A 24hr day? or 24 billion years = a day?

[Adrian Moir]

I believe in literal days.
You seem to, too (but your wording is too convoluted for me to be sure).

"Ambassador of the Thearchy" is a reference to 2 Corinthians 5:20-21,

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:

we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.​

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us,

that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."​

(Asking what I mean by it is probably more beneficial than assuming the worst... )

I'm sorry, it may seem convoluted because these are hard subjects and because I am pressing them in favor of creation over evolution.
And that is because of the problems associated with evolutionary teaching. The Biblical record testifies to a literal 24hr day for creation, so the problem lies with certain people trying to fit the theory of evolution into the Bible, because no amount of chemical reactions can ever become self-aware, which is self-evident.
So this means by way of repeated demonstration that evolution is never going to occur, and that the Biblical account will continue to stand the rest of time.
I'm glad you believe in literal 24hr days and I wish you and those around you all the best during this Holy time of the year.
Merry Christmas and God bless.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honor thy mother and thy father
By Adrian Moir

All praise, wonder, might, majesty and glory be of the Lord God in heaven, who made all things and has endowed all life with ability. But unto His own image He has given the gift of conscience to know His ways of truth and honor.

For the Lord has commanded that we should honor our father and our mother, for what good can come from shaming your parents?
Because the love you show them is the love you show for your father in heaven who sees all things, and rewards everyone according to their deeds; Good for good, and treachery for treachery.
And has not our father in heaven put the ear in its place that we should know His word through the mouth of His servants?

For what is known by the tongue is known by the ear first; So who spaketh first unto the ear that the mouth should open and speak?
The tongue is in its place that we should honor Him who made the mouth in all that we do; For what good could come from shaming His name who has made the heart and has given it breath?
The Lord Almighty God has fashioned His sword, which is the dividing word that separates the truth from a lie, and the just from the unjust.
And as the scriptures have said: "the just shall live by faith", and that "faith without works is a dead faith."

So may the Spirit of Christmas fill your hearts with faith and duty to honor your mother and your father before yourself, because, great are the rewards and honors from God who love their maker before them self.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further reading:

The Linnean Society website - scientific racism
One of the origins of scientific racism can be traced to Linnaeus’ work on the classification of man, which had devastating and far-reaching consequences for humanity.
Linnaeus’ work on the classification of man forms one of the 18th-century roots of modern scientific racism. This page aims to look at Linnaeus’ works in detail, both printed and in manuscript, to trace the development of an idea which became fundamental in the history of anthropology and has had devastating and far-reaching consequences for humanity, including the dehumanisation of non-Europeans and justification of evils like slavery and indigenous genocide.
By the 10th edition of Systema naturae, Linnaeus switched the order in which the varieties appear yet again, and chose to place Americanus first, possibly influenced by ideas of the ‘noble savage’. One variety never varied in this hierarchy, however: Africanus consistently remained at the bottom of the list. Moreover, in all editions, Linnaeus’ description of Africanus was the longest, most detailed and physical, and also the most negative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific racism - Wikipedia
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.

Scientific racism employs anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, some of which might be asserted to be superior or inferior to others. Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia
Social Darwinism declined in popularity as a purportedly scientific concept following the First World War, and was largely discredited by the end of the Second World War—partially due to its association with Nazism and partially due to a growing scientific consensus that it was scientifically groundless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Adrian Moir]

I believe in literal days.
You seem to, too (but your wording is too convoluted for me to be sure).

"Ambassador of the Thearchy" is an allusion to 2 Corinthians 5:20-21,

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:

we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.​

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us,

that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."​

(Asking what I mean by it is probably more beneficial than assuming the worst... )

Systems theory vs Evolutionary theory
By Adrian Moir

The Bible is very clear that God made all things in six days, and not sixty billion years, and in those six days God made man and gave him the breath of life which is what made Adam a living soul (Genesis 2).
And because life is a conscious reality and not just a physical one, it will mean that the chemists are going to have to lift their game a little to show how chemicals can turn into a biological version of an AI system as no amount of chemical reactions can ever become conscious, which is self-evident.
The evolutionary chemist is pointing at the fossil record as evidence for evolution, while the geologist points too the biologist, and the biologist points at the physicist, and so on down the line; Until no answer is provided that can vindicate the theory by way of observation, which is what science is about.

And it has gotten to the stage that not only is common scientific practice generally pseudo now, but also, the logic which defends the evolutionary theory is pseudo as well. And because scientists believe they have solved the riddle for the origin of matter, without even giving a proper demonstration or even a close example, it will mean that their claim was entirely based on a theoretical belief, and not a scientific fact of any kind.
And that is because they've made the classic mistake of relying on one theory to explain the next, and then the next, and so on; Until we've arrived at this point where I will argue that matter is only one aspect of a complete system.

Because a system is described holistically as a whole and not as a part slowly developing on its own all by itself naturally, and the earth is defined as being a part of a much larger system called the solar system.

So it would not matter one iota if a gigantic ball of dust collected together all by itself in outer space, because if it did, it would only be classed as a comet or a moon, and never a biosphere, as an atmosphere is required.
And not only is an atmosphere required, but so also is a magnetosphere, which apparently, is generated by the earth's core that produces a magnetic polar effect.
And I'm no electrical engineer, but that is exactly what a battery does, and the main reason for this perpetual electric generator is to protect the biosphere from solar corpuscular radiation.

A biosphere is unique to earth, unlike every other planet in any other system that has ever been observed.
And what all of this means is that a biosphere like earth needed to be a complete whole before any individual part could have any value whatsoever in terms of an overall system, because the parts don't make up the system, but the rules do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources by Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

Alternatives to Darwinian evolution - Wikipedia
By the start of the 20th century, evolution was generally accepted by biologists but natural selection was in eclipse. Many alternative theories were proposed, but biologists were quick to discount theories such as orthogenesis, vitalism and Lamarckism which offered no mechanism for evolution. Mutationism did propose a mechanism, but it was not generally accepted.
The modern synthesis a generation later claimed to sweep away all the alternatives to Darwinian evolution, though some have been revived as molecular mechanisms for them have been discovered.

What is a system?
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory.

What is systems theory?
Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.

Changing one part of a system may affect other parts or the whole system. It may be possible to predict these changes in patterns of behaviour. For systems that learn and adapt, the growth and the degree of adaptation depend upon how well the system is engaged with its environment. Some systems support other systems, maintaining the other system to prevent failure. The goals of systems theory are to model a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions, and to elucidate principles (such as purpose, measure, methods, tools) that can be discerned and applied to other systems at every level of nesting, and in a wide range of fields for achieving optimized equifinality.

General systems theory is about developing broadly applicable concepts and principles, as opposed to concepts and principles specific to one domain of knowledge. It distinguishes dynamic or active systems from static or passive systems. Active systems are activity structures or components that interact in behaviours and processes. Passive systems are structures and components that are being processed. For example, a program is passive when it is a disc file and active when it runs in memory. The field is related to systems thinking, machine logic, and systems engineering.

What is the difference between a system and mechanism?
As nouns the difference between system and mechanism is that a system is a collection of organized things; a whole composed of relationships among its members while mechanism is within a machine or machinery; any mechanical means for the conversion or control of motion, or the transmission or control of power.

Dictionary
Definitions by Oxford Languages
Search for a word
parameter
/pəˈramɪtə/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
noun
1.
a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.
"there are three parameters by which a speaker is able to modify the meaning of the utterance—pitch, volume, and tempo"
Similar:
framework
variable
limit
boundary
limiting factor
limitation

 

[Aussie Pete]

If you ever want to discuss this with more scripture let me know. It is something I believe and have studied alot.

Yes, I've just skimmed the surface. Watchman Nee goes into detail. He believed that the precious stones were in the pre-Adam creation as they do not get a mention in Genesis. (Ezekiel 28). I believe that Satan was the light of the world before he rebelled. He became darkness and so it covered the earth until God created light.

I am convinced that Satan's fall and the consequent war in heaven has far more significance that we can know in this lifetime. It's only hinted at in the Bible. The victory that Jesus won for us is far more than forgiveness of sins. One day we will see Lord Jesus in all His glory and we will understand the full extent of what He achieved. I look forward to that day. One of my favourite verses is Isaiah 40:5. We know this will happen because God says so!

 

[Aussie Pete]

The book of Genesis refers to the creation week as having intervals that describes what a day is in relation to time. The intervals are broken up into evening, morning, number and day. So the paradigm in Genesis 1 limits the length of a day to being a 24 hr period for each day of the creation week, which is self-explanatory.
God is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day is a reference from scripture that God is outside of time, and not that day could mean a thousand years on earth, unless it's in respect to a person. For example: "In the day of my forefathers" is a reference to a period of time relative to a persons life span and not in reference to the creation week, which is specifically describing the days of the first week as being officially 24 hr periods, which is self-evident.

Genesis 1:8
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Some say that the days were not necessarily consecutive. Some think that there was a time gap between days. I don't accept this. Why would God rest on the seventh day? I would have happily had a few days off in between working days!

 

[Adrian Moir]

Yes, I've just skimmed the surface. Watchman Nee goes into detail. He believed that the precious stones were in the pre-Adam creation as they do not get a mention in Genesis. (Ezekiel 28). I believe that Satan was the light of the world before he rebelled. He became darkness and so it covered the earth until God created light.

I am convinced that Satan's fall and the consequent war in heaven has far more significance that we can know in this lifetime. It's only hinted at in the Bible. The victory that Jesus won for us is far more than forgiveness of sins. One day we will see Lord Jesus in all His glory and we will understand the full extent of what He achieved. I look forward to that day. One of my favourite verses is Isaiah 40:5. We know this will happen because God says so!

I'm not sure if this message was intentionally for me or for someone else because I didn't make that comment you were refering to. But I do agree with you on your theology, except for the pre-adamite belief, and I found your comment interesting. Thank you.
God bless you today in Jesus' name I pray...Amen

A Testament To The Faith: By Adrian Moir

Dear Father Jesus Our Messiah God;
Thou Art Gracious Father Unto All The World;
You Father God Did Create The Heavens And The Earth;

And Have Set The Stars In Their Place By Their Names;
In Accordance To The Word Of Your Lord;
Let Us Praise You Father God In The Name You Have Given Us;

By Which All May Be Saved;
And Come To You For Deliverance From Darkness And Oppression;
For By Your Word You Have Established The Promise Given To All;

For By Your Word Everything Has Been Established By Thy Faith;
Lord, Almighty God;
We Have Our Minds In Fear But Our Hearts Have Been Opened By Thy Grace;

For Thy Work Is Finished;
In The Arms Of Your Word Lord Jesus We Are Safe;
And Eternal In You;

For Your Word Has Filled All The World From The Heavens You Declared In Faith;
And Have Set The Pathways Of The Heavens That None May Reproach Thy Throne;
And Have Taken The Oppressed As Thy Servants And Children Alike;

For Thou Art Mighty To Deliver And Ready To Receive Unto Thee That Which Is Thee;
For Thy Words Sake;
And By The Merit You Have Put On Faith That We Can Receive You Lord Father God;
By Faith Alone In Your Word...

We Praise You Father Jesus;
In You Alone We Are Forever Safe;
We Thank You Jesus...
Amen

 

[Adrian Moir]

Some say that the days were not necessarily consecutive. Some think that there was a time gap between days. I don't accept this. Why would God rest on the seventh day? I would have happily had a few days off in between working days!

Thank you and have a merry Christmas.

 

[Derek1111]

A quote from you shall be highlighted by quotation marks, and any further referencing needed can come from the context of the message, and not from your pride...Ok?

wow. Chill, man.

 

[Adrian Moir]

wow. Chill, man.

I'm fine. I just don't apreciate gifs, mojis and nonsense when I'm involved in a discussion, nor do I like people who love to be quoted...It makes me sick.

 

[Platte]

Yes, I've just skimmed the surface. Watchman Nee goes into detail. He believed that the precious stones were in the pre-Adam creation as they do not get a mention in Genesis. (Ezekiel 28). I believe that Satan was the light of the world before he rebelled. He became darkness and so it covered the earth until God created light.

I am convinced that Satan's fall and the consequent war in heaven has far more significance that we can know in this lifetime. It's only hinted at in the Bible. The victory that Jesus won for us is far more than forgiveness of sins. One day we will see Lord Jesus in all His glory and we will understand the full extent of what He achieved. I look forward to that day. One of my favourite verses is Isaiah 40:5. We know this will happen because God says so!

Silly

 

[coffee4u]

Yes, I've just skimmed the surface. Watchman Nee goes into detail.

I would be very careful over Watchman Nee.
Watching Out For Watchman Nee

 

[Aussie Pete]

I would be very careful over Watchman Nee.
Watching Out For Watchman Nee

I've studied Watchman Nee for 45 years. I have only one point of disagreement and that is with his views on the last days. I consider him to be a true apostle and the greatest Christian teacher of the 20th century. I've yet to come across anyone close to him in the 21st century either. I was a friend of a man who was a true prophet. He also studied Watchman Nee a great deal.

I've read Andrew Murray, CS Lewis, Derek Prince, Ian Thomas, Spurgeon, Ortiz and quite a few others. I have concordances, I use Bible Hub extensively, Mounce Greek dictionary and so on. I am not inclined to accept every teaching just because the individual is famous. I reject the prosperity, "faith", and Toronto Blessing teachings. I am also dead set against legalism. I find the vast majority of what Watchman Nee has to say edifying, enlightening and, at times, life changing.

I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have to any aspect of W. Nee's teaching.

 

[Platte]

I've studied Watchman Nee for 45 years. I have only one point of disagreement and that is with his views on the last days. I consider him to be a true apostle and the greatest Christian teacher of the 20th century. I've yet to come across anyone close to him in the 21st century either. I was a friend of a man who was a true prophet. He also studied Watchman Nee a great deal.

I've read Andrew Murray, CS Lewis, Derek Prince, Ian Thomas, Spurgeon, Ortiz and quite a few others. I have concordances, I use Bible Hub extensively, Mounce Greek dictionary and so on. I am not inclined to accept every teaching just because the individual is famous. I reject the prosperity, "faith", and Toronto Blessing teachings. I am also dead set against legalism. I find the vast majority of what Watchman Nee has to say edifying, enlightening and, at times, life changing.

I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have to any aspect of W. Nee's teaching.

Why would you even read what Watchman Née wrote?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Adam and Eve were created on day 6
Genesis 1
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

He died 930 years later
Genesis 5:5
"Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died."

Hi coffee4u
I am convinced the chapter 1 and chapter 2 events are separate.
First mankind in chapter 1, then Adam and Eve added in chapter 2.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I've studied Watchman Nee for 45 years. I have only one point of disagreement and that is with his views on the last days. I consider him to be a true apostle and the greatest Christian teacher of the 20th century. I've yet to come across anyone close to him in the 21st century either. I was a friend of a man who was a true prophet. He also studied Watchman Nee a great deal.

I've read Andrew Murray, CS Lewis, Derek Prince, Ian Thomas, Spurgeon, Ortiz and quite a few others. I have concordances, I use Bible Hub extensively, Mounce Greek dictionary and so on. I am not inclined to accept every teaching just because the individual is famous. I reject the prosperity, "faith", and Toronto Blessing teachings. I am also dead set against legalism. I find the vast majority of what Watchman Nee has to say edifying, enlightening and, at times, life changing.

I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have to any aspect of W. Nee's teaching.

I love Nee also. Thanks for the confirmation of his teaching.
I recommend "The Spiritual Man" to all!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I will just toss in the age-old question.
If the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, then how was there a day and night on the first, second, and third days? I am not trying to stir up confusion, just to say something is going on here and it is not as simplistic as it may seem.
Strickly speaking, from the exact wording of verse 5, "day" and "night" are defined by the presence or absence of light. It says nothing about how long those periods of light and dark last.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

So, a period of unbroken light could last 4 billion hours and still be called a day. A period of 4 billion hours of dark could be called a night. All this before the sun or moon were even created.

 

[coffee4u]

Hi coffee4u
I am convinced the chapter 1 and chapter 2 events are separate.
First mankind in chapter 1, then Adam and Eve added in chapter 2.

And I am convinced they are not. So there you go.

If you would like to point out politely why you believe them to be separate feel free to share, so long as you also want to listen to my view on why it is not.

If all you wish for is an argument then I will peacefully decline as this board has given me a lot of stress lately due to certain posters who simply wish to be rude.

 

[Platte]

Hi coffee4u
I am convinced the chapter 1 and chapter 2 events are separate.
First mankind in chapter 1, then Adam and Eve added in chapter 2.

What was Adam’s wife’s name? I think the Bible says what her name means.
Btw. A day is defined by one rotation of the earth. Has nothing to do with the sun or the moon. God lighting the earth from one direction would seem normal to me

 

[coffee4u]

What was Adam’s wife’s name? I think the Bible says what her name means.
Btw. A day is defined by one rotation of the earth. Has nothing to do with the sun or the moon.

I can tell you are trying to play me and I don't appreciate it.
Anyway it's Eve as you already know and it meant "living one" or "source of life"

A day is defined by whatever God wanted it to be at the time but most likely one rotation. No guarantee since nobody was there to see it.

 

[Platte]

I can tell you are trying to play me and I don't appreciate it.
Anyway it's Eve as you already know and it meant "living one" or "source of life"

A day is defined by whatever God wanted it to be at the time but most likely one rotation. No guarantee since nobody was there to see it.

“And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:20‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Platte]

A day is defined by whatever God wanted it to be at the time but most likely one rotation. No guarantee since nobody was there to see it.

The Bible was written for us. God doesn’t define words in the Bible at His discretion - He chooses words for the Bible to properly articulate the message. If it took a billion years to create the earth then that’s what the Bible would have said. The Bible goes out of its way to state it took 6 normal days. I’ll take what the Bible says over what someone may believe. Just my approach.