sweeett yeh i think the guy doesnt believe darwinian evolution but he still believes we have a 'common ancestor"?
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Genesis 1 Creation Week
- Thread starter mark kennedy
- Start date
MM wrote:
Hi MM, sorry for the delay. Could you be more clear as to what assumption you mean? My main point, remember, was that your dichotomy was already abandoned by Christianity 400 years ago with respect to other parts of the Bible. I think your main point in response was that Genesis should be treated differently than the rest of the Bible. If so, I'll get back to that below.
I don't think this is true. Many parts of the Bible contain a mix of literal and figurative, even in the same sentence. Many of Jesus' parables contain literal things (like when he says "slave", he means a literal slave), yet the piece overall is not a historical event. Similarly, Ex 20 contains the "eagles wings" figurative line, yet also has lots of literal stuff. And with regards to genesis, you may alread recognize plenty of figurative stuff in it, such as Gen 3:15 ("head, heel") and Gen 1:3 ("day" before there is a sun, etc.). Thus, many interpretations, including ones you hold, of many sections, contain a mix of literal and figurative.
I suspect that we've both seen the either/or extreme dichotomy used to distort the situation too often in all kinds of other areas (like politics) to think it is a good thing to use in interpretation.
Doesn't that apply equally well to the other things I mentioned? For instance:
Doesn't gen 2 already imply that death is in existence? For instance, if death didn't already exist, then when God warned Adam away from the forbidden fruit, How could Adam have had any idea what He was talking about? Would't he have said "death? what's that?". There are plenty of other sections of scripture that support that, and note that the idea that death wasn't present until the fall is extra-biblical - there is no verse that says that. However, maybe that topic is a tangent.
I think this gets to my question - why treat Genesis different than the rest of scripture? To me, I don't think that the details of how God created are categorically different, nor more important than, say, one's overall worldview of how the world is, why we suffer, and others.
Plus, even a literal view of genesis doesn't fill in all the details - which we each have to figure out either way. For isntance, God "breathing" into Adam's nose - if literal, how did God physically do that? Did God place his physical lips around the mud nose? Did He have to wipe the mud off his lips afterwards? Did He straddle Adam's chest/midsection, or lie on top of Adam, chest to chest, or come from the top, with God's physical eyes over Adam's mouth? Or how did the animals "appear" when God created them? All at once, with a "poof" ing sound? Or silently? Or did they each start as a little point, rapidly growing? I'm trying to picture it, like watching a video, and no matter how we interpret it, we have to fill in some details.
Which point do you mean - that Genesis can only be literal or figurative, not a mix? Maybe point to those verses so I can better see what your point is?
Right, and I agree. I'm trying to see why Genesis should be treated differently from the rest of scripture. It would seem to me that Genesis, like all of scripture, is human speech in an effort to describe the workings of God. Working we only know the barest fringes of. (Job 26:14).
Do you remember my description, held by millions of Christians, that described Genesis as a poem on creation, and which included Adam as a transitional ape/human, the first human and father of us all, who literally existed as a single person and literally brought sin into the world by original sin? If not, I can probably find that post. Even if you don't personally believe it, doesn't that description preserve both original sin and a literal, single, human, Adam - and thus answer your question above (including the need for Jesus' salvation)?
Didn't you and I discuss before how his "from the beginning, God made them male and female" is consistent with evolution, because in evolution, the first humans are already male and female? Jesus couldn't have meant "from Genesis day 1", because there were no people then. It seems that if anything, Jesus' words there support evolution at least as well as YEC.
As discussed above, I don't think they are, any more than his parables are false statements. If not the "male and female" one, which do you think show YEC? I mean, I'd guess that you don't think Hell is literally underground, under our feet, yet Jesus says "down" referring to Hell - why doesn't that make him a liar? (because it is figurative).
I'm sorry, remembering his parables, I don't see much (any?) of that, where he says to the people "what follows is an allegory" or such. In fact, in some places (Mk 8:16, etc.), he apparently didn't even tell his disciples something was figurative. Maybe point to some verses where Jesus tell the people that, or do a count as to what % of his parables are preceded by "Jesus told the crowd that he was going to speak figuratively"?
Thanks. : )
Papias
Ignore: Just for reference:
That observation is that your dichotomy above applies equally well (better, I think) to the flat earth/heliocentrism debate 400 years ago. It seems that practically all of Christianity has already taken your path #2, including yourself. Let me explain. First, here is your dichotomy, recast:
Hi MM, sorry for the delay. Could you be more clear as to what assumption you mean? My main point, remember, was that your dichotomy was already abandoned by Christianity 400 years ago with respect to other parts of the Bible. I think your main point in response was that Genesis should be treated differently than the rest of the Bible. If so, I'll get back to that below.
I don't think this is true. Many parts of the Bible contain a mix of literal and figurative, even in the same sentence. Many of Jesus' parables contain literal things (like when he says "slave", he means a literal slave), yet the piece overall is not a historical event. Similarly, Ex 20 contains the "eagles wings" figurative line, yet also has lots of literal stuff. And with regards to genesis, you may alread recognize plenty of figurative stuff in it, such as Gen 3:15 ("head, heel") and Gen 1:3 ("day" before there is a sun, etc.). Thus, many interpretations, including ones you hold, of many sections, contain a mix of literal and figurative.
I suspect that we've both seen the either/or extreme dichotomy used to distort the situation too often in all kinds of other areas (like politics) to think it is a good thing to use in interpretation.
Doesn't that apply equally well to the other things I mentioned? For instance:
- If the world is not exactly as He said, then what purpose did Jesus's death serve on the cross?
- If diseases don't operate exactly as He said, then what purpose did Jesus's death serve on the cross?
- If the the sky is not a hard dome exactly as He said, then what purpose did Jesus's death serve on the cross?
Doesn't gen 2 already imply that death is in existence? For instance, if death didn't already exist, then when God warned Adam away from the forbidden fruit, How could Adam have had any idea what He was talking about? Would't he have said "death? what's that?". There are plenty of other sections of scripture that support that, and note that the idea that death wasn't present until the fall is extra-biblical - there is no verse that says that. However, maybe that topic is a tangent.
I think this gets to my question - why treat Genesis different than the rest of scripture? To me, I don't think that the details of how God created are categorically different, nor more important than, say, one's overall worldview of how the world is, why we suffer, and others.
Plus, even a literal view of genesis doesn't fill in all the details - which we each have to figure out either way. For isntance, God "breathing" into Adam's nose - if literal, how did God physically do that? Did God place his physical lips around the mud nose? Did He have to wipe the mud off his lips afterwards? Did He straddle Adam's chest/midsection, or lie on top of Adam, chest to chest, or come from the top, with God's physical eyes over Adam's mouth? Or how did the animals "appear" when God created them? All at once, with a "poof" ing sound? Or silently? Or did they each start as a little point, rapidly growing? I'm trying to picture it, like watching a video, and no matter how we interpret it, we have to fill in some details.
Which point do you mean - that Genesis can only be literal or figurative, not a mix? Maybe point to those verses so I can better see what your point is?
Right, and I agree. I'm trying to see why Genesis should be treated differently from the rest of scripture. It would seem to me that Genesis, like all of scripture, is human speech in an effort to describe the workings of God. Working we only know the barest fringes of. (Job 26:14).
Do you remember my description, held by millions of Christians, that described Genesis as a poem on creation, and which included Adam as a transitional ape/human, the first human and father of us all, who literally existed as a single person and literally brought sin into the world by original sin? If not, I can probably find that post. Even if you don't personally believe it, doesn't that description preserve both original sin and a literal, single, human, Adam - and thus answer your question above (including the need for Jesus' salvation)?
Didn't you and I discuss before how his "from the beginning, God made them male and female" is consistent with evolution, because in evolution, the first humans are already male and female? Jesus couldn't have meant "from Genesis day 1", because there were no people then. It seems that if anything, Jesus' words there support evolution at least as well as YEC.
As discussed above, I don't think they are, any more than his parables are false statements. If not the "male and female" one, which do you think show YEC? I mean, I'd guess that you don't think Hell is literally underground, under our feet, yet Jesus says "down" referring to Hell - why doesn't that make him a liar? (because it is figurative).
I'm sorry, remembering his parables, I don't see much (any?) of that, where he says to the people "what follows is an allegory" or such. In fact, in some places (Mk 8:16, etc.), he apparently didn't even tell his disciples something was figurative. Maybe point to some verses where Jesus tell the people that, or do a count as to what % of his parables are preceded by "Jesus told the crowd that he was going to speak figuratively"?
Thanks. : )
Papias
Ignore: Just for reference:
That observation is that your dichotomy above applies equally well (better, I think) to the flat earth/heliocentrism debate 400 years ago. It seems that practically all of Christianity has already taken your path #2, including yourself. Let me explain. First, here is your dichotomy, recast:
The only thing I would say is that the discussion of creation comes down to two world views. 1) The world is exactly as God says it is throughout the Bible, and this worldview is the literal foundation of the rest of the Gospel, or 2) all of the creation is open to figurative interpretation. If #2 is the case, it makes the whole of the bible suspect, and open to this same idea. That is absolutely devastating to the idea of Jesus's sacrifice.
What worldview does a literal reading of scripture give?
What worldview does a literal reading of scripture give?
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Papias said:
Before I respond to the rest of your reply, first I must point this out so as to keep it from being an issue in the future. I ask you to please refrain from this type of statement. I've had this discussion with another poster on these boards, and I find it takes the miracle of God's creation and likens it to a b-grade magicians trick. I find it disrespectful to God. So please, for the continuance of an amicable discussion please don't use references like this. Thank you!
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
jinx25 said:
Oh yes I've seen this before! It's part of why the Jewish people take genesis so literally. They hold a great respect for the meaning of names.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi Mark,
You wrote: Well, add pitch black darkness, thick toxic clouds and water across the face of the earth and you have it.
From where do you get your understanding that there were 'thick toxic clouds'? If there was water, then there was Hydrogen and oxygen on the earth, but I can't find any Scripture that would infer that the 'clouds' in the creation days, and this would be only after the waters below were separated from the waters above, were any different than the clouds we have today.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
You wrote: Well, add pitch black darkness, thick toxic clouds and water across the face of the earth and you have it.
From where do you get your understanding that there were 'thick toxic clouds'? If there was water, then there was Hydrogen and oxygen on the earth, but I can't find any Scripture that would infer that the 'clouds' in the creation days, and this would be only after the waters below were separated from the waters above, were any different than the clouds we have today.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
If you spend any time exploring the various treatments of the text in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you will run into a proposition that they are two distinctly different accounts of creation, this line of interpretation lacks any merit as an exposition of the text from the original.
Genesis has a focus lens, it goes from the entire creation, then the six days of creation and then focuses on the sixth day, specifically Adam and Eve. That's about as complicated as the exposition gets. The most important word to learn for the creation account is bara, once you understand this word the other words for creation start to take on greater meaning.
Strong's H1254 - bara' בָּרָא - (Literally, 'form by cutting')
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
(KJV) Translation Count Total: 54
AV create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1
In the vernacular of the pagan cultures the elementals proceed the gods. The Hebrew account of creation has God, Elohim, creating the elements from nature, 'apart from Him there was nothing made that was made'. This is in counter-distinction to every culture recalling the original creation including Darwinians who attribute to elementals what is rightfully attributed to God.
It makes perfect since that Genesis 2 is an expansion of Genesis 1 account of creation, just as creation week in six days is a natural expansion on Genesis 1:1.
I'm putting together an exposition of the history of creation from the Genesis accounts. This particular insight will obviously be a significant feature since the line of interpretation from the modernists is so commonly held among Darwinians.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Genesis has a focus lens, it goes from the entire creation, then the six days of creation and then focuses on the sixth day, specifically Adam and Eve. That's about as complicated as the exposition gets. The most important word to learn for the creation account is bara, once you understand this word the other words for creation start to take on greater meaning.
Strong's H1254 - bara' בָּרָא - (Literally, 'form by cutting')
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat2) to cut out
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
(KJV) Translation Count Total: 54
AV create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1
In the vernacular of the pagan cultures the elementals proceed the gods. The Hebrew account of creation has God, Elohim, creating the elements from nature, 'apart from Him there was nothing made that was made'. This is in counter-distinction to every culture recalling the original creation including Darwinians who attribute to elementals what is rightfully attributed to God.
It makes perfect since that Genesis 2 is an expansion of Genesis 1 account of creation, just as creation week in six days is a natural expansion on Genesis 1:1.
I'm putting together an exposition of the history of creation from the Genesis accounts. This particular insight will obviously be a significant feature since the line of interpretation from the modernists is so commonly held among Darwinians.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
A good way to describe it (imho) is to look at it like a movie. You start out with the dark screen, and suddenly there is a call of "LET THERE BE LIGHT" and in a blinding flash light appears, brilliant and beautiful. And each step follows the first, and we pan closer and closer to the earth until finally we're following the people who are the final actors to enter the stage. We follow them through every scene in the bible, all culminating in the climactic scene of our salvation through Jesus Christ, and the epilogue of revelations which shows us the final scene of the movie, complete with credits! It's enough to give you goose bumps!
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Hay MM i have a thread in eschatology and end times titled "Revelation 17 and 18" if you would like could you please look at it? And Mark Kennedy and Martyrs too if you would like thank you.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
jinx25 said:
Lol, I was giving it a look...<shivers> if not for Jesus, I'd be shaking in my BOOTS!
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
MM wrote:
hmmm... I understand your point, but I'm not sure we are rightly dividing things. I agree with you that it is never ok to mock God. At the same time, it IS ok to ask for details on ideas (such as a person's interpretation of part of scripture).
For instance - suppose I interpreted Rev 6:13 to mean that the trillions of stars would literally fly towards earth at thousands of times the speed of light, magically lose nearly all of their mass, and be simultaneously be shrunk to fig size. Now, if you, on the other hand, interpreted Rev 6:13 metaphorically - as a reference to the great disaster of that day, you might ask for details of my "star-fig" description, such as by asking if people might burn their feet if they stepped on them, or such.
I don't think that's being disrespectful of God. It's just asking for details of my interpretation. If you think a question about your interpretation sounds like a b-grade magician's trick, then maybe the problem isn't my asking for details, but rather is with the interpretation itself?
To clarify, would the creation of the animals then be silent? Or would there be some other sound?
In His name-
Papias
hmmm... I understand your point, but I'm not sure we are rightly dividing things. I agree with you that it is never ok to mock God. At the same time, it IS ok to ask for details on ideas (such as a person's interpretation of part of scripture).
For instance - suppose I interpreted Rev 6:13 to mean that the trillions of stars would literally fly towards earth at thousands of times the speed of light, magically lose nearly all of their mass, and be simultaneously be shrunk to fig size. Now, if you, on the other hand, interpreted Rev 6:13 metaphorically - as a reference to the great disaster of that day, you might ask for details of my "star-fig" description, such as by asking if people might burn their feet if they stepped on them, or such.
I don't think that's being disrespectful of God. It's just asking for details of my interpretation. If you think a question about your interpretation sounds like a b-grade magician's trick, then maybe the problem isn't my asking for details, but rather is with the interpretation itself?
To clarify, would the creation of the animals then be silent? Or would there be some other sound?
In His name-
Papias
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Papias said:
My point was the use of a "Poofing sound" makes it sound like a magic trick like there'd be a puff of smoke and a magician bowing for an audience. As far as a sound, there is no way to know. The scriptures don't tell us that type of detail. Welcome back from your trip by the way!
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
True, but when I think of things instantly appearing, magic trick stuff is the first to come to mind. That might not happen with you.
Thanks for the welcome back -yep, a fun trip!
Have a fun day-
Papias
Thanks for the welcome back -yep, a fun trip!
Have a fun day-
Papias
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You either missed or dodged his whole point.
Rightly dividing the Word of truth? Let's see how important that is to you. While your pushing your private interpretation I'll be showing you how that kind of an exposition works.
Before creation week started there was darkness on the face of the deep. Now for this text you are trying to pass off as some kind of a proof text:
Clearly there are numerous metaphors indicating a comparison. They are real stars that recede 'as a fig tree. 'Like' or 'as' are key indicators when interpreting a passage of Scripture with figurative language. They are literal stars, the fig tree is the metaphor.
That is how you rightly divide a literal (nominative) word from a metaphor. In the immediate context there is most often a 'like' or 'as'.
It's not subject to private interpretation, that's how Christian scholars 'rightly divide the word of truth'.
That was not an interpretation, that was a mockery of the explicit meaning of the text. It was a fallacious use of figurative language you are attempting to equivocate with the Genesis account of creation.
What!!!???
Rightly dividing the Word of truth? Let's see how important that is to you. While your pushing your private interpretation I'll be showing you how that kind of an exposition works.
Before creation week started there was darkness on the face of the deep. Now for this text you are trying to pass off as some kind of a proof text:
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (Rev 6:12-14)
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (Rev 6:12-14)
Clearly there are numerous metaphors indicating a comparison. They are real stars that recede 'as a fig tree. 'Like' or 'as' are key indicators when interpreting a passage of Scripture with figurative language. They are literal stars, the fig tree is the metaphor.
That is how you rightly divide a literal (nominative) word from a metaphor. In the immediate context there is most often a 'like' or 'as'.
It's not subject to private interpretation, that's how Christian scholars 'rightly divide the word of truth'.
That was not an interpretation, that was a mockery of the explicit meaning of the text. It was a fallacious use of figurative language you are attempting to equivocate with the Genesis account of creation.
What!!!???
Upvote
0
Hi Mark,
Can you explain why you think they are just one account.
You can use the Hebrew text if you like as you will not lose me.
Yes and as you mentioned in an earlier post bara is used only 3 times in the first chapter of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27 and everytime with God as the subject of the verb.
If memory serves me right there is only one other creation event when God created a covenant with Israel.
All other verses that use bara are referring to one of the three creation events in Genesis chapter 1.
bara' בָּרָא in Genesis 1:1 is Qal. perfect 3ps verb. Which means that all the action of the verb (created) is completed action by the subject of the verb producing the heavens and the earth.
For clarification when did Genesis 1:1 occur?
From one of your earlier posts.
JFB believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is the reason I asked the question.
Was the word I bolded mispelled being sense?
If so why does it make sense to you since Genesis 2:4 says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Generations is the same as annals or history.
God Bless,
Mark said:
Can you explain why you think they are just one account.
You can use the Hebrew text if you like as you will not lose me.
Mark said:
Yes and as you mentioned in an earlier post bara is used only 3 times in the first chapter of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27 and everytime with God as the subject of the verb.
If memory serves me right there is only one other creation event when God created a covenant with Israel.
All other verses that use bara are referring to one of the three creation events in Genesis chapter 1.
bara' בָּרָא in Genesis 1:1 is Qal. perfect 3ps verb. Which means that all the action of the verb (created) is completed action by the subject of the verb producing the heavens and the earth.
For clarification when did Genesis 1:1 occur?
From one of your earlier posts.
JFB believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is the reason I asked the question.
Mark said:
Was the word I bolded mispelled being sense?
If so why does it make sense to you since Genesis 2:4 says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Generations is the same as annals or history.
God Bless,
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
mark kennedy said:
I just think it's pretty straight forward, the focus shifts to a close up of the sixth day in Genesis 2, it's as simple as that.
That's right, 'bara' is a distinctive word with deep theological meaning. There are a couple of other words used in the creation account but this one means, pretty much, from nothing. Only God can create in that way.
Actually it was instituted twice since the Hebrews violated it almost immediately at the foot of Sinai.
There are two possibilities here. The first one is that the first verse is just a general statement and the creation account that follows is an expansion, that would seem to fit the literary style, then Genesis 2 is another closer look at the creation of man. The line of interpretation I'm working from here is that the original creation was the entire cosmos including the primordial earth that was covered in darkness and water. The creation week begins there.
I'm not really sold out to either one but the more I study the more I like the first one. It would make sense and no essential doctrine would be effected. For me the key to the interpretation would be that everything in the creation week is being described from the surface of the earth. So when it talks about the sun, moon and stars being 'set' in the heavens they are not being created, the seasons are just beginning to work as they do today. Something that couldn't happen previously because the heavens were not visible from the surface of the earth.
I'm not aware who believes in that particular line of interpretation, I submitted the quote because it's an exegesis of 'bara'. It just seems a likely exposition of the text, that's really all there is to it.
Yep that was a typo, good catch.
Well, I'm not sure what you are asking but yea, these are historical narratives. It is titled according to the specific history being described.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
Similar threads
