Did you read Genesis One?

[gluadys]

Those people sure aren't biased now, are they???

Why don't they believe that Moses wrote the Books of Moses? Jesus seems to think that he did. Up until a couple centuries ago, this wasn't even a question.

Actually, Christian scholars began questioning whether Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch as much as 5 centuries ago. But most of the research that led to the conclusion that at least four writers--from four different centuries--none of them Moses, has occurred in the last two centuries.

The sciences of linguistic and textual analysis led to this conclusion. Since languages and cultures change over time, it is possible to place when and where a text was written by a thorough analysis of the text. At least within a few centuries.

Sometimes one can also glean information about the author, even when the author is anonymous.

A good non-technical read on this whole subject is "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard E. Friedman.

Another name for "conservative Christians" is "Bible-believing Christians". What a concept...

Another name for any Christian is "Bible-believing Christian". Conservatives have no right to stake an exclusive right to that label.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

Did he now? Where does he say his stories are literal history?

Quote

He also wrote that God sent a worldwide flood upon the Earth that destroyed every creature, save what was on the ark. I believe in Jesus, so therefore I also believe Moses.

And where did he say this was literal history?

Why do you assume that God did not inspire Moses to teach the children of Israel via mythology?



Another name for any Christian is "Bible-believing Christian". Conservatives have no right to stake an exclusive right to that label.

I see you have a knack for reading things into the text that are not really there. I believe the Bible tells the history of Israel from the creation (6 day re-creation if you will) up through the end of this current world. In the quotes above you do not see anything to indicate that the Bible is not literal, yet you assume it is mythology...even with all the scientific evidence that verifies a lot of the Old Testament history to be true. Then you read into a comment about conservative Christians being Bible believing Christians as if the author's intent was to claim that only conservative Christians were Bible believing. I didn't hear that at all. He made no reference to those other than conservatives.

As an aside, I am very curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the gap theory. It seems to me there is a lot of scientific evidence for an old earth. It also seems that in the beginning God created the earth and the heaven (note the singular use as mentioned previously in the thread). Could it be that only one heaven was needed as God did not need to separate himself from his perfect creation at that time? If the gap theory is considered, "rightly dividing the word of truth" I believe it allows for an old earth and also clarifies a lot about how things came to be.

How about this: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (indeterminate timeframe) Now we have a gap between verse 1 and verse 2 of indeterminate time). In verse 2 the earth is found covered in water in a ruined state. The story proceeds with a 6 day creation (re-creation if you subscribe to the gap theory). Note 6 literal 24 hour days governed by evening/morning the first day.

If we continue with the study and put all the pieces together, we may find that we have a cohesive, literal truth about the history of our planet. Originally we have a creation that was perfect, Later in the Bible we get some history on Lucifer and his fall. In this fall, Lucifer condemns the earth and all it inhabitants to death (much as Adam/Eve have in the current world). The story plays out, possibly over millenium with the end result a dead world, covered in water, with a lot a history in the ground/fossils.

In Genesis 2 God recreates the world, creating almost all the animals "after their kind". If they had not existed prior, how could they be created after their kind? The only two creatures not created after their kind are the whale (new to the world) and man (created in God's image--spiritually mirroring the Trinity through soul, spirit, body). If I recall correctly the whale has been a serious problem for evolutionists, as well as the fact that they have yet to link modern man genetically to any of our supposed ancestors.

It should also be noted that man was created from the dust of this world, a pre-existing world which had already been corrupted by sin and still had all the evidence in the ground. There was a tree of life in the garden. What would be the purpose of the tree of life if Adam/Eve were immortal. They were not. They were built from the dust and as such were already corrupted and subject to death should they not partake of the tree. When they then chose to partake of the other tree, they allowed death back into the world and got themselves kicked out of the garden.

Anyway, I found this theory to be very interesting and it seems to fit the evidence well. I am curious what you all think about this. For more detail, please reference the site below from which I learned this theory:

http://www.kjvbible.org/

Even if you don't agree with everything you find, you'll likely learn a lot. I did.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

On the Narrow Road,

The 'Gap Theory' makes more sense than any other creation interpretation. Perhaps that is why it was abandoned as a serious explaination 100 years ago. We who still entertain it are the real 'dinosaurs' of enlightened creation thought. But that's ok, I like being a T-REX 'mungst the plant eaters!

oldwiseguy

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm interested. Where in chapter 1 does it give this description of heaven? How do you reconcile this description with v. 8 which explicitly names the firmament as "heaven". (English translations say "sky" but in Hebrew the word for "sky" is the same as the word for "heaven".)

How can heaven be both a firmament and an atmosphere?

I think you've answered your own question. The scripture defines it own terms in this account. Read it carefully a few times and I think you will see this. Don't argue with the scripture, let them talk to you.

oldwiseguy

 

[PaladinValer]

I believe Moses was right in his theology in Genesis.

Is Jesus concerned that we are theologicall right or secularly right?

I'd say it is the former.

TEs accept the theological truths and the moral truths. We simply reject the secular inaccuracies.

 

[Breetai]

God did not intend Adam and Eve to live forever as humans. The 'death' that came with sin was eternal/spiritual death; the cessation of being, of existing.

Animals, whether ancient or modern, have no promise of eternal life, and die. Prior to Adam there may have been billions of creatures that died a natural, physical death on a primevil earth. But there was no eternal life promised: therefore no eternal death.

The other entities, whether angels or demons, are composed of spirit and cannot die. The punishment for demons is eternal restraint. A fate worse than death for them.

Remember the demons that entered the swine and drowned in the sea? They weren't trying to kill the pigs. They were trying to kill themselves.

We are composed of flesh so that we can die, so that God can put us to death if need be, to satisfy His purpose.


oldwiseguy

Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Breetai]

Did he now? Where does he say his stories are literal history?




And where did he say this was literal history?

Why do you assume that God did not inspire Moses to teach the children of Israel via mythology?

Woah. Maybe Jesus was a myth? What wasn't a myth? I'm must following your train of thought to it's logical conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

I see you have a knack for reading things into the text that are not really there.

As do you.

I believe the Bible tells the history of Israel from the creation (6 day re-creation if you will) up through the end of this current world.

And on what basis do you believe all of it is history?

In the quotes above you do not see anything to indicate that the Bible is not literal, yet you assume it is mythology...

In the quotes above you do not see anything to indicate that Genesis 1 is not mythological, yet you assume it is literal...

As to the Bible, it is a collection of many writings of many types. You cannot make a general statement about the bible being literal or mythological or poetical or didactic or whatever, because there are examples of all of these and more. The genre of each text must be decided on a case-by-case basis according to the evidence.

Then you read into a comment about conservative Christians being Bible believing Christians as if the author's intent was to claim that only conservative Christians were Bible believing. I didn't hear that at all. He made no reference to those other than conservatives.

Exactly. He made no reference to those other than conservatives. Why raise the issue if he understood that "bible-believing" applies to all Christians? It would be superfluous to mention it unless he thought it was a distinctive of conservative Christians.

 

[FreezBee]

My point is that based on the confusion over what is described in Gen. One few have bothered to actually study it, instead repeating the misinterpretations of others.

Ok, and thanks for your clarification. You have a good point there

For example verse one states: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (KJV) Heaven is singular here, but many other translations read "heavens', plural. The chapter then goes on to describe exactly what this singular 'heaven' is: the atmosphere where birds fly, clouds gather, rain falls, and we breath.

The Hebrew is "B'reshit bara Elohim ha'shamayim waw ha'erets" - "shamayim" is plural, but always referred to as singular, so it's a matter of taste to translate it "heaven" or "heavens". However, you have a point wrong here - the lower limit of heaven is the clouds = the water above. The space between the earth and the clouds is not part of heaven, but of "raqia", the "expanse" as some translations have it.

The earth does not refer to the globe upon which he placed the 'earth', called 'dry land' in verse 9. but is the living soil from which all organic life would spring, watered by rain and dew continually purified by the distilling process of the water cycle created in the 'firmament' of the heaven and so described.

ooh, sorry to have to correct you again - the word for "soil" is "adama". The word "ha'erets" has various interpretations, according to context - the whole planet, just the dry land, or just the state of Israel, basically it means the area suitable for human habitation, so pick your choice accordingly

When this was ready land creatures and man were formed. Genesis One is the account of God 'preparing a place' for us, a living metaphor of things past and future, but completely accurate in it's literal meaning.

Depending on exactly, what you mean here, I may agree with you. Is it possible for you to be more specific about what you mean by this?


- FreezBee

 

[OldWiseGuy]

FreezBee,

Hey, you're a real night owl.

Regards "where do you get this stuff"; I seldom quote scripture, instead depending on the reader to recognize what I'm saying by their own knowledge of the bible accounts.

The (re) creation of GenOne is unambiguous if read as written. It refers to the creation of a biosphere specially created for air breathing critters including man. It's purpose is understood within the framework of the entire bible story. The "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" approach is vital to understanding any major element of it.

Example: Peter reveals that 'Adam was not deceived'. That alone, if properly understood, would cause many good Christian's heads to explode, as they would have to reassess everything that they now understand about the temptation.

We're told to study "precept upon precept", "line upon line", "here a little, there a little". And it's true. Not all vital information is found in any one place. That's why the whole bible must be continually studied, and that for a lifetime. God also reveals much through our personal human experience.


oldwiseguy

 

[gluadys]

I think you've answered your own question. The scripture defines it own terms in this account. Read it carefully a few times and I think you will see this. Don't argue with the scripture, let them talk to you.

oldwiseguy

I understand that the Hebrew term for 'firmament' is 'raqiya' derived from a root that means "beaten out' rather as a metal like gold can be beaten out to a thin expanse of gold leaf. The English term 'firmament' was chosen by the KJV translators to refer to the firmness and stability of the sky--although their conception was Ptolemaic rather than Hebraic.

Other references in the bible refer to the sky being spread out like a tent or the curtains of a tent, or suggest a dome-shaped structure or vault.

To me it is clear that atmosphere can be contained within such a structure, and that birds can fly and clouds can float in this atmosphere. But references to the atmosphere used by birds and clouds seem to be somewhat distinct from references to the containing firmament. Birds can fly within the area under a dome and so can be said to fly within the firmament. They don't fly in the material of the dome itself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

gluadys,

Point of view has everything to do with describing the firmament of heaven and shape of it and of the earth itself. From ground level the earth looks flat and the sky dome shaped, as it appears to curve down to the horizon. The higher we go the more we see the curve of the earth and know that the earth is globe shaped: the atmosphere being (comparatively) as thin as varnish on a desktop globe.

Often the bible writers wrote from their own point of view. John described end-time military devices as he saw them in vision. What he described as "locusts, whose sting is in their tail" is a perfect description of modern attack helicopters. You can tell that he struggled to describe what he saw. No problem though, as the meaning was being reserved for us today.

oldwiseguy

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Let me take my, not-sure-I-would-ever-call-myself-a-TE thoughts into this for the purpose of looking at scripture alone for evidence to whether evolution is true.

The NAS says in verse 5 "day one". Now it does say "there was evening and there was morning". I don't know what that is defined as. I'm not completely sure it can be defined by sun and moon since they are not created yet. But the term "day one" doesn't have to equate to 24 hours, although I do beleive it does. So the view that a day refers to a period is plausible. I preferably take the stance it was literal 24 hour periods of time that by how we view it but millions of years within each day. Okay not literally millions of years within each day because the last few days took a million or less.

I believe that no matter if evolution was used, Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans and that we are all decendants from Adam and Eve. If someone wants to demonstrate with scripture and that it is allegorical in its usage, I would listen to it. I don't know why people continue to call it taking the Bible literally. I take the Bible as absolute Truth and without fault, as long as it is contextually taken properly. And because of that, I think evolution has to be given its place because I think the Bible is open ended on the notion of evolution. Its not open ended as regards to Adam and Eve being the first humans and the cause of sin.


To defend the option of evolution, I would like any creationist to prove that animals could not have died before adam and eve with scripture.

 

[imind]

Moses wrote that God literally created Adam, Eve, and all living creatures c. 6000 years ago.

it says, specifically, 6000 years? no, i don't believe it does.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys,

Point of view has everything to do with describing the firmament of heaven and shape of it and of the earth itself. From ground level the earth looks flat and the sky dome shaped, as it appears to curve down to the horizon. The higher we go the more we see the curve of the earth and know that the earth is globe shaped: the atmosphere being (comparatively) as thin as varnish on a desktop globe.

Often the bible writers wrote from their own point of view. John described end-time military devices as he saw them in vision. What he described as "locusts, whose sting is in their tail" is a perfect description of modern attack helicopters. You can tell that he struggled to describe what he saw. No problem though, as the meaning was being reserved for us today.

oldwiseguy

Interpolating modern points of view into scripture is not IMHO good exegesis. We need to understand what the writers meant by what they wrote.

All examinations of ancient writings on the sky in the bible and outside of it, indicate the writers conceived the sky to be made of a solid material such as cloth, brass or crystal.

Even with the move to a Ptolemaic conception, which was upheld by the church for more than a millennium, held the sky to be a structure of hollow crystal spheres set one inside another, the smallest enclosing the sub-lunar atmosphere.

A modern notion like atmosphere thinning into outer space is totally foreign to the bible and should not be read into it, just because we know that is a more correct model of the cosmos than the biblical one.

Revelation, of course, is written entirely in the symbolic language of apocalypse. It was not intended to be an allegory of 21st century technology.

It is only your POV that provides occasion for comparing stinging locusts to today's helicopters. I am sure 18th century interpreters compared them to some other technology and 28th century interpreters (should the world last so long) will compare them to some other technology. But John's point is not about technology at all.

 

[Breetai]

it says, specifically, 6000 years? no, i don't believe it does.

Wow, you walked right into that one. You don't study your Bible much, do you?

Geneologies. Read them and calculate them. You end up with a range of about 6000 years in the Bible you probably use. That's one of the reasons that it's in there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All examinations of ancient writings on the sky in the bible and outside of it, indicate the writers conceived the sky to be made of a solid material such as cloth, brass or crystal.



The reference to 'brass' regarding the sky is well known to bible students and is found in Deut 28. The symbolism is clearly understandable.

Vs: 22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.


:23And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
:24The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.


oldwiseguy

 

[gluadys]

The reference to 'brass' regarding the sky is well known to bible students and is found in Deut 28. The symbolism is clearly understandable.

That doesn't take care of the half-dozen other references where it is not a simile. Not to mention the extra-biblical references.

The idea that the sky is not made of some sort of solid material is only as recent as Copernicus.

 

[FreezBee]

Often the bible writers wrote from their own point of view. John described end-time military devices as he saw them in vision. What he described as "locusts, whose sting is in their tail" is a perfect description of modern attack helicopters. You can tell that he struggled to describe what he saw. No problem though, as the meaning was being reserved for us today.

No, actually John described the evolution of locusts, as it will happen before the end time. Why exactly should the end time rather be now than any other time?

- FreezBee

 

[imind]

Wow, you walked right into that one. You don't study your Bible much, do you?

Geneologies. Read them and calculate them. You end up with a range of about 6000 years in the Bible you probably use. That's one of the reasons that it's in there.

you've inferred that you have studied the chronologies and the dates are accurate. please show your work.

you made an interesting point by saying, "...in the bible you probably use." as different versions of the bible will yield different results, this statement is very telling. disregarding this problem altogether, the chronologies are still problematic and have had biblical archeologists shortening and lengthening egyptian history to fit with their then accepted biblical chronology.

for an exceptional read on the many problems with biblical chronology, see this essay released by apologetics press.

http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/2503

and yes, it would seem that one of us walked right into something.