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.
That’s not what you said 10 days ago.Dispensationalism where a day is 1,000 years explains this the best.
So in short you won’t actually provide any examples of Yovm being used in reference to anything other than a 24 hour period of time or daytime. See, when I make a statement I provide evidence to support that statement because the statement by itself without anything to support it is useless. Anybody can make an unsupported claim.This is not a true statement, even if you do not quite grasp that it is not factual, I try not to chew my cud too many times, I find we people at times are just at an enpass.
The deep is referring to the water that the Spirit of God was hovering over. Notice the terms “surface of the deep” and “surface of the waters”. Does the universe have a surface?Correct, the Darkness on the face of the deep is God telling us there was no SUNLIGHT YET !!! Then God tells how the sunlight came into existence on the earth, God created the earth sun and every planet in our solar system at the same time, 4.5 billion years ago they came from a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula.
But with earth God did a special thing, He gave us a bio-dome that traps in moisture, thereby it reflects the sunlight and thus illuminates the earth. Without that bio-dome, the earth could grown no plants, so that is what God means by He moved on the Face of the Waters, that is not about the depth of waters, its speaking about there being no Suns for 400 million years. That is why the evening always comes first.
You get the Darkness then the Light. The light could not exist to the point it illuminates the earth without Water to reflect it, LOOK IT UP.
Ok I do see evidence for this and I apologize, I was not aware of it but I don’t see it interfering with God’s creation. I would imagine that if God is able to speak an entire universe into existence from nothing, maintaining a proper axis tilt is probably not a huge problem for Him.Do you not understand we would have no orderly seasons without the moon? We would be an earth that wobbles, we would have violent weather, Google on Youtube the earth without a moon, it’s fascinating. Some show you computer generated life (well non life) with no moon. We rotate as we do, which gives us 3 month type seasons four times a year, because we spin in an ORDERLY FASHION !! Did you think on Day four God created the Light again? No, that is just referring to the Stars guiding us, God gave us all the lights, but on day four he gave us the Seasons, that happened by the Earth and another planet the same size crashing together, try googling that, Earth and Moon crashes. The earth is held into place on its axis by the moon, nothing is by chance, its God's design.
Well I strongly disagree because you’re not interpreting Genesis 1 correctly. The Bible says 3 times that God created the heavens, the earth, and the seas, and everything in them in six days, not 4.5 billion years. You’re having to do a lot of interpretational acrobatics to arrive at 4.5 billion years.Or, maybe you just do not interpret the meaning properly. This is easy to me, I can explain the whole book of Revelation in one post, that was much, much harder. I can actually explain the 1290 and 1335, that took me years of praying until God revealed that, this was easy, we can see by facts how old the universe is.
What so many people don’t understand is that the dating methods are based on assumptions. Everyone is expecting there to be no isotopic decay when the materials they’re analyzing were created. We don’t know that. There very well could’ve been isotopic decay on day one of creation because we don’t know anything about the methods God used to create the universe or the forces or energies these materials were exposed to. So we can’t accurately predict how much isotopic decay there was in these materials 6,000 years ago. According to Genesis 1 there was no cooling time because there was no Big Bang. God spoke everything into being so there’s no heat problem. God placed the sun and the moon and the stars in the heavens to be signs of the seasons. It wouldn’t make any sense for Him to have placed them there and not create the light for us to be able to see them making us have to wait 13 billion years before we could actually use them as signs of the seasons.Yowm is used for anything to do with TIME, then in order to understand the TIMEFRAME one has to look at all the descriptions. Nothing fits in a young earth. The earths surface took millions of years to cool. The Dinos died out 70 million years ago and turned into oil. Light travels at the Speed of Light. In that Radar Map, those Quantum Fluctuations OUTSIDE our Universe the Scientists a not explain, would be God.
It is what it is brother, this stuff is east to me, my calling is understanding Prophecy.
God Bless
Anyone can write a commentary, it doesn’t mean there’s any truth to it.For whoever might be more deeply interested in biblical genealogies, namely in gospels. Its too long in the book, so I took just some pieces:
Family trees
...However, Herod I is said to have destroyed all the genealogies that were stored in the temple in order to cover up his lowly origin and break the genealogical pride of some Israelites, especially the high priests, who boasted genealogies, said to include a period of up to 2000 years.
Since then, only family trees have been maintained in the form of comments to the books of Paralipomenon, in which the genealogies of the Davidians occupied a prominent place. After all, the Messiah was expected from the family of David!
When studying OT family trees, it is important to keep in mind that they often differ significantly from our concept of genealogy.
An Israeli sometimes preferred schematic symmetry to listing all the descendants of individual family tree links. Many are
omitted to reach a certain number. Thus from Adam to Noah 10 generations are calculated, from Shem to Abraham also 10; Noah had 70 sons, likewise Jacob's house had 70 souls [Gn 46,27].
For the most part, genealogy must be understood as a calculation not of individuals [Gn 10:8-10], but of tribes; son can refer to the population of a certain territory, tribe or nation [Gn 10:2-22] or even a city [Gn 10:15; 25.2-4;
1Pa 2.50-55. *Son].
The expression "to beget", "to give birth to someone" must often be understood in a broader sense: "to be the originator", the forefather, the founder.
Family trees were also used to preserve stories about more important representatives of the family. What for us are the dates in the overview of history, for the Israelis were the names of the individual articles in the year.
*Genealogy of Jesus.
According to the traditional concept, in the NT we have a double genealogy of Jesus, in Mt 1:1-16 ascending from Abraham to Jesus, in L 3:33-24 a descending genealogy from Jesus, the second Adam, to
to the first Adam. Both generally agree in names from Abraham to David. But in others, the two "family trees" differ considerably. We have at Mt the Davidic line as it developed through the Solomons, at Lk is the line of Solomon's brother Nathan. This difference is evident from the following tables, compiled in ascending order...
...A more acceptable interpretation is given by Zahn in his commentary on Mt [3. 1910 edition]. He believes with Chrysostom that the title Mt 1.1 »biblos geneseós«, which Kral. they translate the »Book of *genealogy«, belongs to the entire Gospel, not just to Mt 1:2-17, and that it is not a genealogy [Greek genealogy] at all, a listing of the ancestors of a certain person, but a tólédôt [=stories, Gn 6:9; 37.2; Well 3.1; *Rod], the stories of the life of Jesus, in which the history of Israel from Abraham and
David has reached his goal. Matthew [or even Luke] is not at all concerned with proving that Jesus is from the family of David - if he wanted to prove it, he would have started with David, not Abraham - because even his greatest enemies did not even doubt Jesus was a Davidian and his public performance would otherwise be incomprehensible.
In his Gospel, Matthew wants to present the stories of Jesus in such a way that it is evident that Jesus, of the many David's descendants who existed at the time [comp. Mt 11:3] is the Messiah, i.e. that the promises given to the royal house of David and Abraham were fulfilled in him.
The so-called family tree of Matthew is actually the history of Israel in a nutshell: Abraham is the root in which Israel distinguished itself from the history of the rest
of humanity, Jesus Christ is the culmination of this history. That Mt was not concerned with the year can also be seen from the fact that many names from 1Pa 1:34; 2:1-15; 3:1-19; Rt 4:18-22; 1Pa 3:19-24 are omitted and for the period after Zerubbabel he lists names about which there is nothing in the Bible, and that he artificially narrates his calculation according to the scheme 3x14 [Mt 1:17]:
lists 14 birth names in David; in David, the history begun by Abraham culminates for him temporarily; from David to the Babylonian captivity
also lists 14 family names. The deportation of the chosen nation and the loss of Israel's political independence is the second peak of history for M, which occurred because of the sins of the rulers, some of whom [v. 7-11] they could not even become bearers of God's promise [2S 7,12-16]. But in order for Mt to reach the number 14, he had to omit between Jehoram and Hosea [= Uzziah, Azariah]
three kings: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. According to Jerome, this erasure of the names of the three kings occurred because they came from the house of the wicked Jezebel.
However, this is by no means a mistake, but rather a deliberate adaptation of the 3x14 scheme. Catholic interpreters point out that the number 14 is the symbolic number of the name of David [dalet = 4, vav = 6, dalet = 4. The name David had these three consonants dvd = 4+6+4 = 14]. In the third line, however, we have only 13 names in today's Matthew's text. Zahn convincingly proves that this is a mistake of the translator of the Gospel from Aramaic to Greek, when he omitted Joachim and Jeconiah is listed as the son of Josiah, although in fact he was his grandson [sr. 2 Kings 23,30n.34-24,17; further 1Pa 3:15, where Shallum is most likely identical with Jehoahaz]. Zahn believes that Mt 1:11 originally read as follows: »Josiah then begat Joachim and his brothers during the Babylonian deportation« [sr. 2 Pa 36,6.10; 2 Kings 24:15; 25.7].
The interrupted so-called genealogy in verse 12, where Jeconias suddenly appears, is justified by the fact that a kingless period is coming, indicated four times by the Greek term metoikesia = deportation [Kral. "captivity"]. One of the deported princes became Salatiel's father [1Pa 3,16ff].
One of the deported princes became Salatiel's father [1Pa 3.16nn]. That Mt is not concerned with the family tree, but with history
according to Zahn, it can also be seen from the fact that in v. 2 and 11 there is the addition »and his brothers«. Mt thereby indicates an important turn in the history of Israel: the bearer of the blessing is already not an individual. Judas and his brothers are the founders of the "house of Israel" [Mt 10:6; 15:24], »twelve generations« [Mt 19:28].
It is the same in v. 11. Until then, the bearers of the promises given to David were individuals from the Davidic family. After the fall of the empire, the line is no longer clear. The Davidians branch into several lines, and no one knew from which branch the messianic kingdom would come to life.
It is certainly not without intention that Mt draws attention to their shameful aspects in his overview of the history of Israel [Tamar Gn 38; Raab - a heathen and a harlot Josh 2.1; James 2:25; Heb 11:31; Ruth the Moabitess Gn 19:30-38]; Bathsheba is not even named, but Mt gently draws attention to David's adultery and murder [2S 11,2-12. 25; Psalm 51]. To the Jewish ears it sounded offensive, but to the faithful readers in these facts there was a hint that Jesus Christ, who entered such history, would become the savior of all from sin, not only Jews, but also Gentiles [Mt 28:19].
Perhaps there was also a hidden apology against Jewish gossip and rumors connected with the virgin birth of Jesus.
According to Zahn, even Luke's family tree does not want to prove the Davidic origin of Jesus, but rather his connection with the beginning of human history and with the entire human race. The son of God is also the son of Adam! Jesus is one of the members of the human race [comp. expression *Son of man J 2:57]. In Jesus Christ, what God intended in Adam was accomplished. He is the second Adam. At the same time, however, he is the visible image of the invisible God [2K 4,4; Ecclesiastes 1:15; sr. John 12:45; 14.4 nn; Heb 1:3]. All of this perhaps expresses the end of the genealogy in Luke 3:38: "Who was Adam's, who was God's". Luke's genealogy, which according to some manuscripts has 77 names, is numerically evenly composed: 21 [3x7] names from Jesus to the exile, 21 [3x7] names from the exile to David, 14 names from David to Abraham, and 21 names from Abraham to God. According to Škrabal, the number 77 is said to express perfection [sr. Mt 18:22], i.e. the perfect reading of the entire human race, whose new Adam became the Savior [universality, universality of salvation].
(Adolf Novotný, Biblický slovník, p. 787, Google translation, with some tweaking)
Yeah except we’re not using imagination we’re using the word of God that you think came from the imagination of man. There’s a difference.Imagination that stands on education is all right. Education is based on what can be studied - the original culture, for example.
On the other hand, imagination based upon ignorance is what the YEC Christians (mostly Americans) or the Flat Earth Christians (also mostly Americans) practice - intuitive reading "as it is", mixed with current modern ideas. Without any interest in the history, culture, composition or the origin of the text.
What did I say 10 days ago? Everything has it's own perspective. Everything is relative. We see things from our perspective but God wants us to see things from His perspective. This is why we talk about having the mind of Christ and the divine thoughts of God.That’s not what you said 10 days ago.
That is a different discussion. I am talking about the dust that God made Adam from. It existed before we did. That is why it took God 13 billion years to create us. Although some people talk about a literal day. There had to have been a literal week of 24 hour days before God created Adam. When God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.The preexistence of souls was rejected at the 5th ecumenical council in 553AD.
Nope. You are using your imagination during the reading, not understanding what the text is about. Thats where studying is needed.Yeah except we’re not using imagination we’re using the word of God that you think came from the imagination of man. There’s a difference.
Nope. You need to be an expert in the field to be able to write and get printed a solid, reputable Bible Dictionary. Its such a huge work that only few can do it.Anyone can write a commentary, it doesn’t mean there’s any truth to it.
Oh so you believe that Genesis 1 came to man from God then?Nope. You are using your imagination during the reading, not understanding what the text is about. Thats where studying is needed.
Ahh so then seminary schools must all agree with one another and teach the same theology then huh?Nope. You need to be an expert in the field to be able to write and get printed a solid, reputable Bible Dictionary. Its such a huge work that only few can do it.
Right so man was there before Adam?Nope. It did not come from heaven. It was written by men, as the whole Bible.
So this must mean that just because someone is considered to be “an expert in the field” doesn’t mean that they’re right, right? Or is this just another “logical fallacy”?Nope. You are using plenty of logical fallacies.
Nope. It means you must be an expert in the field to be able to create and get printed a solid, reputable Bible dictionary.So this must mean that just because someone is considered to be “an expert in the field” doesn’t mean that they’re right, right? Or is this just another “logical fallacy”?
Yeah I think John Calvin did that, and the Roman Catholic Church, and the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They must all be “experts” as well, wouldn’t you say?Nope. You need to be an expert in the field to be able to write and get printed a solid, reputable Bible Dictionary. It’s such a huge work that only few can do it.
You didn’t answer the question, are all these experts who have different theologies right?Nope. It means you must be an expert in the field to be able to create and get printed a solid, reputable Bible dictionary.
All your "So..." posts are showing known logical fallacies. The other posts are showing just ignorance. This conversation has no meaning, so I will leave you here.
They can. Bible dictionaries should not be about one's theology, but about cultural and historical subjects. And no, John Calvin did not create any Bible dictionary. You are confusing bible dictionary with bible commentaries.Yeah I think John Calvin did that, and the Roman Catholic Church, and the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They must all be “experts” as well, wouldn’t you say?
My point is that there is only one truth and there are so called “experts” in every single denomination known to man. Which means that the vast majority of them are wrong.Nope. It means you must be an expert in the field to be able to create and get printed a solid, reputable Bible dictionary.
All your "So..." posts are showing known logical fallacies. The other posts are showing just ignorance. This conversation has no meaning, so I will leave you here.
Awe but you didn’t answer my question about man being at the creation event before Adam. Because if Genesis 1 didn’t come from God and it didn’t come from man’s imagination, I’d sure like to know where it came from? Neanderthal cave paintings perhaps?They can. Bible dictionaries should not be about one's theology, but about cultural and historical subjects. And no, John Calvin did not create any Bible dictionary. You are confusing bible dictionary with bible commentaries.
Thats all for now.
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?