Genesis 1:5 THE FIRST DAY (KJV)

[BNR32FAN]

Hi Diomond7
Thank you for your post yes creation did start with Adam and Eve but everything created before the flood was destroyed in the flood including Adam and Eve so God began a new creation with Noah and everything on the ark the only thing missing was Adam and Eve so God set about rectifying that the first man he created was Israel the man of flesh who must come first so God rejected Israel and began a new creation with Jesus Christ this is the spiritual man its only the spiritual man that can enter heaven.

Love and Peace
Dave

Adam & Eve died long before the flood.

 

[davetaff]

Hi BNR32FAN
Thank you for your post do you think the first and last Adam were created in the same way if so the first Adam would be a whole multitude of people plus ghe giants.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hi BNR32FAN
Thank you for your post do you think the first and last Adam were created in the same way if so the first Adam would be a whole multitude of people plus ghe giants.

Love and Peace
Dave

No, Adam was created from dust, Jesus was incarnated in Mary’s womb and was born.

 

[Diamond72]

Not sure why God would add an evening and a morning in each verse.

We start with evening and then morning because we come out of the darkness into the light. On the north and south pole we have 6 months of day and 6 months of night. So a day is one year in length. There are three north poles.

1. Geographic North Pole: This is the point at the northern end of the Earth’s axis of rotation, located at 90°N latitude. It’s the “true” North Pole and is fixed in place.
2. Magnetic North Pole: This is the point where the Earth’s magnetic field points vertically downwards. Unlike the Geographic North Pole, the Magnetic North Pole moves due to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Currently, it is located in the Arctic Ocean, north of Canada.
3. Geomagnetic North Pole: This is the northern end of the Earth’s geomagnetic field, which is an idealized version of the Earth’s magnetic field. It is also not fixed and moves over time.

Each of these poles serves different purposes in navigation, science, and geography. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

 

[Platte]

We start with evening and then morning because we come out of the darkness into the light. On the north and south pole we have 6 months of day and 6 months of night. So a day is one year in length. There are three north poles.

1. Geographic North Pole: This is the point at the northern end of the Earth’s axis of rotation, located at 90°N latitude. It’s the “true” North Pole and is fixed in place.
2. Magnetic North Pole: This is the point where the Earth’s magnetic field points vertically downwards. Unlike the Geographic North Pole, the Magnetic North Pole moves due to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Currently, it is located in the Arctic Ocean, north of Canada.
3. Geomagnetic North Pole: This is the northern end of the Earth’s geomagnetic field, which is an idealized version of the Earth’s magnetic field. It is also not fixed and moves over time.

Each of these poles serves different purposes in navigation, science, and geography. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!

Nice spin. You’re working real hard to get the Bible to fit your narrative.

A day is still 24 hours in both poles.

Weird how you accept the other 1700+ times day is used in the Bible in the context of a 24 hour day.

 

[Diamond72]

Nice spin. You’re working real hard to get the Bible to fit your narrative.

That is a valid concern. So we go back to people like Maimonides and Naumannites to see what was a valid understanding of the Bible before modern science showed up with their opinions. As you remember the Big Bang was a Bible belief before it became verified by science.

Jesus warns us about the traditions of man. I am fully convinced that God uses Science to give us evidence so we can better understand the written word of God.

 

[David Lamb]

As you remember the Big Bang was a Bible belief before it became verified by science.

Sorry, what are you saying? Do you mean that the Big Bang is taught in the bible? Or perhaps that some people who say they believe the bible also say they believe in the Big Bang?

 

[Platte]

That is a valid concern. So we go back to people like Maimonides and Naumannites to see what was a valid understanding of the Bible before modern science showed up with their opinions. As you remember the Big Bang was a Bible belief before it became verified by science.

Jesus warns us about the traditions of man. I am fully convinced that God uses Science to give us evidence so we can better understand the written word of God.

Good luck

 

[Job 33:6]

I see this as a strange argument that people make continually.

To approach any part of Scripture as "scientist" on a quest to find how God did what He did, is a foolish errand, IMHO. Why, because God wasn't writing a scientific paper, He was doing something much different. It's a mistake to a treat a piece of literature as a textbook when it clearly wasn't written that way. When folks parse a piece of literature, the various meanings/common usages of words, terms and phrases we're doing a wise thing... however, there's a point when it goes too far. The science-minded folks seem to do this, taking it too far, very often. I've seen this with other "groups", to be sure, but "science" is the topic in this thread, so I'm focusing on that.

The oft quoted 2 Peter 3:8 ESV is a great example of this taking things too far. It's obvious to all that we don't use it when looking at all Scripture or in daily life... I am not closing in on being 23 million years old... the Sabbath doesn't last 1,000 years. But when the science-minded try to shoehorn a gap theory or TE, oh, yes... it's definitely 1,000 years... heck, it's actually a billion years or so.

I've heard popular scientists over the last few decades, yammer on things outside of their wheelhouse. They act like because they have a degree or two in the science fields, they're equipped to speak authoritatively on subjects like literature, theology, metaphysics, etc., I disagree strongly! While I think that everyone should feel free to discuss any subject, the unfortunate piece is the authoritative part... and worse yet is that folks, Christians, seem to suck it up. That's heartbreaking to me. I think that any authoritarian will have a lot to answer, in the end. Since the Scriptures were not written as a textbook suitable for scientific scrutiny is clear to most, I can only guess that the reason some folks treat otherwise is because they're outside their own wheelhouse. Perhaps it would be a wise move for the so-called scientists (and the folks that love them) to stay away from literature, as it doesn't seem to be a "strong suit".

I like this post, but I would say that it cuts both ways with people trying to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old as well. As if the Biblical authors were making the genealogies out to reflect concepts of modern geology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 1 clearly states GOD created Earth as a ball of water and natural elements.
Get a book called ' A Brief History of Time #2' which has a chapter that explains in simple terms exactly how GOD worked during Creation Week 6,000 years ago.

The original authors of Genesis, or author with editors, Moses, did not know that earth was a sphere. Hence why so many in the early church believed in a flat earth and geocentrism.

 

[Job 33:6]

Where in Genesis 1 does it state this ?

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry, what are you saying? Do you mean that the Big Bang is taught in the bible? Or perhaps that some people who say they believe the bible also say they believe in the Big Bang?

This is a good example about how errors of scientific concordism goes both ways. People trying to make the Bible align with science, be it through YECism and a 6,000 year old earth, or OECism and the Big bang.

When in reality, ancient near east cosmology of Genesis has nothing to do with either.

 

[Platte]

I like this post, but I would say that it cuts both ways with people trying to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old as well. As if the Biblical authors were making the genealogies out to reflect concepts of modern geology.

I do not make any argument that the earth is 6000 years old - I do make the statement that based on the Bible geneologies the earth was Created approximately 6000 years ago. I don't really see anyone (or you) disputing that's what the Bible geneologies state - looks like you agree that is what the Bible Geneologies do indeed say (but you simply dismiss it as not correctly representative).
Based on the Bible, Creation was approximately 6000 years ago and was completed in 6 days. You're the one making arguments against the Bible (not against me) by marginilizing, ignoring completly, saying the scripture means something that not indicated or implied, or by saying its doesnt represent a true geneologies or real day (without evidence).
Its really wackamo what people do to the Bible to get it to represent a viewpoint not presented in the Bible.

 

[Platte]

I like this post, but I would say that it cuts both ways with people trying to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old as well. As if the Biblical authors were making the genealogies out to reflect concepts of modern geology.m

What is the point of a genealogy if it’s not to provide a historical reference?

 

[davetaff]

Hi God began his creation of man in his image when Noah stepped of the ark Noah was not in the image of God.
This creation would follow the creation account in Genesis and would be completed in Christ at his second coming when he presents himself with a multitude of believers before the throne of God.
The first man God created was Israel the man of flesh and from him would come the spiritual man Jesus Christ and we who believe who have been baptised and became spiritual would enter his body.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

This is a good example about how errors of scientific concordism goes both ways. People trying to make the Bible align with science, be it through YECism and a 6,000 year old earth, or OECism and the Big bang.

When in reality, ancient near east cosmology of Genesis has nothing to do with either.

Whether modern science or ancient near east cosmology matters little, compared with what almighty God says in His word.

 

[Job 33:6]

Whether modern science or ancient near east cosmology matters little, compared with what almighty God says in His word.

It matters a lot. Because if it is speaking of ancient near east cosmology, then we know that God is using it as a cultural reference for His teaching. Which is to say that this teaching would not be scientific in nature, but rather, theological.

 

[Job 33:6]

It matters a lot. Because if it is speaking of ancient near east cosmology, then we know that God is using it as a cultural reference for His teaching. Which is to say that this teaching would not be scientific in nature, but rather, theological.

 

[David Lamb]

It matters a lot. Because if it is speaking of ancient near east cosmology, then we know that God is using it as a cultural reference for His teaching. Which is to say that this teaching would not be scientific in nature, but rather, theological.

What I meant was that the bible is God's inspired word. As such, we don't need to measure its contents by modern science or by ancient near east cosmology.

 

[Platte]

It matters a lot. Because if it is speaking of ancient near east cosmology, then we know that God is using it as a cultural reference for His teaching. Which is to say that this teaching would not be scientific in nature, but rather, theological.

Genesis is a Historical document not a scientific document.