Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Between Man's written account of what God Inspired them to write and what we actually see? YES !!!
No, according to what is written vs what is actually out their.
God didn't write the Bible
God didn't dictate the Bible
God isn't the Bible.
Do you see what you have done in order to believe in evolution?
.
other than not worshiping the bible?
It is what is contained on the pages of the Bible, the Bible you so casually discard, that testifies of Him.
John 5:38-40 And ye have not His word abiding in you: for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.
If we don't do that, if we don't believe His words and instead listen to man then do we just speak our love and not honor Him with our hearts?
Matthew 15:7-9 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
One of the things we can search for, to see if "those things were so," would be....evolution.
.
God did not write the Bible: He did not literally pick up a divine pen and have a book drop out of the sky.
God did not dictate the Bible: Most of Scripture is composed of stories and letters. They were inspired by God, and God put exactly what he wanted in there, but he was not beaming words into the minds of the writers most times.
God is not the Bible: This should be obvious. God is not a book.
See? You deny the literal interpretation because with these you believe the science.There are no such passages. No where is it written that there is a flat earth or that the sun revolves around the earth. You are speaking of man's faulty concept of God's work, much as evolution.You realise you have done just that yourself? You have denied the literal meaning of the flat earth and geocentric passages because you believe man's ideas that the earth is spherical and goes round the sun.
Yes, the creation account is written, it is your understanding of it that is an interpretation, just like the flat earth or geocentric interpretations of scripture were a literal interpretation of the written text. In both cases the misunderstanding, not the lie, the misunderstanding, is in people's interpretation of the text where the literal interpretation is shown to be wrong by science.A point you must acknowledge is....the creation account is not an interpretation. It is written, not interpreted. Flat earth was not written...the creation was. Therefore the decision on where the lie is is quite simple.
If Matthew only give a genealogy of Christ back to David or Abraham, then he doesn't give the genealogy back to Adam. You constructed the genealogy back to Adam yourself. Luke only says Jesus' genealogy is 'supposed'. And he gives a genealogy for Joseph who wasn't Jesus father. There is no genealogy from Adam to Jesus in scripture.The geneology is given from Adam to Christ in the Bible! Please notice that both lines given in the two accounts had the common ancestor of David. From David the lineage is given back to Adam.
Like I said further down, and you don't really deal with it, 'after its kind' refers to the main clause in the verse the command to bring forth different kinds of grass and herbs and trees, not the subclause about bearing seeds. That is how kind is used throughout Genesis 1 as well as fitting all the other occurrences of kind in the OT.No it doesn't.The meaning is clearly given in.....
Round earth and heliocentrism are not written either. The theories of Erathostenes, Copernicus and Darwin all contradicted some people's interpretation of scripture, but not scripture itself. People got as upset about science contradicting their interpretation as you do. You call evolution a lie, Luther called Copernicus a fool, Cosmas Indicopleustes said Christians believing the earth is round were supping at the table of demons.Again....you are assuming that what they taught was against the written word. It wasn't. It was instead against man's warped idea of what was written. Creation is written....evolution is not.Yet you are quite happy with the theories Copernicus and Erathostenes.
That is certainly a traditional interpretation why Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, but don't forget we are talking about Psalm 90 where Moses describes a human life span as 70 or 80 years. You can interpret Psalm 90 as saying the days on Genesis refer to a 1000 years, that is a very old traditional interpretation. but it can also be read as saying God's concept of time is much longer than ours. It is not giving a strict conversion scale but a poetic comparison, which is why it isn't limited to 1000 years:1 day. It also says a thousand years is as a watch in the night. It is why Peter could reverse the comparison too and say a thousand years is as a day or a day as a thousand years. Each Genesis day being a thousand years is one way of interpreting Genesis in the light of Psalm 90, but it not the only interpretation. The OEC Day Age is just as legitimate an interpretation.A human lifespan was as a day in the Lord's time. Not any more.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.Did Adam die on the day (in our concept of 24 hours) when he partook of the fruit? No, so did God lie? No, for Adam died within a day in God's reckoning of time...a thousand years. He died spiritually within his day, He died physically within God's day.
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Of course. But you haven't addressed how the fossil evidence is any different from the kind of change we would expect to see if mankind evolved.Assyrian, man has been man (and woman) from the beginning. God created various races but those races were still...man.
Actually Psalm 104 follows the pattern of the days of Genesis to describe the world God created that the psalmist sees all around him. God appoints the sun and moon to make the seasons and day and night (day four), and we see lions going out hunting prey on the night shift, when they sneak home in the morning, Adam goes out to work. Leviathan is not deceiving anybody in Psalm 104, it say God made him to play in the sea. This is talking about day 5 in Genesis, God creating all the fish and the great whales, though the psalmist sets it in the present day along with ships. The description of God renewing the face of the ground describes how life dies away in dry season and in droughts and is renewed again by the Spirit of God. This new growth and new life when the rains come is God's continuing work of creation.Okay, I'll try to rightly divide.
The chapter of [Psalm 104] speaks of all three earth ages. It touches on when He "laid the foundations of the earth," in the first age....it speaks of events in this present second age (such as how Leviathan works with his deception) and then we have the above passage you quoted. It concerns The third and last age.
The new creation and renewal is....Revelation 21:1-2 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
It is actually saying that when the desert blooms with myrtle and acacia this is God's creation too.To me, this is simply saying that mankind will finally learn...it is the Holy One that created things (they didn't evolve but were created).
God forms us in our mother's womb.Jacob...a man, was created. He was formed when he became Israel, all twelve tribes. Formed for a specific purpose.Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.A question is...when was Jacob created? God answers the question in [Gen.2:1] for He tells us that alll the host of heaven and earth were created before He rested. That has to do with seed within each kind.
Mr and Mrs Smith might disagree with you.Indeed....this smith, this slayer was created for his job before God rested. He was one of the great lights.
A lot of generation have come since the psalm was written and praised God when they read itIt is "for a generation to come." In the next age they are created...see Ps.104.
In the bible?My apologies, I misunderstood. The new day begins at midnight.
.
There is nothing in the phrase 'after his kind' that suggests reproduction. Creationists have been told that is what it means, and when they read the phrase in Genesis they read that meaning into the text, but it isn't what the text actually say. It simply means different types of organisms. Like I said you made no attempt to look at what I said about how the phrase is actually used in Genesis.The question is, does 'after his kind' refer to the verb in the subclause 'whose seed was in itself' or to the main verb 'And the earth brought forth grass, and herb ...and the tree'? It certainly refers to the main verb in all the other passages.
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
If kind referred to reproduction, why was it only mentioned with plants but not with fish and land animals? What you have in each section is
(1) a command to produce these creature or saying God created them
(2) a list of the different main types of creature with a short description of them
(3) we are told this was according to their kind.
But according to their kind refers to the command to produce these different creatures, not the subclauses, unless God is commanding creepy crawlies to creep according to their kind too. If we look back in verses 11&12 trees bearing fruit and herbs bearing seed is simply a more detailed description of the herbs and trees, the same as birds are winged and sea creatures swarm. According to their kind refers to God's command to the earth to sprout vegetation, all the different type of plant according to its kind
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
But nothing about reproducing according to their kind.To my unscientific mind...seed and after his kind mean one thing....those things are to produce from seed after his kind. They are to bring forth according to their own kinds.
For that reason....species stay with their species.
Maybe the Holy Spirit is letting us see that the two creation accounts were written by different authors with different styles and vocabularies.Because words, phrases, etc. are not simply thrown into the Bible. They have significance. If it is stipulated that there are beasts of the earth and then beasts of the field...take notice. I know because the Holy Spirit opens my eyes to those differences and suddenly...I see.
There is no difference between you thinking God literally made the first man out of clay and geocentrists thinking the sun literally stopped moving when Joshua commanded it, or that the sun literally hurries to the place it rises after it goes down. How is their interpretation any different from yours? How am I to tell their interpretation is wrong when it contradicts science, but science is wrong when it contradicts your interpretation? Both of you claim to be showing me what the bible says, both are simply different interpretations.Yes, it is called interpretation and man was wrong. The Bible wasn't wrong but man's understanding was. The difference here is the creation account is written, it is correct and it isn't interpreted. Evolution is not written literally, metaphorically or in parable form.
Not quite. The description in Exodus 19:4 is metaphorical, the description in Exodus 15:19 is literal. Both describe the real event.His description was metaphorical....the event was literal.If it is being told in parable form, it is not telling you the way it actually happened.
Compare God's metaphorical description of crossing the Red Sea with what literally happened.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exodus 15:19 For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.
No it would a parable. Remember a metaphorical account does not contradict what really happened though it describes it very differently.Yes, parables are true. If you see the creation account as a parable...is it still not true? For evolution to be true than the account would be a lie.
What precisely is supposed to be the contradiction? How is God creating mankind in his image male and female from mud and different from God creating mankind in his image male and female through evolution out of primordial soup?So, whatever little gob of whatever in the great soup of the beginning...pulled itself out of the sea as one thing/entity and on it's own produced more thing/entities, some of which were male and some female. They in turn mated, produced different species...leading up to man.
That sure doesn't sound like...God created them male and female, in His image, after His likeness
Matt 22:42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David."and then gave them dominion over the very thing/entities that produced them. What about "honor your father and mother?"
Exactly, and you were advocating the same view as the scoffersI don't think so Assyrian...it appears to be the scoffers Peter is criticising....
11 Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
The claim is more rhetoric and assertion rather than evidence. You would need a tin the size of the planet and have to leave it for hundreds of thousands of years, mixing it up throwing in geothermal vents and the odd lightening bolt, but that is still aboigenesis not evolution, we were discussing the evidence man evolving from earlier apes.I once heard someone say that a can of Campbell's chicken soup had very similar amino acids (or some technical term) to man. However, were it to sit on the counter for a thousand years it would just be...really, really, old soup.
Why? I agree with them. If you look at the geocentric passages and ignore what you know about science, or simply hadn't heard the earth goes round the sun, then the literal reading is the most obvious. In fact as a young Christian and creationist I wanted to be able to build my entire world view from scripture, I quickly ran into the problem that I realised that would mean a flat earth and geocentrism too, so I put the idea back on the shelf, a question maybe to come back to later. On the other hand the creation accounts in Genesis are full of metaphor and symbol.Then you must take it up with them.
It is good to be able to discuss the scripture with other believers when you can disagree, without being well, disagreeable.I love that passage! We do see dimly...some dimmer than others. :o But even though my scientic knowledge is exceedingly dim my reading and understanding of the written Word improves daily. For that reason I asked for any hint of evolution being mentioned in Scriptures...anything at all to cause me to see the creation account in a different light. So far...nothing. But, I have very much enjoyed this dialogue...thank you Assyrian..
Yes. The beginnings of the various races of mankind were placed here on the sixth day.
and ... Please provide a verse anywhere that contradicts gravity or germs. You keep saying that yet don't offer anything.Because germs and gravity are NOT mentioned. Creation is.
Please provide a verse.
It doesn't mention many things. That has no bearing on this at all. Creation IS mentioned and evolution tells us it is a lie.
What I see is that Joseph was the son of Heli. Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. That gives the legal line.
I also see in Matthew that Joseph was not just the husband of Mary but her father too was named Joseph. (count the generations for the key) It appears to me to be a mistranslation of husband and father.
(WW, post #85)So, Heli would be the father of Mary.
The geneologies are literal. I previously wrote that when there is an apparent conflict it means we need to dig in for it contains a lesson
or it is a mistranslation.
At the beginning of the King James the translators said they did their best but errors would certainly have been made. They, after all...are men.
We know that the orginal is to be trusted for it was protected with the Massorah. Fragments of the dead sea scrolls are exact matches with the text handed down over the centuries.
For that reason....species stay with their species.
His description was metaphorical....the event was literal.
......Yes, parables are true. If you see the creation account as a parable...is it still not true? For evolution to be true than the account would be a lie.
How, by direct beaming it into your brain? You didn't learn that from men?The bible wasn't written by humans and it was our Father that gives us that nugget of truth.
So you are believing something taught by a human?My mother taught me (that Jesus existed).
Then nature taught me. Now His Spirit guides me.
There is nothing in the phrase 'after his kind' that suggests reproduction. Creationists have been told that is what it means, and when they read the phrase in Genesis they read that meaning into the text, but it isn't what the text actually say. It simply means different types of organisms. Like I said you made no attempt to look at what I said about how the phrase is actually used in Genesis.
Maybe the Holy Spirit is letting us see that the two creation accounts were written by different authors with different styles and vocabularies.
I realise you want there to be a difference to avoid the fact the two accounts give completely different sequences of creation, Yet Genesis two describes the beasts of the field and birds of the heavens as 'living creatures' the same 'living creatures' we see created before Adam in Genesis 1 and after Adam in Genesis 2. These living creatures God creates and brings to Adam included 'all livestock', created after Adam in Genesis 2 but before Adam in Genesis 1, and 'very bird of the heavens' created after Adam in Genesis 2 but back on day five in Genesis 1.
There is no difference between you thinking God literally made the first man out of clay and geocentrists thinking the sun literally stopped moving when Joshua commanded it, or that the sun literally hurries to the place it rises after it goes down. How is their interpretation any different from yours? How am I to tell their interpretation is wrong when it contradicts science, but science is wrong when it contradicts your interpretation? Both of you claim to be showing me what the bible says, both are simply different interpretations.
Not quite. The description in Exodus 19:4 is metaphorical, the description in Exodus 15:19 is literal. Both describe the real event.
But notice how a metaphorical description can appear to contradict what really happened if you take it literally, thinking God really flew the Israelites out of Egypt instead of them walking, or that God really made Adam out of clay instead of mankind evolving. But the contradiction is simply the result of taking the metaphor literally instead of metaphorically.
WW - Yes, parables are true. If you see the creation account as a parable...is it still not true? For evolution to be true than the account would be a lie.
No it would a parable. Remember a metaphorical account does not contradict what really happened though it describes it very differently.
What precisely is supposed to be the contradiction? How is God creating mankind in his image male and female from mud and different from God creating mankind in his image male and female through evolution out of primordial soup?
WW - and then gave them dominion over the very thing/entities that produced them. What about "honor your father and mother?"Matt 22:42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David."
43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'?
45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?"
Did Jesus not honour his father David?
No. The scoffers are those that "walk after their own lusts." When one walks according to His written words then they aren't scoffers...they are followers.Exactly, and you were advocating the same view as the scoffers
All things are as they were....we don't evolve into something else.
The claim is more rhetoric and assertion rather than evidence. You would need a tin the size of the planet and have to leave it for hundreds of thousands of years, mixing it up throwing in geothermal vents and the odd lightening bolt, but that is still aboigenesis not evolution, we were discussing the evidence man evolving from earlier apes.
Why? I agree with them. If you look at the geocentric passages and ignore what you know about science, or simply hadn't heard the earth goes round the sun, then the literal reading is the most obvious. In fact as a young Christian and creationist I wanted to be able to build my entire world view from scripture, I quickly ran into the problem that I realised that would mean a flat earth and geocentrism too, so I put the idea back on the shelf, a question maybe to come back to later. On the other hand the creation accounts in Genesis are full of metaphor and symbol.
It is good to be able to discuss the scripture with other believers when you can disagree, without being well, disagreeable.
See? You deny the literal interpretation because with these you believe the science.
Yes, the creation account is written, it is your understanding of it that is an interpretation, just like the flat earth or geocentric interpretations of scripture were a literal interpretation of the written text. In both cases the misunderstanding, not the lie, the misunderstanding, is in people's interpretation of the text where the literal interpretation is shown to be wrong by science.
But you haven't dealt with the question. How do you decide when to accept science and reject the interpretations of scripture that contradict the science, and when to hold on to the interpretation of scripture and claim the science is a lie?
If Matthew only give a genealogy of Christ back to David or Abraham, then he doesn't give the genealogy back to Adam. You constructed the genealogy back to Adam yourself. Luke only says Jesus' genealogy is 'supposed'. And he gives a genealogy for Joseph who wasn't Jesus father. There is no genealogy from Adam to Jesus in scripture.
Like I said further down, and you don't really deal with it, 'after its kind' refers to the main clause in the verse the command to bring forth different kinds of grass and herbs and trees, not the subclause about bearing seeds. That is how kind is used throughout Genesis 1 as well as fitting all the other occurrences of kind in the OT.
Round earth and heliocentrism are not written either. The theories of Erathostenes, Copernicus and Darwin all contradicted some people's interpretation of scripture, but not scripture itself. People got as upset about science contradicting their interpretation as you do. You call evolution a lie, Luther called Copernicus a fool, Cosmas Indicopleustes said Christians believing the earth is round were supping at the table of demons.
That is certainly a traditional interpretation why Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, but don't forget we are talking about Psalm 90 where Moses describes a human life span as 70 or 80 years. You can interpret Psalm 90 as saying the days on Genesis refer to a 1000 years, that is a very old traditional interpretation. but it can also be read as saying God's concept of time is much longer than ours. It is not giving a strict conversion scale but a poetic comparison, which is why it isn't limited to 1000 years:1 day. It also says a thousand years is as a watch in the night. It is why Peter could reverse the comparison too and say a thousand years is as a day or a day as a thousand years. Each Genesis day being a thousand years is one way of interpreting Genesis in the light of Psalm 90, but it not the only interpretation. The OEC Day Age is just as legitimate an interpretation.
Of course. But you haven't addressed how the fossil evidence is any different from the kind of change we would expect to see if mankind evolved.
Actually Psalm 104 follows the pattern of the days of Genesis to describe the world God created that the psalmist sees all around him. God appoints the sun and moon to make the seasons and day and night (day four), and we see lions going out hunting prey on the night shift, when they sneak home in the morning, Adam goes out to work. Leviathan is not deceiving anybody in Psalm 104, it say God made him to play in the sea. This is talking about day 5 in Genesis, God creating all the fish and the great whales, though the psalmist sets it in the present day along with ships. The description of God renewing the face of the ground describes how life dies away in dry season and in droughts and is renewed again by the Spirit of God. This new growth and new life when the rains come is God's continuing work of creation.
It is actually saying that when the desert blooms with myrtle and acacia this is God's creation too.
God forms us in our mother's womb.
Mr and Mrs Smith might disagree with you.
A lot of generation have come since the psalm was written and praised God when they read it
In the bible?
God didn't write the Bible
God didn't dictate the Bible
God isn't the Bible.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (John 1:1)
Can anyone say "compromise"? This is what happens when you let the ideas of men poison the understanding of scripture.
Yes, and that's talking about Jesus, not the Bible
Yet all you can do is claim it is self evident and disagree with my exegesis, but not actually answer my analysis of the text.But creationist never told me it means reproduction. To me, it is self-evident. I did look at what you said but I don't agree...at all.
Where does God tell you there is a difference? The bible can use synonyms too. If beast of the earth (Gen 1), and beast of the field (Gen 2) have to refer to completely different sorts of animals, does God (Gen 1) and LORD God (Gen 2) refer to completely different deities?It is not that I "want there to be a difference," but that God tells us there is a difference.
There is certainly only One God inspiring all scripture, but the bible does not tell us there was only one human author for Genesis 1-3, nor does it tell you it is only one account, in fact the bible puts a new heading right in the middle in Gen 2:4. If you want to take each word into account why not answer my questions about when 'living creatures', 'all livestock' and 'every bird of the heavens' were created?There is One author and one account of creation. Deep mysteries are contained in Genesis and each word should be taken into account. It is fascinating.
There is no difference. The passages quoted by the geocentrists were written too. Why should I believe you and not them? Or why should I reject their interpretations when they conflict with science but not yours?But there is a difference Assyrian. What is written is written. The creation is written. For an interpretation of the written word to be accepted it cannot be in conflict with God's account. Evolution is.
Great. Genesis 2&3 is loaded with symbolism too. But that is not what we are looking at, but why you think a metaphorical interretation of Genesis would still conflict with evolution, when a metaphorical understanding of Exodus 19:4 does not conflict with the way the Israelites really left Egypt.All of [Ex.15] I see figuratively...all of it. From who the Pharoah is, what his chariots are, where they are now...all the way to the twelve wells of water and ten palm trees. It is loaded with symbolism.
Not if God making Adam from clay is a metaphor like all the other potter metaphors in scripture. None of them are describing timescale.But evolution is a contradiction...not just a different description. The conflicts are that evolution happens over the millennia, the creation didn't.
No conflict with evolution there, because the theory of evolution says nothing about God or his purpose.Also, at that creation we were in His image, in His likeness,
The human race was male and female from the beginning. Where is the conflict.male and female from the beginning
The purpose of male and female in evolution certainly is evolution.in order to procreate,
That is just assertion, not a conflict between evolution and scriptionwe didn't evolve into that
I don't see why that is a problem. David was given dominion over Israel when he was made king, didn't stop him being an Israelite. Incidentally mankind wasn't given dominion, they were told to subdue the earth and have dominion over the creatures.and that upon that creation man was given dominion over the very creatures you believe we came from.
You never did support you claim about kinds.And, in these created entities He placed seed so they produced after their kind.
Small variations over billions of generations. Look how far dogs have come in a few thousand years. Now think of the early tetrapods like Tiktaalik crawling out of the sea 375 million years ago. Don't forget, each new species to emerge has the possibility of varying and diverging just like dogs have.Last night I watched a show I recorded...National Geographic's Great Migration. As I watched, with awe, I thought of you Assyrian, questioning how you can believe this came about from evolution? How can the myriad creatures on this earth and in our oceans come from some single life form that somehow evolved into all the wonderous creatures, including man, that are here today?
He never mentioned apes, but why is there a conflict with honouring your father and mother, if there is no conflict with David calling the Messiah, his child, 'Lord'?Indeed He did. Did He honor the ape some say He came from?
You quoted the scoffers. It may be written in the bible but it is recorded as the words of scoffers. Listen, I am not trying to nail you on this, it was a simple mistake, but as they say, when you are in a hole stop digging.No. The scoffers are those that "walk after their own lusts." When one walks according to His written words then they aren't scoffers...they are followers.
And it is still simple assertion to claim life would not arise by abiogenesis, and it is still nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.Ok, a really BIG can of soup with geothermal vents and lightning bolts...still it would be a really BIG can of soup.
You know these were godly men, some of the greatest bible scholars in the history of the church men like Augustine Athanasius and Chrysostom, reformers like Luther and Calvin who thought the bible described the sun going round the earth. If we cannot understand how they could make such a mistake, if we cannot understand how they read these passages as teaching the sun went round a fixed earth, how can we ever hope to avoid similar mistakes ourselves?I don't see any geocentric passages.
So if there is a conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and science, perhaps the real meaning of Genesis is found in the symbolism.Yes, Genesis is full of symbology.
Indeed it is.
Do you see in scripture that it is the sun that moves in the sky during the day, not that it is the earth rotating and the sun staying still, or that the sun hurries along every night to get to the place it rises? Do you read in scripture that the earth cannot not be moved? That is why Christians had problems with heliocentrism, it contradicts the plain meaning of a lot of different passages of scripture.No Assyrian I'm not. I don't see a written account of the sun revolving around the earth so I'm not denying anything that is written.
What you call 'agreeing with what is written' means deciding it is meant to be taken literally, trying to understand what it means taken literally and working out different ways to understand the text to avoid contradictions in the literal sequence of events between Genesis 1 & 2. Evolution is not an interpretation because no one reads evolution into the text, just as they didn't read heliocentrism into the traditional geocentric texts. Instead they found other interpretations, not ones that teach evolution or heliocentrism, but simply ones that do not contradict what we know of science.I would think that agreeing with what is written is not an interpretation. Rather the interpretation would be...evolution...the theory that is proven wrong by the text.
How can scripture decide when we have to decide what scripture means, in other words interpret it? How do I know when scripture is being literal and accept evolution is a lie, and when do I decide literal interpretation like flat earth and geocentrism are mistaken?I can easily (or sort of kind of easily) let go of interpretations but it is Scripture that decides. If there is a disagreement on a vital understanding, such as this, then Scripture will always win.
It doesn't, same as it doesn't give us an understanding the earth is really spherical or that it goes round the sun instead of the sun going round the earth.Where is Scripture giving understanding to evolution in lieu of the creation account?
No you are still constructing a genealogy from Adam to Christ, the bible does not give you the genealogy. We do not know what Matthew though of the earlier part of the genealogies in Genesis, you are assuming he took it literally. For all we know he simply wasn't interested in them. Luke's genealogy is described as 'supposed', which doesn't give us a basis for doing anything with the genealogy other than realising it was what people at the time thought.I thought we came to an understanding about this pages ago.
Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, (34)Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, (38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (6) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
From Adam, through Abraham, through David and then His son Nathan we have one geneology.
This geneaology is through Solomon, son of David, son of Abraham...and we go back all the way to Adam in the Luke generational account. The common ancestor bringing the two lines together is David. The account from there, from David to Adam is the same. Both accounts have Adam as the beginning.
First part right: After his kind means....after his kind. The bible doesn't say each creature brings forth other creatures after his kind. The bible consistently uses the phrase 'after his kind' to describe the different types of creature, for example Leviticus listing the different types of animals the Israelites could and could not eat. Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; It means all the different kinds of vulture and kite, every variety of raven was unclean and should not be eaten. It is not about how they reproduce.No it isn't. After his kind means....after his kind. Each creature brings forth other creatures just as it is...after his kind.
Where does 'the circle of the earth' tell you the earth is spherical rather than flat? The bible does not tell us the earth is a sphere.That takes us back to the "circle of the earth."Round earth and heliocentrism are not written either. The theories of Erathostenes, Copernicus and Darwin all contradicted some people's interpretation of scripture, but not scripture itself. People got as upset about science contradicting their interpretation as you do. You call evolution a lie, Luther called Copernicus a fool, Cosmas Indicopleustes said Christians believing the earth is round were supping at the table of demons.
So what do the ten virgins represent in Jesus' parable, five wise and five foolish?Biblical numbers have meaning. So, I could agree with you. The number seven, or 144,000, I believe is simply symbolic of a certain number for those the numbers represent. But...they represent something literal. The two witnesses are actually many for they are two groups of witnesses. But, nevertheless...the number two is still a literal number for the witnessess.
1Pet 3:8 A thousand years is as a dayOddly, I find no definition given for the number 1,000. So, I take it as a literal length of time.
The similarities and the gradual change from apelike to human does not depend on reconstructions of the flesh on the skulls, but on the comparison of the sizes and shapes of the bones and the cranial capacities. Of course it is easier to see the gradual change when the faces are reconstructed. Some of the species are side branches that became extinct, others evolved over time and became you and me. Of course as you say they are all animals. Examine our physiology and we are animals too, just larger brained and with less hair than our relatives.You know I'm not qualified to specifically address that. I will say that the creatures, or how they depict these fossils to appear after clothing them with flesh....are no more than animals. Did apes adapt into smaller and more agile apes? Did those skeletal remains simply become extinct? I don't know but they simply appear to be animals to me. And, them being animals is in line with Scripture.
Interesting, you read a description of the creation and you interpret it figuratively.It is a thread on it's own. It describes the previous age...the creation of terra firma. then it speaks of the Leviathan (Levi-athan) that plays in the sea in this age....and their playing is to deceive those (people, nations and tongues) that are what the sea represents. [Rev.17:15]
Umm the bible does not say we were all created in the beginning.Yes, we were created at the beginning...in the seed. We are formed, if we are His elect, in the womb.
Instead of the slayer I pictured Brad Pitt and Anjolina Jolie.
God still creates each new generation.Agreed. It is to be read and praised by all generations but more understanding is given to those of the last generation...the latter rain.
Hope they are suitably mollifiedYou keep bringing up topics that are truly threads of their own. I don't have time to go into this now....I have an unhappy client to placate shortly. I'll try to answer this later.
No, to be pedantic hereThe question was....when does the new day begin...in the bible?
The Hebrew day begins at sundown.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).
Both the evening and morning are day(light). Evening begins when the sun is directly overhead (even-ly dividing the sky) and continues until the sun is even with the earth...sundown, evening ends and with it that full 24 hour day ends. The beginning of night begins the counting of the next 24 hour day.
Papias....Back to our questions:
Q1:
So which is it? Was mankind created male and female, as Jesus said, which is consistent with the evolution of male and female concurrently through evolution, OR, was man made only as a male first, by mouth to nose recusitation on a mudpie, as a literal interpretation (only) of Genesis says?
WW wrote:
Yes. The beginnings of the various races of mankind were placed here on the sixth day.
Papias - Resolved for now. WW's two step human origin view (where God made humans on the sixth day, then later made Adam after humas already existed) resolves the "OR" above. As we saw in the other thread, practically no one (YECs nor theistic evolution supporters) agrees with WW on this. Both sides see WW as simply misreading Genesis.
Q 2: Papias wrote:
So then do you agree that "theory" doesn't mean "unproven"? Q2 Do you agree to stop using the term "theory" when you mean "hypothesis"? You might also read Polycarp's good post, where he explains this too.
Resolved. After two replies (#441 most recent), it appears that WW maintains that the proper use of terms "has no relevance", and has repeated refused to say she will not misuse this term. WW says she read polycarp's post, so WW must understand the proper use of the term "theory".
Q3: Papias wrote: So if evolution is evil because it contradicts a literal reading, then why are Heliocentric theory, germ theory, Gravitational theory not evil, even though they too contradict a literal reading? Q3
WW - Because germs and gravity are NOT mentioned. Creation is.
and ... Please provide a verse anywhere that contradicts gravity or germs. You keep saying that yet don't offer anything.
Please provide a verse. It doesn't mention many things. That has no bearing on this at all. Creation IS mentioned and evolution tells us it is a lie.
Papias -
OK, some of the many verses for these:
1. Cosmolgy IS mentioned and heliocentrism tells us it is a lie. One of the many verses is Ps 19:4:
he set a tabernacle for the sun, .... His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
So where is the tabernacle that God keeps the sun in? Or is that a metaphor? Is the sun on a circuit around the earth? Or is that a figure of speech not to be taken literally?
another verse is Job 9:6, saying that the earth is on pillars. Where are those pillars? That contradicts gravity, which says that the earth is not on pillars, but is in place due to the sun's gravity.
The cause of sickness is mentioned (many times) and germ theory tells us it is a lie. An example is 9:20, where the boy clearly has epilepsy, yet the text literally says that the boy is possessed by a demon.
Q4Do you agree that the idea that Heli was Joseph's father in law contradicts the clear text of Luke, which states that Heli was Joseph's father?
Resolved. We now agree that Luke says that Joseph was the son (not the son in law) of Heli, and that Heli was not the Father of Mary (whom Catholicism says was St. Joachim).
WW wrote:
What I see is that Joseph was the son of Heli. Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. That gives the legal line.
I also see in Matthew that Joseph was not just the husband of Mary but her father too was named Joseph. (count the generations for the key) It appears to me to be a mistranslation of husband and father.
So, Heli would be the father of Mary.
(WW, post #85)
Now we've got three people who are the father of Mary (your two, Heli and Joseph, and my one, Saint Joachim)?
Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally? Q5
The geneologies are literal. I previously wrote that when there is an apparent conflict it means we need to dig in for it contains a lesson
If it contains a lesson, then isn't it a figurative geneology, not a literal one?
or it is a mistranslation.
and :
WW - At the beginning of the King James the translators said they did their best but errors would certainly have been made. They, after all...are men.
Papias - So then you are putting all your trust in the works of men, while the work of God (the creation around us) offers evidence, which is also the word of God, that repeatedly confrims the evolution of humans from apes?
In response to this:
Papias wrote:
Are you saying we can't trust what our each of our different Bibles say? Even if we go back to our oldest copies, we don't have anything near the originals of any of the books of either of our Bibles. If that's a possibility, then how do you know that genesis isn't a mistranslation or copying error
WW replied:
We know that the orginal is to be trusted for it was protected with the Massorah. Fragments of the dead sea scrolls are exact matches with the text handed down over the centuries.
Papias -
OK, plain simple falsehood # (what, three? I lost count). The dead sea scrolls were found to differ from the Bibles we have (regardless of which one you choose). Even in well copied books, like Isaiah, there were dozens of differences, and in many books there were hundreds or more of differences, including added paragraphs, words, lines and so on. The DSS also contained a listing of the kinds in the Genesis creation story.
WW, would you like to retract your statement that DSS are exact matches? It's amazing how common that misperception is. Apologists will regularly tell people that "the amount of agreement with the DSS and our modern Bibles is amazing!!!!!", which, I guess it is if you are expecting thousands of differences. But that's a far cry from saying they match, which everyone agrees they don't. So people are misled by these apologists to think they match, and the apologist doesn't tell them that there are dozens or more differences.
Q6 (I think)
WW, I'm still waiting for you to kindly tell me which of the skulls are ape and which are human, or just the post number where you gave this (you said you already gave that).
WW wrote:
For that reason....species stay with their species.
Q7: A huge list of species evolving into other species has been posted. Do you now agree that species have been observed to evolve into new species?
Q8 (from Assyrian):
His description was metaphorical....the event was literal.
......Yes, parables are true. If you see the creation account as a parable...is it still not true? For evolution to be true than the account would be a lie.
So then are you saying that because the Jews were not borne out of egypt on the backs of birds, Ex 19:4 is a lie?
WW - The bible wasn't written by humans and it was our Father that gives us that nugget of truth.
Papias - How, by direct beaming it into your brain? You didn't learn that from men?
Q9 (WW learning things from humans)
My mother taught me (that Jesus existed).
Papias - So you are believing something taught by a human?
WW - Then nature taught me. Now His Spirit guides me.
Papias - So we are to look to the creation around us, to nature, for guidance as to how to know what to believe?
I'm sure I missed some in there, but that'll do for now. Have a good day-
Papias
Assyrian
Originally Posted by 1whirlwind
WW - But creationist never told me it means reproduction. To me, it is self-evident. I did look at what you said but I don't agree...at all.
Assyrian - Yet all you can do is claim it is self evident and disagree with my exegesis, but not actually answer my analysis of the text.
WW - It is not that I "want there to be a difference," but that God tells us there is a difference.
Assyrian - Where does God tell you there is a difference? The bible can use synonyms too. If beast of the earth (Gen 1), and beast of the field (Gen 2) have to refer to completely different sorts of animals, does God (Gen 1) and LORD God (Gen 2) refer to completely different deities?
WW - There is One author and one account of creation. Deep mysteries are contained in Genesis and each word should be taken into account. It is fascinating.
A - (I had a hard time abbreviating your nameso I settled on "A")
There is certainly only One God inspiring all scripture, but the bible does not tell us there was only one human author for Genesis 1-3, nor does it tell you it is only one account, in fact the bible puts a new heading right in the middle in Gen 2:4. If you want to take each word into account why not answer my questions about when 'living creatures', 'all livestock' and 'every bird of the heavens' were created?
WW - But there is a difference Assyrian. What is written is written. The creation is written. For an interpretation of the written word to be accepted it cannot be in conflict with God's account. Evolution is.
A - There is no difference. The passages quoted by the geocentrists were written too. Why should I believe you and not them? Or why should I reject their interpretations when they conflict with science but not yours?
WW - All of [Ex.15] I see figuratively...all of it. From who the Pharoah is, what his chariots are, where they are now...all the way to the twelve wells of water and ten palm trees. It is loaded with symbolism.
A - Great. Genesis 2&3 is loaded with symbolism too. But that is not what we are looking at, but why you think a metaphorical interretation of Genesis would still conflict with evolution, when a metaphorical understanding of Exodus 19:4 does not conflict with the way the Israelites really left Egypt.
WW - But evolution is a contradiction...not just a different description. The conflicts are that evolution happens over the millennia, the creation didn't.
A - Not if God making Adam from clay is a metaphor like all the other potter metaphors in scripture. None of them are describing timescale.
WW - Also, at that creation we were in His image, in His likeness,
A - No conflict with evolution there, because the theory of evolution says nothing about God or his purpose.
WW - male and female from the beginning
A - The human race was male and female from the beginning. Where is the conflict.
WW - in order to procreate,
A- The purpose of male and female in evolution certainly is evolution.
WW - we didn't evolve into that
A - That is just assertion, not a conflict between evolution and scription
WW - and that upon that creation man was given dominion over the very creatures you believe we came from.
A - I don't see why that is a problem. David was given dominion over Israel when he was made king, didn't stop him being an Israelite. Incidentally mankind wasn't given dominion, they were told to subdue the earth and have dominion over the creatures.
WW - And, in these created entities He placed seed so they produced after their kind.
A - You never did support you claim about kinds.
WW - Last night I watched a show I recorded...National Geographic's Great Migration. As I watched, with awe, I thought of you Assyrian, questioning how you can believe this came about from evolution? How can the myriad creatures on this earth and in our oceans come from some single life form that somehow evolved into all the wonderous creatures, including man, that are here today?
A - Small variations over billions of generations. Look how far dogs have come in a few thousand years. Now think of the early tetrapods like Tiktaalik crawling out of the sea 375 million years ago. Don't forget, each new species to emerge has the possibility of varying and diverging just like dogs have.
WW - Indeed He did. Did He honor the ape some say He came from?
A- He never mentioned apes, but why is there a conflict with honouring your father and mother, if there is no conflict with David calling the Messiah, his child, 'Lord'?
WW - No. The scoffers are those that "walk after their own lusts." When one walks according to His written words then they aren't scoffers...they are followers.
A - You quoted the scoffers. It may be written in the bible but it is recorded as the words of scoffers. Listen, I am not trying to nail you on this, it was a simple mistake, but as they say, when you are in a hole stop digging.
WW - Ok, a really BIG can of soup with geothermal vents and lightning bolts...still it would be a really BIG can of soup.
A - And it is still simple assertion to claim life would not arise by abiogenesis, and it is still nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.
WW - I don't see any geocentric passages.
A - You know these were godly men, some of the greatest bible scholars in the history of the church men like Augustine Athanasius and Chrysostom, reformers like Luther and Calvin who thought the bible described the sun going round the earth. If we cannot understand how they could make such a mistake, if we cannot understand how they read these passages as teaching the sun went round a fixed earth, how can we ever hope to avoid similar mistakes ourselves?
Yes, Genesis is full of symbology.
A - So if there is a conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and science, perhaps the real meaning of Genesis is found in the symbolism.
Indeed it is.
WW - No Assyrian I'm not. I don't see a written account of the sun revolving around the earth so I'm not denying anything that is written.
A - Do you see in scripture that it is the sun that moves in the sky during the day, not that it is the earth rotating and the sun staying still, or that the sun hurries along every night to get to the place it rises? Do you read in scripture that the earth cannot not be moved? That is why Christians had problems with heliocentrism, it contradicts the plain meaning of a lot of different passages of scripture.
WW - I would think that agreeing with what is written is not an interpretation. Rather the interpretation would be...evolution...the theory that is proven wrong by the text.
A - What you call 'agreeing with what is written' means deciding it is meant to be taken literally, trying to understand what it means taken literally and working out different ways to understand the text to avoid contradictions in the literal sequence of events between Genesis 1 & 2. Evolution is not an interpretation because no one reads evolution into the text, just as they didn't read heliocentrism into the traditional geocentric texts. Instead they found other interpretations, not ones that teach evolution or heliocentrism, but simply ones that do not contradict what we know of science.
WW - I can easily (or sort of kind of easily ) let go of interpretations but it is Scripture that decides. If there is a disagreement on a vital understanding, such as this, then Scripture will always win.
A - How can scripture decide when we have to decide what scripture means, in other words interpret it? How do I know when scripture is being literal and accept evolution is a lie, and when do I decide literal interpretation like flat earth and geocentrism are mistaken?
WW - Where is Scripture giving understanding to evolution in lieu of the creation account?
A- It doesn't, same as it doesn't give us an understanding the earth is really spherical or that it goes round the sun instead of the sun going round the earth.
WW -I thought we came to an understanding about this pages ago.
Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, (34)Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, (38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
From Adam, through Abraham, through David and then His son Nathan we have one geneology.
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (6) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
This geneaology is through Solomon, son of David, son of Abraham...and we go back all the way to Adam in the Luke generational account. The common ancestor bringing the two lines together is David. The account from there, from David to Adam is the same. Both accounts have Adam as the beginning.
A - No you are still constructing a genealogy from Adam to Christ, the bible does not give you the genealogy. We do not know what Matthew though of the earlier part of the genealogies in Genesis, you are assuming he took it literally. For all we know he simply wasn't interested in them. Luke's genealogy is described as 'supposed', which doesn't give us a basis for doing anything with the genealogy other than realising it was what people at the time thought.
WW - No it isn't. After his kind means....after his kind. Each creature brings forth other creatures just as it is...after his kind.
A - First part right: After his kind means....after his kind. The bible doesn't say each creature brings forth other creatures after his kind. The bible consistently uses the phrase 'after his kind' to describe the different types of creature, for example Leviticus listing the different types of animals the Israelites could and could not eat. Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; It means all the different kinds of vulture and kite, every variety of raven was unclean and should not be eaten. It is not about how they reproduce.
WW - Round earth and heliocentrism are not written either. The theories of Erathostenes, Copernicus and Darwin all contradicted some people's interpretation of scripture, but not scripture itself.
A - People got as upset about science contradicting their interpretation as you do. You call evolution a lie, Luther called Copernicus a fool, Cosmas Indicopleustes said Christians believing the earth is round were supping at the table of demons.
WW - That takes us back to the "circle of the earth."
A - Where does 'the circle of the earth' tell you the earth is spherical rather than flat? The bible does not tell us the earth is a sphere.
Biblical numbers have meaning. So, I could agree with you. The number seven, or 144,000, I believe is simply symbolic of a certain number for those the numbers represent. But...they represent something literal. The two witnesses are actually many for they are two groups of witnesses. But, nevertheless...the number two is still a literal number for the witnessess.
A - So what do the ten virgins represent in Jesus' parable, five wise and five foolish?
WW - Oddly, I find no definition given for the number 1,000. So, I take it as a literal length of time.
A - 1Pet 3:8 A thousand years is as a day
WW - You know I'm not qualified to specifically address that. I will say that the creatures, or how they depict these fossils to appear after clothing them with flesh....are no more than animals. Did apes adapt into smaller and more agile apes? Did those skeletal remains simply become extinct? I don't know but they simply appear to be animals to me. And, them being animals is in line with Scripture.
A - The similarities and the gradual change from apelike to human does not depend on reconstructions of the flesh on the skulls, but on the comparison of the sizes and shapes of the bones and the cranial capacities. Of course it is easier to see the gradual change when the faces are reconstructed. Some of the species are side branches that became extinct, others evolved over time and became you and me. Of course as you say they are all animals. Examine our physiology and we are animals too, just larger brained and with less hair than our relatives.
WW - It is a thread on it's own. It describes the previous age...the creation of terra firma. then it speaks of the Leviathan (Levi-athan) that plays in the sea in this age....and their playing is to deceive those (people, nations, tongues) that are what the sea represents. [Rev.17:15]
A - Interesting, you read a description of the creation and you interpret it figuratively.
WW - Yes, we were created at the beginning...in the seed. We are formed, if we are His elect, in the womb.
A - Umm the bible does not say we were all created in the beginning.
Ezek 21:28 "And you, son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites and concerning their reproach; say, A sword, a sword is drawn for the slaughter. It is polished to consume and to flash like lightning--
29 while they see for you false visions, while they divine lies for you--to place you on the necks of the profane wicked, whose day has come, the time of their final punishment.
30 Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.
This wasn't telling the Ammonites to go back to Eden but to the own land Ammon, that was whare God created the nation of Ammon.
WW - Agreed. It is to be read and praised by all generations but more understanding is given to those of the last generation...the latter rain.
A - God still creates each new generation.
WW - You keep bringing up topics that are truly threads of their own. I don't have time to go into this now....I have an unhappy client to placate shortly. I'll try to answer this later.
A - Hope they are suitably mollified
WW - The question was....when does the new day begin...in the bible?
The Hebrew day begins at sundown.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).
Both the evening and morning are day(light). Evening begins when the sun is directly overhead (even-ly dividing the sky) and continues until the sun is even with the earth...sundown, evening ends and with it that full 24 hour day ends. The beginning of night begins the counting of the next 24 hour day.
A - No, to be pedantic here that is not where the word evening comes from in English, which is from a much older Old English word æfen which meant evening too. More importantly the Hebrew ereb means dusk. But you come to the right idea in the end this it was sundown when the old day ended and a new day began in scripture.
That being the case, why do you think Genesis does not mention the evening of the seventh day? Does it mean the seventh day has not begun yet, and like the Sabbath that is based on it, is a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17?
WW - The question was....when does the new day begin...in the bible?
The Hebrew day begins at sundown.Assyrian - No, to be pedantic here
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).
Both the evening and morning are day(light). Evening begins when the sun is directly overhead (even-ly dividing the sky) and continues until the sun is even with the earth...sundown, evening ends and with it that full 24 hour day ends. The beginning of night begins the counting of the next 24 hour day.
that is not where the word evening comes from in English, which is from a much older Old English word æfen which meant evening too. More importantly the Hebrew ereb means dusk. But you come to the right idea in the end this it was sundown when the old day ended and a new day began in scripture.
That being the case, why do you think Genesis does not mention the evening of the seventh day? Does it mean the seventh day has not begun yet, and like the Sabbath that is based on it, is a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?