if the YECists are literalists then why aren't they Sabbatarians?

[statrei]

I wish I understood the mystery of the name of God, but I doubt that I ever will. I don't think of Moses playing literary tricks though. I think of him as a prophet of God that may have seen more of Him then anyone in history, except perhaps Adam, Enoch and Elijah. I guess we just have to trust that God really did tell Moses that His name is "I Am". Besides, since God has been named as Elohim, Jehovah, Joshua, Emmanuel and probably a few others, wouldn't that make all these instances literary tricks? Sorry but my faith doesn't allow for that.

I did not mean to imply that Moses wanted to trick us. The fact is that he seemed to be making a point that most seem to have overlooked. He put enough in that first chapter to make it plain that his purpose was not to detail the how of creation but the WHO of creation.

 

[statrei]

It's a good thing I don't know where you live.

J/K

As the apostle Paul, I strive to keep a clear conscience before God. My conscience would not permit me to do anything that is too bad since I am saved and I have the Spirit of God living inside of me.

Just wait until we don't have anymore worldly laws to worry about anymore. Then the gloves are off buddy.

J/k again.

No need to joke. I believe in "eye for an eye" and I do the taking first.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You can't believe that argument. Water is mentioned except that it existed BEFORE the first day of creation began. I suggest that you read Gen. 1 again. Familiarity may have blurred the account.

Are we in agreement that waters spoken of were contained within the heaven?

 

[statrei]

Are we in agreement that waters spoken of were contained within the heaven?

I don't know. The account is convoluted enough to make a wise man look foolish. If Moses had wanted He could have said that on the first day Elohim said let there be water and light. He chose not to.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I did not mean to imply that Moses wanted to trick us. The fact is that he seemed to be making a point that most seem to have overlooked. He put enough in that first chapter to make it plain that his purpose was not to detail the how of creation but the WHO of creation.

I agree that Genesis is not about How, but it does give us Who, What, When, Where, and Why. Why is the mystery that was revealed in Jesus Christ. But in the last 150 years there has been an assault on the Why by the How.

 

[statrei]

I agree that Genesis is not about How, but it does give us Who, What, When, Where, and Why. Why is the mystery that was revealed in Jesus Christ. But in the last 150 years there has been an assault on the Why by the How.

It does not give us when. Nothing in Genesis suggests when the earth was created. Bishop Ussher was over zealous and wrong. Why had nothing to do with the revelation of Jesus Christ. His ministry was a result of the Fall in Gen. 3.

So what do we have?

Who: The Creator is all I will agree to, because when Moses asked for His name he did not seem to have one. He responded with a verb and everyone knows a name has to be a noun.

When: In the beginning. That is some point in eternity. It really does not matter but it cannot be 6,000 years ago.

Where: Not sure how to respond to that. Gen. 1 is really about the earth rather than about creation itself. If He took 6 days to make the earth how could he take only 1 day to make the rest of the stars on the fourth day. (Additional evidence that YECists did not read the text).

Why: The Creator wanted company. Why else would he come down and hang out with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Here we go again. This is really not the topic of this thread, but I just can't help myself though this will be my last post on this topic here.

Genesis is about more than the creation. It also includes the major elements of the fall of man, and God's redemptive plan.

You are right that God created us for His good pleasure. But the Why I speak of concerns the events following the fall. Modern theories of How of creation indirectly assault the Why of the redemptive plan on two fronts:

1) Evolution itself (not speciation which is compatible with the modern YEC viewpoint, and not abiogenesis) implies that death is an integral part of reality, whereas the Bible teaches that death is a curse as a result of Adam's sin.

2) Gradualism implies an old Earth, but in order for the Bible to support gradualism, Genesis has to be allegorical and not factual, otherwise it falls apart. Either way is damaging to the foundation of the whole redemptive plan.

It's not an issue of ignorance, it's just that YEC'ists don't believe widely accepted theories to be fact.

So, how could God create all the stars in one day whereas the earth He created in six? He's all mighty and He created the whole universe, so why couldn't He do so if He chose? It seems to me that He may have done so because the Earth is more important to Him than the stars.

 

[statrei]

So, how could God create all the stars in one day whereas the earth He created in six? He's all mighty and He created the whole universe, so why couldn't He do so if He chose? It seems to me that He may have done so because the Earth is more important to Him than the stars.

Or far more likely that the Bible is about this earth and the Genesis account only served to provide a brief foundation for God's dealings with fallen man. All of God's creation is important to Him but Moses is writing an account about this earth so it looms large in his account. Much energy would be saved if we saw the Bible as about the fall and redemption rather than about the Creation. The problem YECists have is not that they oppose abiogenesis and evolution but that their refusal to see Gen. 1 for what it is provides an implausible alternative. (If you can, you can split this into a different thread to avoid polluting this thread).

 

[TheBear]

Hallelujah! My prayers have been answered

Mine too!

Thank God you don't have core doctrines as mixed up as you have origins doctrine.

Hallelujah, indeed!






(I'll curtail the sanctimoniousness, just as soon as you do. )

 

[Sojourner<><]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree that Genesis is not about How, but it does give us Who, What, When, Where, and Why. Why is the mystery that was revealed in Jesus Christ. But in the last 150 years there has been an assault on the Why by the How.

this is the first time i've seen this formulation "assault on the why by the how"
is it yours? or do you have a reference?

the why-who vs. how is H.Van Till's nice contribution, see:
my review at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...38269-7769631?_encoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books

The best way to read the book is to xerox the chart on pg 198 and keep it at your elbow. It summarizes the entire book!!!

To Scripture you address questions of external relationships:
Status Origin Goverance Value Purpose

To Science you address questions of internal affairs:
Properties Behavior History

 

[Floodnut]

I am a YEC, but I do not observe the Sabbath. I follow the New Testament. And I am not commanded in the NT to observe the Sabbath, and I am not commanded to avoid cloth of mixed fiber. Those aspects of the Law which are obliged upon me were specified in the first council of Jerusalem. Now then, what the Bible declares about how the world began is true no matter whether I observe the Sabbath or not. If I am a godless idolater, it still doesn't change what God said about Creation. It is true because Jesus said it, and because Paul said it, and Peter said. And Moses said it to the Jews when he gave them the commandment in their laws to observe the Seventh Day as a day of rest (Exodus 20:11).

 

[Sojourner<><]

I've noticed that you've made several references to Moses being the author of Genesis.
Are you aware that there are alternative theories? The J,E,D,P hypothesis is one liberal theory, though I think that was picked up with last week's garbage. And then there is also what is called compilation of patriarchal records which suggests that Genesis is a series of ancient records that was compiled and edited by Moses.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It is a summary in my own words of the principles found in The Genesis Record by Dr. Henry Morris

 

[rmwilliamsll]

from the other thread that started this

Now, question is, what is the spirit of the law of Sabbath? What YECs claim all along is that the spirit of the law of Sabbath is rooted in a particular historic day in the creation of the world: that because God rested on a particular, existent, specific, 24-hour day, Moses told the Jews to do so too. (I say this because most YECs "prove" that Creation Week was a real week by saying so.) However, we run into a problem: practically all the Christians in the world are breaking the spirit of the law of the Sabbath! After all, if the spirit of the law of Sabbath is simply "God slept in on Saturday" (to be grossly simplistic) isn't it necessary for all our sleep-in days to be on Saturday??

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16544191#post16544191

good, i thought it was just me, and my inability to write clearly.
this is the issue.

Gen 1 is clearly aiming at two big things.
God created all that is.
The Sabbath day is justified as a creation mandate because of Gen 1 very structure. These are the big issues, not whether light was created before the light bearers, yet because of our science saturated society we ask an entirely different set of questions of Gen 1 then did the original readers.

...

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't want to disrupt the idea of the Sabbath as a creation mandate, but I do have one question that comes to mind. If God instituted Sabbath keeping as one of His commandments because it was a creation mandate, then why didn't He at this time also institute monogamy since the first marriage is also a mandate? Remember that polygamy was accepted for quite some time after the institution of Mosaic law. Perhaps creation mandates were not a factor in His decision.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I don't want to disrupt the idea of the Sabbath as a creation mandate, but I do have one question that comes to mind. If God instituted Sabbath keeping as one of His commandments because it was a creation mandate, then why didn't He at this time also institute monogamy since the first marriage is also a mandate? Remember that polygamy was accepted for quite some time after the institution of Mosaic law. Perhaps creation mandates were not a factor in His decision.

Jesus confirmed that monogamy was a creation mandate

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, {God} MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

....

 

[statrei]

I've noticed that you've made several references to Moses being the author of Genesis.
Are you aware that there are alternative theories? The J,E,D,P hypothesis is one liberal theory, though I think that was picked up with last week's garbage. And then there is also what is called compilation of patriarchal records which suggests that Genesis is a series of ancient records that was compiled and edited by Moses.

It does not matter who is entitlled to the royalties from Genesis. Let them work that out in court. The issues I have raised remain the same.

 

[Floodnut]

Moses wrote the Pentetuch. This is confirmed by Jesus. JDEP from the Graf-W school is a rejection of biblical authority and inerrancy. Peter taught the reality of Creation and the Flood but he taught us who are gentiles to be free from the Laws of the Jews, except those specified in the Jerusalem council

 

[statrei]

Moses wrote the Pentetuch. This is confirmed by Jesus. JDEP from the Graf-W school is a rejection of biblical authority and inerrancy. Peter taught the reality of Creation and the Flood but he taught us who are gentiles to be free from the Laws of the Jews, except those specified in the Jerusalem council

Don't confuse circumscision with ALL law. This may not apply to your but I also dont understand the mindset that can claim a break from divine law but also appeal to that law to fight against gays and homosexuals.