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.
Do you believe the tower of Babel?
The tower of Babel is a good story to talk about the diversity of Language and God's sovereignty over even that, the Pentecost account from Acts 2 also helps to reinforce this by making language no longer a barrier to the communion of the Saints
You posing the question can be deceptive, especially when you bring it up in opposition to Theistic Evolution because it often seems as if you are limiting the term "Creationism/Creationist" to YEC, whereas TE is a creationist stance in the wider definition that talks about whether a God created.
From my understanding of the Hebrew word Bara it is a literal creation, but the Nicene creed makes no statement one way or the other about the literalness of Gen1, preferring instead to just make the statement that God created.
I don't really see inclusion of the Gentiles until Peter's vision of the unclean animals, Acts 2 also has parallels to Mt. Sinai simply due to the relationship between Pentecost and Shauvot. The thirteen nations is also quite significant in light of this thirteen nations to thirteen tribes of Israel (counting Levi and the two tribes of Joseph)Studied that for a while, found out something kind of interesting. Of the thirteen nations mentioned there were eleven languages spoken. Some scholars think that indicates that each of the Apostles came out speaking a different language, the language of the people they were speaking to.
The thing is they could have spoken Aramaic (conversational Hebrew) and all the Jews there would have understood it. It probably has some thematic connection to Babel, what exactly is hard to say. It seems more likely that it was related to the inclusion of the Gentiles.
You consider them honours? I'd consider it somewhat insulting that people would identify me with anyone/thing above Christ.I've never been comfortable with being called a Creationist, literalist, fundamentalist, Calvanist, evangelical. It's all true but sometimes I don't think all the flattering titles are healthy for me spiritually. With all those honors and emulations it's so hard to be humble.
There isn't any mention of 6 days in the Nicene creed, while I do agree that they are referencing Gen 1 among other places in the Bible (seriously if the Bible did not have Gen 1-2 there would still be the doctrine of creation) not being explicit about 6 days makes it possible to have the figurative interpretation that Augustine used in the 4th/5th century. The incarnation is not sandwiched between the two creation confessions, in fact the incarnation comes after the second creation confessions. What is sandwiched between the two is the description of the Son's oneness with the Father, which historically is what they were writing the creed for; in opposition to the Aryan heresy. Taking two statements that the Aryans agree with (that is that both the Father and the Son were involved in creation) and tying that into the oneness of those two persons of the Trinity.They no doubt had Genesis 1 in mind and certainly would never have regarded it as a parable. So maybe you know, what is the incarnation doing sandwiched in between two confessions of the Creation?
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Do you believe it Progmonk?
How? and which 'god'? A 'god'? that used death disease and suffering to bring about "let us make man in our image" over 'millions and millions' of years? and then L I E D when he said everything was 'very good'? and omitted it from his word? is that the 'god' your talking about? Which God please?
progmonk said:I always find this stance strange, especially when you realise that Adam and Eve would have needed to have some point of reference for what their punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is. I can totally see it:
God: Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or you will die.
Adam: Sure thing God, but what exactly is 'die'?
God: Well it's something evil...
Adam: Oh, so now I have some form of knowledge of what is good (following your commandments) and what is evil (dying).
It seems so materialistic.
Not quite Prog. Lol. Remember, Adam would have no need to question God about why he should or shouldnt do something.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
DamianWarS said:Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..."
this narrative opens explaining they are about to give an account of when the heavens and earth where created. Genesis 1-2:3 seems to have already given an account so the text says in itself it is retelling the story.
Genesis 2:5 "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."
ok we have an earth with dry land but there is no vegetation. If we are to assume this follows the creation account in Genesis 1 then this must mean it is part way in day 3 since on day 3 God made both dry land and vegetation. but as we read on day 4, 5 are skipped and it seems to jump right into day 6. Remember the OP when I said day 3 and 6 can be paired together well Genesis 2 happens to confirm this as well.
In 2:5 the text says there was no vegetation because there was no rain or anyone to cultivate the earth. In verse 6 it shows us how a mist would rise from the earth to water the ground and then verse 7 man is created. After man is created in verse 8 God plants the Garden of Eden. There seems to be this back and forth motion here that is inconsistent with the literal days presented in Genesis 1. God creates dry land, then he creates man, then he plants vegetation which are examples of day 3 and day 6 being completely overlapped.
If you want to believe the account in Genesis 2 all took place on day 6 then you are ignoring the command God gave on day 3 saying "let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them" This is what I mean by reconciling the two accounts.
No, actually when you see this is the account of or these are the generations of, its actually the previous author signing off if you will.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
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?