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.
So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?So, you're are saying that like scientists regarding the moon, Christians do not know which interpretation of Genesis is correct. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.
So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?
Somehow I doubt it.
God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.At any rate, I find it more interesting when people who claim to base their entire lives on what they "know" their deity desired and meant admit that no one knows for sure what Genesis meant.
Oops! Indeed, the NT speaks of 'the law and the prophets'.Doesn't Jesus describe the divisions as "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms"?
Specifically this part: 17 [historical] --- 5 [poetical] --- 17 [prophetical].Okay. The Bible is God's Autobiography.
It is the only Writing on the face of the earth that got here supernaturally. No other writing even comes close.
Consider these facts:
And yet, despite all the above variables, It fits together like a hand in a glove, as if It had one single Author.
- Written over a period of 1500 years.
- In 3 languages, on 3 continents.
- By some 40+ subauthors.
- Who had various vocations from husbandmen to fig pickers to kings.
- And under a variety of circumstances from peace to rebellion to war.
- In freedom and in captivity.
- By the rich and famous, as well as the poor and downtrodden.
And here's the kicker --- It generated a nation of people who, by all practical purposes, should not be in existence today, and even wrote the history of their nation in advance.
Consider also the mathematical (divine?) layout of the Old Testament today:
The Old Testament consists of 39 books, arranged as follows:
Further subdivided as follows:
- 17 [historical] --- 5 [poetical] --- 17 [prophetical]
Note: in the five books by the major prophets, you have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel.
- 5 [books of Moses] --- 12 [books of history]
- 5 [books of poetry]
- 5 [books by major prophets] --- 12 [books by minor prophets]
Let's look at this "fulcrum":
Book of Lamentations consists of 5 chapters, as follows:
The two major prophets before Lamentations are pre-Caanan writings.
- Chapter 1 = 22 verses
- Chapter 2 = 22 verses
- Chapter 3 = 66 verses
- Chapter 4 = 22 verses
- Chapter 5 = 22 verses
The two major prophets after Lamentations are post-Caanan.
And speaking of Canaan, we can further break the 12 historical and 12 prophetical books down into 9 + 3 by considering pre and post-Canaan writings.
Perfect mathematical divine balance in just the Old Testament alone.
And the Bible's preservation over the centuries? I won't even go there.
It is not unusual for the Supreme court to have a split decision where the vote of one person makes the decision. All you need is to get 5 of them to agree and they can strike down the "Child Online Protection Act". If we can protect our children against a predator then why can't we protect them against the Supreme Court Justices that seem to be in the back pocket of the highly profitable porn industry. I so look forward to the day when the government shall be upon His shoulder.So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?
Somehow I doubt it.
It’s interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.So, you're are saying that like scientists regarding the moon, Christians do not know which interpretation of Genesis is correct. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.
I get that too, bro.Its interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.
God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.
It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible; and as I'm fond of saying, if a person can't get past Genesis 1, he's in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.
Its interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.
So, youre saying you created a strawman. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.
But to answer you accusation: No, that is not what Im saying.
Many Christians agree that Genesis is a literal account of creation, just as scientists agree the moon was literally formed.
We then form theories on how those creation events may be explained, just as scientists form theories on how the moons formation may be explained.
Not knowing all the scientific details of the events does not mean we do not know they are literal events.
I get that too, bro.
Just ask them to go back and highlight in red where you made [whatever] claim, then watch them sing a different tune.
First you have to actually produce something.Lot of yakking for someone who usually bails out when cornered or shown wrong.
The bible does not specifically say “recreation” in Genesis 1. It says “creation”. But what's interesting is that in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for “created” – "bara" - can be extended to mean "to create something new". And we do know the bible tells us recreation does happen:I guess the bottom line on that type of case, is that one cannot say the bible says any recreation happened.
I agree. And that’s not what I’m speculating.One cannot omit the far heavens being included in what was meant that was created, one can only speculate that what was meant excluded them.
Fine by me, since that’s not my position.From the rest of the bible, however, I doubt that that position could be supported strongly.
Actually, my line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with God’s word.Seems to me that that whole basic sort of line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with science and what man thinks he 'knows'.
My own feeling is that it would be better to align what man claims he sort of knows, with what God says.
The Hebrew word for "made" – "asah" – can also mean "to bring about", "to attend to" or "to put in order".When God says..."He made the stars also" (after just mentioning the sun and moon were made that creation week no less)
Well, as explained above, I do place the stars and sun and moon in the creation events, but not as being recreated, but as being reordered.-- it is best to place the stars and sun and moon in the creation, rather than straining to try to find some recreation.
I'm saying we know the creation events occurred as described in Genesis 1 but we do not know all the scientific details. We can only form theories about those details, and admittedly we do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct.Let's review. Scientists have several theories on how the moon was formed because they admittedly do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct. You then compared that to the differing interpretations Christians have of Genesis. So, now you're saying that your comparison wasn't accurate, then?
I still think you're wrong.Glad to see I wasn't wrong.God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.
It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible; and as I'm fond of saying, if a person can't get past Genesis 1, he's in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.
Actually you find Darwinism nowhere. QUOTE]
That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.
Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.
Try 'historic Truth'.Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.
So if Genesis is not intended to be science then it's symbolic or false. Got it.That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.
Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.
Plainly that refers to men. We are not, as the creation week was by chapter 2 in Genesis.."finished"! We are more a work in progress. Big difference.The bible does not specifically say recreation in Genesis 1. It says creation. But what's interesting is that in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for created "bara" - can be extended to mean "to create something new". And we do know the bible tells us recreation does happen:
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth...Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth...in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth (Ps 104:30,Isa 66:17, 2 Peter 3:13).
So if we read between the lines of all reality we might find a recreation in Genesis 1.
I agree. And thats not what Im speculating.
Fine by me, since thats not my position.
Actually, my line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with Gods word.
Genesis 1, verse 2, tells us:
Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep (Gen 1:2).
This is a description of the state of the earth even before the six day creation events began. What this tells me is that the earth existed in a chaotic state before the creation events began.
How long the earth existed in this chaotic state the bible does not mention, but the bible does say the earth existed. We can then speculate on how this chaotic earth ties in with the six day creation events that followed.
The Hebrew word for "made" "asah" can also mean "to bring about", "to attend to" or "to put in order".
Well, more like from nothing! Chaos is your preffered word to describe the earliest phase of the Master plan and operation.I think "to put in order" sounds just about right since Genesis 1 is about God creating order from chaos.
This means that Genesis 1:16 can be read:
"Then God ordered two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He ordered the stars also."
Well, as explained above, I do place the stars and sun and moon in the creation events, but not as being recreated, but as being reordered.
Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years...Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. (Gen 1:14-18).
The sun and moon were made to regulate the seasons, days and years in our present world relative to the creation of new life forms here on earth.
Speculation.If the seasons, days and years were different in prehistory (and they most likely were) then our solar system would have functioned differently and a reordering of our solar system would have been necessary to create the new seasons, days and years we experience today.
The stars and sun and moon are all existing because of the earth in a way. They are connected and made for us here. How unlike the so called science 'meaningless little speck of dust' doctrine!From an earth bound perspective this event would have appeared as a creating of new conditions in the far heavens due to the reordering of our solar system.
It makes sense therefore that the Hebrew word for made asah in the verses above can also mean to put in order.
This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'.Actually you find Darwinism nowhere. QUOTE]
That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.
Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.
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?