after midnight and going through to shortly before noon. We have, however, now further divided the 'evening' with 'afternoon' and 'night', but it wasn't that way in the beginning. Each and every day consisted of half the day being evening and half the day being morning.

But, in any case, no matter what you believe about the length of time of the day being evening and morning, the descriptions have always and forever referred to a normal length of day.

You see oz, I believe that God knows the beginning from the end. I know that in God's thoughts He knew that a time would come when seemingly godly people would begin to doubt the miracle of God's work in creating this realm in which we live in six actual days. He knew that men like St Augustine would begin to throw doubt on the truth of the Scriptures. That as science found more and more evidence that would seem to suggest a very, very old creation, that people would quickly give up on His truth and choose to follow man's. He knew, just as He knew when His Son would be sent to us; just as He knew that the nature of man upon the earth would wax more and more towards the acceptance and practice of sinful delight; just as He knew that Israel would be held captive in Egypt for 400 years, He knew that a time would come when man would not put up with sound doctrine, but rather choose to follow what their itching ears were told by the great crowd gathered around them. To me, it is only and specifically that God knew this, that instead of just writing that such and such happened and thus ended the first day, He carefully caused to be inserted in the narrative that each day was to be defined as an 'evening and morning'.

So, I'm convinced and convicted that just by the inclusion of that descriptive of each day, that God intended us to understand that the length of the creation days wasn't a whole lot different than the length of the days we now live.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[tatteredsoul]

I'm after thoughts and opinions Gods 7-day creation. Did Moses right it as a narrative to the Israelites? Is Genesis all figurative language?

Thoughts and opinions on the controversial topic!

Moses' language was Hebrew. If you look at that, it makes perfect literal sense. Even if you look at the English, and think about the syntax it makes sense - at least begs several legitimate questions.

A day was defined before a sun or moon was created. So, what is a day (Hint: the Hebrew explains it)?

Earth was created with Heaven - in the beginning, before a day was defined by God.

Just those two situations uncover plenty about the literal creation. For more, see the Hebrew for light, dark, void, and the rest of Genesis 1. Literal seven days? If by day you mean 1000 years, no. If by day, you mean 24 hours, no. If by day you mean the connotations of "yom," absolutely.