7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

[mark kennedy]

triple post even

 

[mark kennedy]

You aren't even in the same Book, let alone the same page. You get an "F" for this discussion. You have no comprehension of hermeneutics or exegesis, or how to compare spiritual things with spiritual. Against all wisdom and against the Word of God, you openly defile yourself repeatedly in this topic. You definitely need to be on "receive" instead of "transmit". You are only embarrassing yourself before God and Man. Cheers

You quoted Peter and refereed to Genesis 1 equivocating Peter's figurative language with 'day' in Genesis. You think you can judge me based on pedantic rhetoric and fallacious logic. You are the one who can't do a simple exposition and no matter how many times you are refuted you continue to substitute insults for substantive arguments.

I have a bachelors in Bible and Theology, I'm well acquainted with hermeneutics and exegesis and I carried a 'B' average by the way.

First you use an equivocation fallacy, Peter's hyperbole and the Genesis account of creation. When that fails you go into a desperate ad hominem attack which is when I know I have you because you have nothing else. You are distorting the clear testimony of Scripture:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)​

That's from the same chapter and do note the 'unlearned' and 'unstable' twist the Scriptures to their own destruction to this day. Day means day in the Genesis account of creation and there is no figurative language. Peter clearly says that a 'day' is 'as' a 'thousand years', a 'like' or 'as' usually indicates figurative language, a point that was lost on you. None so blind.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Serpent is more like a proper name

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev 12:9)​

This entire obfuscation of what constitutes a day had auspicious beginnings.
Genesis 2:17. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
In, not on.
Now we look at Genesis 3.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

What was the deception? By eating the fruit they learned the difference between good and evil. They also realized that what they had done was evil. By accepting the knowledge they accepted the consequence of that knowledge. The wages of sin are death. Death was assured from the first bite. It just didn't happen that same day.

The argument that is being made, taking the word and twisting its definition, is not without precedent. I wonder if people realize that the first time their argument was used it was used to trick man into rebelling against God. Now it's being used to promote evolution, which makes a lie of the creation of life described in Genesis. If Genesis can't be trusted then how could we trust Jesus when He quoted extensively from Genesis. Doesn't that call our Lord a liar? Wouldn't He above all know whether or not the Scriptures were accurate since He was there Himself?

Presenting false doctrine is heresy. Any doctrine contrary to the Scriptures is false doctrine. It does not serve the Lord to promote and repeat false doctrine. It serves the Creator to realize that we are to live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

 

[Winepress777]

You quoted Peter and refereed to Genesis 1 equivocating Peter's figurative language with 'day' in Genesis. You think you can judge me based on pedantic rhetoric and fallacious logic. You are the one who can't do a simple exposition and no matter how many times you are refuted you continue to substitute insults for substantive arguments.

I have a bachelors in Bible and Theology, I'm well acquainted with hermeneutics and exegesis and I carried a 'B' average by the way.

First you use an equivocation fallacy, Peter's hyperbole and the Genesis account of creation. When that fails you go into a desperate ad hominem attack which is when I know I have you because you have nothing else. You are distorting the clear testimony of Scripture:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)​

That's from the same chapter and do note the 'unlearned' and 'unstable' twist the Scriptures to their own destruction to this day. Day means day in the Genesis account of creation and there is no figurative language. Peter clearly says that a 'day' is 'as' a 'thousand years', a 'like' or 'as' usually indicates figurative language, a point that was lost on you. None so blind.

Have a nice day
Mark

Another "F" for the day. Come back tomorrow after applying some more hocus pocus wizardry against the Word of God. I pray that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ Himself will convict you of your nonsense, but you have to get off your high horse to let him.

 

[mark kennedy]

Another "F" for the day. Come back tomorrow after applying some more hocus pocus wizardry against the Word of God. I pray that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ Himself will convict you of your nonsense, but you have to get off your high horse to let him.

What your doing is called trolling and I'm not getting into a flame war with you. Repeatedly you have been refuted and again you have chose to abandon the text and argue fallacies instead. You have been offered sound expositions of the text, readily supported at an exegetical level. I pointed out that Peter is clearly using figurative language with Gen 1 clearly does not, you ignored that. You pretend to represent Christ and the Holy Spirit but you fervently deny the clear testimony of Scripture. I'm not the one with the problem.

Let me remind you that this forum has strict rules against flaming and it's a Christian only forum. What is more the general basis for what makes one a Christian is the Nicene Creed, a confession the starts with an affirmation of God as Creator, the incarnation, followed by another affirmation of Christ as Creator. There is no indication they are being figurative either. Creation is essential doctrine and Theistic Evolutionist continually argue against it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Come back tomorrow after applying some more hocus pocus wizardry against the Word of God.

Adam and Eve were real people, created by God; the first man and woman. T or F?
Regardless of how long you belief the days to be, the earth was created in six of them. T or F?
Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his rib. T or F?
When the world became corrupted, God sent a great flood to destroy everything which had the breath of life in them, except for those spared on the ark. T or F?
Jesus is the only begotten son of God. As such, He was witness to creation. T or F?
When Jesus quoted Scripture He did so from authority. T or F?
Jesus was crucified for the sins of man and rose again on the third day. T or F?

 

[JustHisKid]

What your doing is called trolling and I'm not getting into a flame war with you. Repeatedly you have been refuted and again you have chose to abandon the text and argue fallacies instead. You have been offered sound expositions of the text, readily supported at an exegetical level. I pointed out that Peter is clearly using figurative language with Gen 1 clearly does not, you ignored that. You pretend to represent Christ and the Holy Spirit but you fervently deny the clear testimony of Scripture. I'm not the one with the problem.

Let me remind you that this forum has strict rules against flaming and it's a Christian only forum. What is more the general basis for what makes one a Christian is the Nicene Creed, a confession the starts with an affirmation of God as Creator, the incarnation, followed by another affirmation of Christ as Creator. There is no indication they are being figurative either. Creation is essential doctrine and Theistic Evolutionist continually argue against it.

Have a nice day
Mark

Amen, brother!

 

[mark kennedy]

This entire obfuscation of what constitutes a day had auspicious beginnings.
Genesis 2:17. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
In, not on.
Now we look at Genesis 3.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I quoted this saying Serpent is more like a proper name:

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev 12:9)​

Called 'the devil', 'Satan', 'the great dragon' and 'that ancient serpent'. The last one being an obvious allusion to the Genesis account. Then you go running down one tangent after another, never addressing that point.

What was the deception? By eating the fruit they learned the difference between good and evil. They also realized that what they had done was evil. By accepting the knowledge they accepted the consequence of that knowledge. The wages of sin are death. Death was assured from the first bite. It just didn't happen that same day.

Which is all true and completely irrelevant to what I said.

The argument that is being made, taking the word and twisting its definition, is not without precedent. I wonder if people realize that the first time their argument was used it was used to trick man into rebelling against God. Now it's being used to promote evolution, which makes a lie of the creation of life described in Genesis. If Genesis can't be trusted then how could we trust Jesus when He quoted extensively from Genesis. Doesn't that call our Lord a liar? Wouldn't He above all know whether or not the Scriptures were accurate since He was there Himself?

I changed nothing, the Serpent was and is Satan, Dan was called a serpent by Jacob. Jesus called Peter a rock, no one takes that literally because Jesus was giving him a new name. Your being ridiculous.

Presenting false doctrine is heresy. Any doctrine contrary to the Scriptures is false doctrine. It does not serve the Lord to promote and repeat false doctrine. It serves the Creator to realize that we are to live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

You haven't so much as discussed doctrine, let alone exposed a heresy. You are talking in circles and said virtually nothing. Now you want to make a scathing indictment based on nothing. All I said was Serpent in the Genesis account should be taken as a proper name for the Devil, clearly it is in the Revelation. An irrefutable point you never address before making a false accusation of heresy. If you keep it up I'll report it to the moderators.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I know you didn't direct this to me but I want to answer anyway.

Adam and Eve were real people, created by God; the first man and woman. T or F?

Literal, fully formed, the first parents of humanity.

Regardless of how long you belief the days to be, the earth was created in six of them. T or F?

The Genesis account clearly indicates normal 24 hour days and yes there were six of them.

Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his rib. T or F?

I'm an evangelical and a fundamentalist? Of course I take those statements literally.

When the world became corrupted, God sent a great flood to destroy everything which had the breath of life in them, except for those spared on the ark. T or F?

Yes I believe in a literal global flood if that's what you are asking.

Jesus is the only begotten son of God. As such, He was witness to creation. T or F?

Yes, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator

When Jesus quoted Scripture He did so from authority. T or F?
Jesus was crucified for the sins of man and rose again on the third day. T or F?

Absolutely

 

[KWCrazy]

I quoted this saying Serpent is more like a proper name:

I referenced your post, but mine was not directed at you. Rather, I am in total agreement.
My point was that Satan, who took the guise of the serpent, was the first to confuse what is meant by a day.
The argument another poster was using was the same one used against Eve; that she would not surely die on the day she ate, but in the day she ate death would be assured. He conveniently left out the second part.

I changed nothing,

No, YOU did not.

I was referencing the false doctrine and heresy that was being offered as the greater enlightenment to we who merely read the Scriptures and believe that Christ was telling the truth when He referenced them as historical facts. The false doctrine is evolution and the twisting of the Scriptures to not directly contradict it is heresy.

 

[mark kennedy]

I referenced your post, but mine was not directed at you. Rather, I am in total agreement.
My point was that Satan, who took the guise of the serpent, was the first to confuse what is meant by a day.
The argument another poster was using was the same one used against Eve; that she would not surely die on the day she ate, but in the day she ate death would be assured. He conveniently left out the second part.

No, YOU did not.

I was referencing the false doctrine and heresy that was being offered as the greater enlightenment to we who merely read the Scriptures and believe that Christ was telling the truth when He referenced them as historical facts. The false doctrine is evolution and the twisting of the Scriptures to not directly contradict it is heresy.

It seems I have greatly misunderstood, my apologies. Just one point worth mentioning, I don't think 'Serpent' necessarily indicates he manifested as a snake. It's been a while since I did an in depth word search but the root word is associated with the occult in the OT.

It is translated in some interesting ways. Sometimes it means enchantment, or practicing the occult. Sometimes experience, sometimes observance but in the case of Satan it takes on another form. That Satan is called the Serpent is not in question, why God called him that takes a little more discernment. It is a fascinating study, I always enjoy getting into it.

I have learned by experience H5172 (Gen 30:27)
indeed H5172 he divineth? H5172 (Gen 44:5)​

Strong's H5172 נָחַשׁ (nachash )

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Literal, fully formed, the first parents of humanity.
The Genesis account clearly indicates normal 24 hour days and yes there were six of them.
You do know I'm an evangelical and a fundamentalist right? Of course I take those statements literally.
Yes I believe in a literal global flood if that's what you are asking.
Yes, to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator
Absolutely

Think our other poster will answer these?
I don't know how anyone can study the Scriptures and come up with any description of creation that doesn't directly contradict evolution. I keep getting told that many Christians believe in both, which is true, but none of them seem to be able to justify what they believe in the Scriptures.
What chapter and verse can support evolution? Anyone?
It's been many years and still not one taker.

 

[KWCrazy]

It seems I have greatly misunderstood, my apologies.
Grace and peace,
Mark

No worries. Eventually we'll find SOMETHING about which we do not agree.

 

[JustHisKid]

Think our other poster will answer these?
I don't know how anyone can study the Scriptures and come up with any description of creation that doesn't directly contradict evolution. I keep getting told that many Christians believe in both, which is true, but none of them seem to be able to justify what they believe in the Scriptures.
What chapter and verse can support evolution? Anyone?
It's been many years and still not one taker.

People who believe in evolution reject Scripture and believe other sources. Period.

 

[Mrs_RC]

Please explain Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
How could this be if man didn't have the words of God?
Later in that same chapter, Verse 10:
"Then Jesus said to him, 'Away with you, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'
Written where? How is it that Jesus who IS GOD has such reverence for the Scriptures which are, to you, merely the collected ramblings of Bronze Age shepherds?

Jesus quoted the Scriptures extensively. Why would He do so if they were not the inspired word of God? Do you think that the men who assembled the Bible were evil men intent of perverting the word of God? What was it Christ said in Matthew 5:18?
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

The Scriptures were compiled under the authority of God, who blessed their work. That they were not immediately struck dead by the Lord demonstrates that they were not trying to soil His holy Word by changing what was written.

Hi Rider99. Thank you for your post.

Your dedication to the Bible is admirable. However, I am suggesting that if you begin to look beyond the Bible, into its heritage, manufacture and history, that you might become even more enlightened.

With bessings, Mrs RC

 

[random person]

The six creation days were fiats (John 1:1-3) IMO irregardless of its measure of time.

There are greater spiritual truths to extract from Genesis than trying to support six literal creation days.

This has led many a' earnest devout Christians to deny science and down many ludicrous paths.

 

[Smidlee]

The six creation days were fiats (John 1:1-3) IMO irregardless of its measure of time.

There are greater spiritual truths to extract from Genesis than trying to support six literal creation days.

This has led many a' earnest devout Christians to deny science and down many ludicrous paths.

Do you think there is something wrong in rejecting something that's called science? Is "science" how you measure "truth"?

Has science become a Jesus-substitute?
Example:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/07/nyts-frank-bruni-wants-you-to-get-right-with-god-er-science/

"In recent news coverage of the Ebola virus, I noticed that reporters tended to use the word “science” the way some people refer to Jesus."

"Here’s where we get really preachy: “And many Americans have a similarly curious attitude, distinguished by woefully insufficient gratitude for the ways in which science has advanced our country and elevated our lives.” HA HA HA HA HA HA. Again, I am totally used to hearing about how insufficiently grateful we are to God and all He’s done for us, but true religionists up the ante. It’s “science” to whom we should be in relationship and grateful."


"This has led many a' earnest devout Christians to deny science (Jesus?) and down many ludicrous paths."

 

[random person]

Do you think there is something wrong in rejecting something that's called science? Is "science" how you measure "truth"?

Has science become a Jesus-substitute?
Example:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/07/nyts-frank-bruni-wants-you-to-get-right-with-god-er-science/

"In recent news coverage of the Ebola virus, I noticed that reporters tended to use the word “science” the way some people refer to Jesus."

"“Congress has been largely useless, with a relationship to science that toggles between benign neglect and outright contempt,” he writes. Now, I know we’re all told by evangelicals that we’re supposed to have a relationship with Jesus, but relationships with science are called for by even more religious types."

"This has led many a' earnest devout Christians to deny science (Jesus?) and down many ludicrous paths."

Here is an authentic model representation of the ancient Hebrew's concept of the universe, this is truly an authentic model.. This is ancient Hebrew cosmology.

If this is what you want teaching your children sciences, well, that is your business but don't push it on the learned scientific world or other Christians.

 

[Smidlee]

Here is an authentic model representation of the ancient Hebrew's concept of the universe, this is truly an authentic model.. This is ancient Hebrew cosmology.

According to modern man. I'm amazed how modern man thinks he is so smart and our ancestor were a butch of idiots. I sure someone look back at our day assume everyone believed in evolution.

If this is what you want teaching your children sciences, well, that is your business but don't push it on the learned scientific world or other Christians.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[random person]

According to modern man. I'm amazed how modern man thinks he is so smart and our ancestor were a butch of idiots. I sure someone look back at our day assume everyone believed in evolution.

You didn't answer my question.

I'll your question now, so ancient Hebrews have a superior cosmological model then modern scientists?

How did the ancient Hebrews test their cosmological model and who peer reviewed it?

Essentially, the Hebrews believe the cosmos was a giant snowwglobe in which the heavens and earth were encircled by water, the deep below and the firmament above.