Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Halbhh" data-source="post: 71895705" data-attributes="member: 375234"><p>Please forgive, but the first sentence I must respectfully disagree with. I can read the text, and I don't see anything saying or even suggesting to me that the days passed without any time between them. But no matter. Please just forgive. I don't have to have total knowledge of all things, even mysteries and such, right?</p><p></p><p>But though it's not important as I see it, if it helps I can tell you that I think they are <em>real </em>days, actual, with morning (after sunrise), and an evening (to sunset and just after). Literal. Day one was a specific day that actually happened in my guess. If that even helps at all. It's....too fine a detail to focus on very long. A distraction, finally, only a mere distraction to argue with people about, and the arguing itself is wrong. I don't need to confront anyone that thinks the days are metaphorical, and argue. It would be wrong for me to do so.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure whether I know what you mean in the 2nd sentence above -- it seems like it says because the day has a morning and an evening, that the next "second" day in the text could not have more than one night or day passing before it comes. But perhaps you meant something else. Sorry, I don't think such a conclusion is good to make into a doctrine. It's not the intent of the text to dwell in a small detail. Such things are....small detail.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But on your 3rd sentence we agree 100%. Really.</p><p></p><p>It's truly a theory to think that time passed between the days!</p><p></p><p>Absolutely.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps that's a better thing for us to agree on -- that's merely an idea, just a theory.</p><p></p><p>I know for sure that the profound way I have been affected by Genesis chapter one does not rely even the slightest amount on whether 156 or 16,000 hours passed, or whatever time. That I can tell you as a sure thing.</p><p></p><p>The time period is not the meaning of the text, and I think likely you agree on that. I don't feel it would be good at all in any way for me to argue on all of this time period stuff though. We are only saved solely by our faith in God and Christ risen, our Redeemer, and doing as He said in Matthew 7:24-27. That's our firm foundation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Halbhh, post: 71895705, member: 375234"] Please forgive, but the first sentence I must respectfully disagree with. I can read the text, and I don't see anything saying or even suggesting to me that the days passed without any time between them. But no matter. Please just forgive. I don't have to have total knowledge of all things, even mysteries and such, right? But though it's not important as I see it, if it helps I can tell you that I think they are [I]real [/I]days, actual, with morning (after sunrise), and an evening (to sunset and just after). Literal. Day one was a specific day that actually happened in my guess. If that even helps at all. It's....too fine a detail to focus on very long. A distraction, finally, only a mere distraction to argue with people about, and the arguing itself is wrong. I don't need to confront anyone that thinks the days are metaphorical, and argue. It would be wrong for me to do so. I'm not sure whether I know what you mean in the 2nd sentence above -- it seems like it says because the day has a morning and an evening, that the next "second" day in the text could not have more than one night or day passing before it comes. But perhaps you meant something else. Sorry, I don't think such a conclusion is good to make into a doctrine. It's not the intent of the text to dwell in a small detail. Such things are....small detail. But on your 3rd sentence we agree 100%. Really. It's truly a theory to think that time passed between the days! Absolutely. Perhaps that's a better thing for us to agree on -- that's merely an idea, just a theory. I know for sure that the profound way I have been affected by Genesis chapter one does not rely even the slightest amount on whether 156 or 16,000 hours passed, or whatever time. That I can tell you as a sure thing. The time period is not the meaning of the text, and I think likely you agree on that. I don't feel it would be good at all in any way for me to argue on all of this time period stuff though. We are only saved solely by our faith in God and Christ risen, our Redeemer, and doing as He said in Matthew 7:24-27. That's our firm foundation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.
Top
Bottom