• 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.

Implication of Origins

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben_Hur

Me at the Races...
Oct 26, 2003
916
48
62
Northwest
✟24,119.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
azzy said:
And lastly,Evolution is satanic BS,it is really sad to see someone trying to explain away the awsome power of God,the bible says six days,believe it.

Well, the Bible says that a star will fall from heaven (and implies that it would NOT burn up the whole earth). Are we to believe that too?

Rev 9:1 Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him.

The Bible says Jesus is the "bright morning star." So are we to believe He is a celestial body that consists of burning hydrogen?

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Are we to believe the earth has a mouth and that a dragon puked a river?

Rev 12:16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth.

Indeed, we could surmise from a read of Revelation that mythical dragons were going to become real (or maybe used to exist) and torment the earth.

So just because Genesis uses the word day, doesn't necessarily mean a litteral 24 hour day. Before you go baselesly declaring what is satanic and what is not, you might want to do some research of your own to see if there might be something to it - or just stay out of it.

Just because we want to know more about God's creation doesn't mean we are studying things from satan. To say that evolution is satanic boarders on legalism and gnosticism. Be careful.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
rmwilliamsll said:
so you propose that God told the Biblical writers that the Earth was really round. Yet they continued to write as if the dominant earth is flat model was true? All of the OT is written before 200BC which is the date for the first confirmed scientific measurement of the earth's diameter.

Yes but as you well know men speculated the earth was a sphere long before that. I can certainly see why. We can observe ship disappearing over the horizon. We can see the Sun and Moon are spheres.

rmwilliamsll said:
the big question is if the Bible is written to the people at that time. And they certainly believed that the earth was flat, then why introduce the idea that the earth was round? it has nothing to do with the theology being taught?

Why would not God just convey what was accurate whether is was the focus of His teaching or not. You are completely giving up inerrancy in oder to feel intelligent amongst men.

I'm surprised you're taking this view. Most FH guys don't. You actually believe the writers intended to convey the earth was flat? That is so sad. But I think it's safe to say you're in the minority even amongst those on your side.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
fragmentsofdreams said:
Let's be consistent. Either consideration of what the people believed at the time of writing is permissable (which opens the Bible up to non-literal interpretations) or only the plain reading of the text is permissable (which implies a flat earth). You change your method of interpretation solely on how difficult it is to accept the conclusions.

Boy is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? I let the context dictate the meaning of the passage. You let the difficulty of believe dictate the meaning of the passage.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Rusticus said:
In order to be credible you can't have it both ways. You either believe in the Bible literally or you don't.

As soon as you say that some parts are metaphorical it then is up to the individual Christian - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - to work out which bits are metaphorical and which are not.

And I, and a large number of other Christians have come to the conclusion that the 6 days are metaphorical.

So then the resurrection is metaphorical also? You just said either it is all literal or all metaphorical.

You really have a lot to learn. There is not a person on the board who believes it is all one or the other.

Rusticus said:
And that's about all there is to say about it.

I think it would be wise to do some listening at this point.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
azzy said:
And the chief instigator is the wicked one,there may not be a man behind it who is plotting and planning the next move,but you can be sure that the wicked one seeks to call God a liar at every turn.

This is true. What's worse is the christian support they are receiving. Thank God for men like Ben Hur's pastor.

azzy said:
It says 6 days,why is there such a struggle to believe God?Why is there such an attemt to say that what God has said,doesnt really mean what he says?
Ultimately some are afraid of being rejected by the intellectual community. Miracles just aren't considered cool in those circles. Either you believe in a natural explanation or you're dumb and dangerous.

azzy said:
This is the devils way,Hath God said?Thats what he told Eve,Did God really mean that?God didnt really mean what he said..

You nailed it! Did God really say six days? Hah! All that and the genealogies that started with Adam were just figurative stories to convey.....??

azzy said:
So,in my humble opinion,evolution is a lie from the devil,to think God wasnt able to creat his own creation in 6 days,and to think God needed millions of years,is to call God a liar.And to limit God.

You know it's interesting. The liar argument seems so popular among theistic evolutionists, but none of them seem bothered about the ostensible untruths and inaccuracies in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Rusticus

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2005
1,036
47
✟16,490.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Calminian said:
So then the resurrection is metaphorical also? You just said either it is all literal or all metaphorical.

You really have a lot to learn. There is not a person on the board who believes it is all one or the other.



I think it would be wise to do some listening at this point.


It seems it is you who has to learn to read: what I said was " As soon as you say that some parts are metaphorical it then is up to the individual Christian - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - to work out which bits are metaphorical and which are not."
(This was after you had earlier said that the bible must always be taken literally; and then you then changed tack to say that some parts are metaphorical.)

Also, patronising remarks are not in order, as far as I am concerned.


Do you believe that salvation depends on a belief in a 6-day-young-earth-creation?

If yes, where did Jesus say so?

If no, why do you try to sow difficulties for other christians?
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ben_Hur said:
Ok, first, the question he answered.

I've stated that if God poofed the world into existence in 6 days, but made it LOOK older, then he was being deceptive. My pastor says that if God tells you that this is what he did, then he is not being deceptive.

Excellent point. It's literally impossible to poof anything into existence without confusing those who don't believe in poofs about the age of that thing. If you could just get that one point you'll be on your way to understanding our side.

Ben_Hur said:
I'll buy that, but now I think the Bible is inconsistent in light of Psalm 19:1:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

The statement says nothing of time. It doesn't say "the heavens reveal how old the earth is." You won't find a single passage is scripture that says anything like this. God revealed in Genesis how old the earth was. He never told us to study nature to find its age.

Ben_Hur said:
Well, the firmament shows that it was made in more than 6 days......

No it doesn't. You'll only believe this if you ignore the miracle God told you about in Genesis which would give you a different presupposition. If God said He made some yogurt yesterday instantly, why would you try to disprove that by checking the fermentation levels? Fermentation time can only estimated if the yogurt was made naturally. The same is true with the world. Science can only prove the earth was not made naturally 6,000 ago. Honest scientists will admit this. But that Bible doesn't say it was made naturally.

But your pastor's right on the money. If God reveals the miracle and we don't factor it in to our presuppositions, we only have ourselves to blame for being deceived.

Ben_Hur said:
1. First, he makes an argument for apparent age, then goes on to refute scientists for being a "victim" of the apparent age phenomena put in place by God himself! The paster says himself that the creation will look older than it is via apparent age, but then criticizes scientists for seeing that.

Anything created via miracle (additions to natural processes) will look older to the one assuming a miracle did not happened. But as he said before, if you are told about the miracle and refuse to believe it, it's not God's fault. He wants men to believe Him but they won't.
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
21
CA
Visit site
✟36,328.00
Faith
Catholic
Calminian said:
Boy is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? I let the context dictate the meaning of the passage. You let the difficulty of believe dictate the meaning of the passage.

No. I don't.

My reading of Genesis is not determined by what is easier to believe but by what is more consistent with everything I know about it. My study of ancient literature reveals that ancient people had different literary styles than we do, and that it would be foolhardy to read ancient texts as if they were written in modern styles. My study of the myths of neighboring cultures reveals many similarities to Genesis, but more importantly it reveals differences. These differences powerfully reveal the errors of the other religions as well the nature of God. My study of Jesus's parables reaveals that he often took a well known parable and changed it at important parts to drive home his point to his audience. My study of the text of Genesis reveals many seams where different stories were combined into one text.

All of this leads me to believe that the ancient Hebrews heard many myths from the neighboring cultures, especially from their times in Egyptian and Babylonian captivity. When they started to be swayed by them (as they seem to do often in the OT), God inspired some of his people to retell these myths in ways that show them the errors of the other religions and to educate them about the nature of God. Familiar with the myths, the Hebrews took in the theological points and were aware that the myths were not modern histories. Eventually, these inspired, corrected myths were compiled into what we know as Genesis. God did not inspire the authors about the actual history of creation because it was irrelevant to His purpose. How God created is not as important as that He created. When God created the Sun and Moon is not as important as that the Sun and the Moon are not gods.

All of this should be sufficient to see Genesis as a true myth without needing to even look at what God's Creation reveals to us.

A six-day Creation is not that hard to believe. That God became a man, lived among us, died, and rose from the dead is hard to believe. Once one has accepted that, nothing seems impossible. The reason I don't believe in a six-day Creation because I don't believe that is what Genesis tells us.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ben_Hur said:
Well, the Bible says that a star will fall from heaven (and implies that it would NOT burn up the whole earth). Are we to believe that too?

I think you need to familiarize your self with biblical terms. A "star" to the biblical writer did not mean the same thing that we mean today. Stars were simply heavenly lights that were not the Sun or Moon. Angels were also called stars. The angel that led the magi to Bethlehem was called a star. Biblically, a star is simply a light in the sky. Even today we call meteors (or is it meteorites?) falling stars. A large lit up object falling to earth would have been called a star by the biblical writers. So yes we are to believe it is possible a "star" (as they defined it) would not burn up the earth if it fell. You can take the passage literally if you let the writers define their own terms. Don't be confused by modern definitions.

Ben_Hur said:
So just because Genesis uses the word day, doesn't necessarily mean a litteral 24 hour day.

And then the leap in logic. Day means day because there is nothing in the context informing us it is figurative. Day, night, evening (the end of day), morning (the end of night). Moses gives us frame of reference when he compares creation week to the jewish work week. There's no reason to make it figurative.

Ben_Hur said:
Just because we want to know more about God's creation doesn't mean we are studying things from satan. To say that evolution is satanic boarders on legalism and gnosticism. Be careful.

No it's not legalism. Satan will always try to change ones presuppositions. It's exactly as azzy says. Satan is tapping you on the shoulder (no not literally) and saying, "Did God really say.....???"

And furthermore God never told you to go to nature to test what He said about the earth's age. This would be like Christ telling you to take the wine He created to a lab to test it's age. Of course the lab's conclusion will be off because their presuppositions are off.

And no, your side is actually closer to gnosticism. You’re claiming you have the true key to Bible interpretation—knowledge of modern scientific theories.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
fragmentsofdreams said:
Eventually, these inspired, corrected myths were compiled into what we know as Genesis.

So then to be consistent you must also believe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are myths. Correct?? They're all linked in the genealogies.

fragmentsofdreams said:
God did not inspire the authors about the actual history of creation because it was irrelevant to His purpose. How God created is not as important as that He created. When God created the Sun and Moon is not as important as that the Sun and the Moon are not gods.

How is making up an untrue story of the Sun and Moon being created in one day convincing proof for someone believing they are gods. I mean if I believed they were gods and you told me that Genesis is just a myth, why wouldn't I continue believing what I believed? It makes no sense to refute myths with myths.

fragmentsofdreams said:
All of this should be sufficient to see Genesis as a true myth without needing to even look at what God's Creation reveals to us.

You haven't yet told us the purpose of this myth. That's easy to do with the wheat and tare parables. What is the purpose of the genealogies myth? I'm dying to hear this. If it wasn't to show these were real people, what is it teaching us?

fragmentsofdreams said:
A six-day Creation is not that hard to believe. That God became a man, lived among us, died, and rose from the dead is hard to believe. Once one has accepted that, nothing seems impossible. The reason I don't believe in a six-day Creation because I don't believe that is what Genesis tells us.

What is genesis telling us? What is the myth of Abraham telling us? What is the myth of the genealogies telling us?
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
21
CA
Visit site
✟36,328.00
Faith
Catholic
Calminian said:
So then to be consistent you must also believe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are myths. Correct?? They're all linked in the genealogies.

In the ancient world, it was common for mythical geneologies to be connected to historical people. Therefore, a geneology connected to a mythical figure doesn't make all others connected to it mythical nor does a geneology connected to a historical figure make all others connected to it historical.

How is making up an untrue story of the Sun and Moon being created in one day convincing proof for someone believing they are gods. I mean if I believed they were gods and you told me that Genesis is just a myth, why wouldn't I continue believing what I believed? It makes no sense to refute myths with myths.

The stories seem to be more corrective than evangelical. They seem more directed to educating someone who already believes in God rather than trying to convert pagans.

It makes perfect sense to refute myths with myths once one understands that myth does not mean false.

You haven't yet told us the purpose of this myth. That's easy to do with the wheat and tare parables. What is the purpose of the genealogies myth? I'm dying to hear this. If it wasn't to show these were real people, what is it teaching us?

The geneologies serve the purpose of connecting the figures in Genesis.

What is genesis telling us? What is the myth of Abraham telling us? What is the myth of the genealogies telling us?

Regarless of whether Abraham is mythical or historical (or a mix of both) it is informing the Hebrews that they have a special relationship with God.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Calminian said:
Excellent point. It's literally impossible to poof anything into existence without confusing those who don't believe in poofs about the age of that thing. If you could just get that one point you'll be on your way to understanding our side.



The statement says nothing of time. It doesn't say "the heavens reveal how old the earth is." You won't find a single passage is scripture that says anything like this. God revealed in Genesis how old the earth was. He never told us to study nature to find its age.



No it doesn't. You'll only believe this if you ignore the miracle God told you about in Genesis which would give you a different presupposition. If God said He made some yogurt yesterday instantly, why would you try to disprove that by checking the fermentation levels? Fermentation time can only estimated if the yogurt was made naturally. The same is true with the world. Science can only prove the earth was not made naturally 6,000 ago. Honest scientists will admit this. But that Bible doesn't say it was made naturally.

But your pastor's right on the money. If God reveals the miracle and we don't factor it in to our presuppositions, we only have ourselves to blame for being deceived.



Anything created via miracle (additions to natural processes) will look older to the one assuming a miracle did not happened. But as he said before, if you are told about the miracle and refuse to believe it, it's not God's fault. He wants men to believe Him but they won't.


Let me get this straight.

You are agreeing that if we assume that God used strictly natural processes to bring the universe into being, we would have to conclude it is billions of years old.

The reason we don't do that is because God did not use strictly natural processes. God used miracles to create the earth in 6 days a few thousand years ago. And told us so in the bible.

I have no quarrel with that. Science never claims to tell us what the case would be if God intervened miraculously. Everything in science is based on the premise that no miracle occurred.

It seems you are agreeing that the scientific conclusions are correct, if no miracle occurred. The only thing that makes them wrong is that a miracle did occur.

Is that right?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
And furthermore God never told you to go to nature to test what He said about the earth's age. This would be like Christ telling you to take the wine He created to a lab to test it's age. Of course the lab's conclusion will be off because their presuppositions are off.

8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

that is exactly what He did. Take it to the master of the banquet, that is the experts, and have him confirm the miracle.

what is the implication of:
Mat 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
to exercise wisdom.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


....
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
So then to be consistent you must also believe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are myths. Correct?? They're all linked in the genealogies.

Well, as they are stories about human beings, the more accurate term would be legends, but so what? so they're legendary stories? So?

On the other hand, of course, the British royal family claim to be descended from some bloke called Arthur, and he probably didn't exist. So if he didn't exist, then the royal family mustn't exist and we're really a republic after all... Hurrah! Up the revolution!
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
rmwilliamsll said:
that is exactly what He did. Take it to the master of the banquet, that is the experts, and have him confirm the miracle.

what is the implication of:

to exercise wisdom.




....

Richard, come on now. You must know that the master of the banquet was the head of the ceremony there. He wasn't the expert in wine tasting or knowing if it is better than any wine ever made.

He knew it was better than any wine he had had during this ceremony. It is right there in the text, you can't miss it.

And I bet, at first, the miracle was lost on the master in the beginning and hit those who did as Jesus said in His turning the water to wine the most. It was for them to see and believe.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Why would not God just convey what was accurate whether is was the focus of His teaching or not. You are completely giving up inerrancy in oder to feel intelligent amongst men.

Scripture is addressed to it's original readers. It is their language, their culture, their science which is being addressed, not ours. The Scripture uses a flat geocentric "language of appearances" motif to present its ideas. This does not mean these things are transcultural and have eternal teaching significance, they are being used, just like an envelope is being used to get a letter to its designation. The mailman hands you an envelope with a letter inside. The envelope is not the same as the contents but was necessary for the process. The same way a flat geocentric universe was necessary for the process of communicating truth to us but it is not our scientific truth nor God's but the Hebrews.

in order to feel intelligent amongst men.
I am really tired of people telling me what my motivations are, you don't know me, nor do you know the struggles i've been through on these issues. Your remarks that TE's, in this case, me, are men pleasers is really a way of nasty underhanded way to convince yourself that you are trying to please God by holding to an unreasonable faith(how does it feel) . Why not just argue the issues and leave personalities out of it? isn't it complex enough without trying to pin motivations to everyone?


...
 
Upvote 0

Ben_Hur

Me at the Races...
Oct 26, 2003
916
48
62
Northwest
✟24,119.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Calminian said:
I think you need to familiarize your self with biblical terms. A "star" to the biblical writer did not mean the same thing that we mean today.
I'm aware of our (Christians') current interpretation of Revelation is. Thank you for making my point. So, while you are apparently saying that at least some of Revelation is metephorical, NONE of Gen 1 could possibly be....ok.


Calminian said:
And then the leap in logic. Day means day because there is nothing in the context informing us it is figurative. Day, night, evening (the end of day), morning (the end of night). Moses gives us frame of reference when he compares creation week to the jewish work week. There's no reason to make it figurative.
Actually, there is.

Here are some counter arguments to what would be your arguments to that effect: (ref this online book)

Argument #1


That the twenty-four-hour interpretation is the most literal reading of the text; God should have used alternate wording if He had intended the "age" interpretation.

This certainly seems true. Although the Hebrew word for day "yom" can also refer to an indefinate period of time, this is not obvious to an English reader today; but, as we have seen, this is what we might expect even if the "age" interpretation is the correct one. God sometimes hides truth from the wise and Genesis 1 is a natural target for this; there is a need to be fair to nonscientists. In any case, Genesis is an extermely ancient writing; it was not originally written in plain English and is likely to be difficult to understand.

Even so, the actual text must tell the truth; furthermore, we ought to be able to see it if we are honestly looking for it. Because scriptural authority must not be compromised, only the literal interpretations will be accepted here. Spiritual, symbolic or figurative interpretations will be rejected. While it is true that the twenty-four-hour sense of the word "yom" is far more common than the "age" sense, the "age" meaning is still a literal rendering of "yom." It is not spiritual, symbolic or figurative. This was seen in the previous chapter from the parallel between the ancient Hebrew "yom" and the modern English "day." Also, "day" was used this way in Genesis 2:17. The twenty-four-hour and "age" interpretations are both literal. Although the twenty-four-hour meaning for "yom" is more common or more plain reading, it is not really more literal than the "age" meaning.

Argument #1, for the twenty-four-hour interpretation, does not hold up under strict inspection. The decision on the length of the Genesis "days" should be made on some other basis.

Argument #2


That Genesis 1:14 forces the twenty-four-hour interpretation by using "yom" in a context which excludes the "age" possibility.

This argument says that since the word "days" 6 in verse 14 is used in a context which can only mean a sequence of twenty-four-hour periods, other usages of the word "day" in the same passage must follow suit and also refer to twenty-four-hour periods. 7

The use of the same word in a closely related passage is a good general rule of interpretation; but this rule must not be applied carelessly. Because the word "day" is used many times in this passage, all of the usages should be considered to get the whole picture - not just one from verse 14.

In the first two chapters, 8 where the "days" in question are found, the word "day" occurs fifteen times and the word "days" once. The single occurrence of the word "days" carries the twenty-four-hour meaning. Of the remaining fifteen usages, nine refer to the days of creation themselves. No assumptions can be made about them because that would be "begging the question." 9 Of the remaining six, the context forces the twelve-hour daylight meaning (as opposed to night) four times and a greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning twice. 10

Because "day" is used so many different ways, this rule gives different results depending upon how it is applied. There are three different possible meanings for "day" used in the surrounding context. Obviously, this rule is not infallible. 11 After all, it is not scripture itself, just a fallible human theory about scripture. Again, the decision about the length of the creative days must be made on some other basis.

Argument #3


That the use of the Hebrew expression "evening and morning" forces the twenty-four-hour interpretation.

This argument is presented as if it were a general rule of interpreting scripture; but no reason is provided as to why it should be considered a valid one - especially considering the antiquity of the text. Like the word "day" the Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" ("arab" and "boqer") both have multiple definitions. It can be seen from Psalm 90:14 that "Morning" carries a meaning which is not tied to a twenty-four-hour day:

"O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." - K.J.V. Emphasis mine.

Here, the Hebrew word "boqer" (emphasized word) was translated as "early" rather than "in the morning" because it was obvious from context that "in the early part of a person's lifetime" rather than "in the morning of a particular twenty-four-hour period" was what the Psalmist had intended; otherwise, whether the blessing came in the morning or the evening would have very little to do with how much time would remain for rejoicing during that person's lifetime. 12

But what about when "evening and morning" appear together as argument #3 requires? Psalm 90:14 does not exactly apply because "evening" and "morning" are not both used there. "Evening" and "morning" occur together many places in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis, this happens six times. Other usages are: Exodus 18:13, 14 & 27:21; Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 9:21; 1 Samuel 17:16; 13 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4 & 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26. As can be seen from examining context of these verses, the expression usually carries the idea of "continuously." For example, instruction may be given to do something "evening and morning." Not only is the thing to be done in the evening and in the morning, but it is also understood that it is to be done day after day. The Living Bible renders the expression "Day and night" in Exodus 27:21. Other acceptable paraphrasings might be "day after day" or even "around the clock" in some cases.

At first glance, the sense of "continuously" does not seem to fit into the context of Genesis 1 no matter which interpretation is assigned to the six days; but it is possible that this phrase is telling us that each of God's creative acts merely commenced on the particular day named and then continued during subsequent days. If this were the case, either interpretation ("age" or twenty-four-hour) would fit equally well.

None of the usages of evening and morning appear to limit an event to just twenty-four hours. Job 4:20 speaks figuratively of men's "houses" of clay which are destroyed between "morning and evening." This process seems slow to men but not to God. Daniel 8:26 relates a vision of Daniel's which covered future dynasties of man up until the end time.

"And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." - Daniel 8:26, K.J.V. Italics theirs.​
Here the expression "evening and morning" appears to mean something like "from beginning to end" - the entire rule of man. The translators of both the N.I.V. and N.A.S. Bibles rendered the phrase as "evenings and mornings" - apparently to make the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning more clear to modern readers. ("Evening" and "morning" are both singular in the Hebrew.) Daniel seems to confirm the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning, but the confirmation is weak; Genesis and Daniel represent very different times and cultures. 14

In any case, the presence of the expression "evening and morning" does not by itself establish that the "days" of creation were twenty-four hours in length. It would seem there is still no clear way to decide how to interpret the word "day." As before, the decision should be made on some other basis.


There are FIVE other arguments at the reference I listed. For sake of making this post way too long, I'll let you go there.


Calminian said:
It's exactly as azzy says. Satan is tapping you on the shoulder (no not literally) and saying, "Did God really say.....???"
So you are saying it is Satan that is driving us to clearly understand and interpret scripture? Was it Satan who drove the first guy studying Revelation to say, "did God really mean an actual star fell to earth?" Interesting.....

Calminian said:
And furthermore God never told you to go to nature to test what He said about the earth's age. This would be like Christ telling you to take the wine He created to a lab to test it's age. Of course the lab's conclusion will be off because their presuppositions are off.
Well, he told us that HIS INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES are CLEARLY SEEN and understood by the THINGS that are MADE.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

WE are MADE, therefore we CLEARLY SEE God's invisible attributes - one of which is that the universe looks eternal and, oh ya, God is eternal! Another one: time is a property of the universe he made (Gen 1:1), therefore, God must be OUTSIDE of time as the baker is OUTSIDE of the cake - He's eternal! Another one: No matter how old we find the universe to be, God is older! The older we find it to be, the more glorified God is in demonstrating us his eternalNESS.

He didn't tell us to GO to nature to TEST it. He said we would CLEARLY SEE it.


Calminian said:
And no, your side is actually closer to gnosticism. You’re claiming you have the true key to Bible interpretation—knowledge of modern scientific theories.
On the contrary, I'm saying that MAN does NOT have the true key and MAY not be able to surmise the actual length of time it took God to create the universe - especially since time is meaningless to God in His Eternal existance. Remember Gallileo? Geocentrism? Man's interpretation of the scripture at the time was most certainly flawed. Through observation, we were able to prove that. We canNOT re-observe creation, therefore we can say that it's possible we haven't done the best job of interpreting the text.

It appears that YOU are the one saying you have the true key and will not even consider that you may be wrong. You are not behaving as if you have an open mind. I used to be YEC but CONSIDERED that I might be wrong because I am not infalible, neither are you, nor are the writers of the books of the Bible - who's message was inspired, which does not mean they took dictation from God. I totally am open to the possibilty that I'm still wrong. Maybe we are ALL wrong about the details of creation. I don't have a problem with being wrong about it. In my OP, my problem was raising this issue to salvation doctrine or lowering it to conspiracy theory.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Critias said:
Richard, come on now. You must know that the master of the banquet was the head of the ceremony there. He wasn't the expert in wine tasting or knowing if it is better than any wine ever made.

He knew it was better than any wine he had had during this ceremony. It is right there in the text, you can't miss it.

And I bet, at first, the miracle was lost on the master in the beginning and hit those who did as Jesus said in His turning the water to wine the most. It was for them to see and believe.

you are missing the point of "take it to the master of the banquet"
like the command for the lepers to go to the priests, Jesus is confirming the miracles by involving those with the highest credentials to testify. That is one reason why having woman testify to the resurrection is so "odd", they could not testify in court.
He was a wine expert. He is also acting inadvertently as a prophet, like Caiaphas saying that it is better for one man to die then for a whole people to perish. Curious that these two events are at the beginning and the end of Jesus public ministry, having the wise of the world confirm what is going on even though they really miss the big point. Jesus' point is not that wisdom is bad but that it must be directed at the right goal.



......
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.