Because you come off as saying that God took 1 day (24 hours) to create the earth. If it took that long, then God is mighty weak.
I remember the exchange, let's get to your core point here. I never said it took all day, I said the days described in Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days, not that God took all day to do the work of creation that day. I further said the term is qualified by 'evening and morning' the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day etc, further reinforcing the fact that these were normal 24 hour days. Now this is readily available from even the most cursory exegetical study, of even just a careful reading of the text. Nothing suppositional required.
Do you actually believe the creation account took a "literal" 6/24 hour period?
No, I think it happened on a literal day, the first, second, third days respectively because that's exactly how the historical narrative reads.
If you answer "Yes", then you have no choice than to say in and every reference to "day" it means a "literal 24 hour" time frame. And I can prove that in at least one section of scripture, that is not true.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, day means a literal 24 hour day in Genesis 1. I didn't pull that out of then air, I've done extensive studies on the subject and guess what, day means day in Genesis 1.
Furthermore, if we as Fundamentalists take this to be "standard":
I think it's safe to say that we as fundamentalists take the canon of Scripture as the standard by which all sound doctrine is measured against.
"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"
Sure, it's a careless way to express it but not objectionable on it's face.
Salvation is by believing AND baptism, according to Mk. 16:16. Also, Jesus shed blood cannot offer to us "remission of sins and indwelling by the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:38.
Well let's take a giant leap from one passage to another without considering the Lexicon definitions and the context of the passage we are considering. Then we can do the same thing with an unrelated text, that sounds like a sound hermeneutical approach to essential doctrine.
Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation. i.e.: baptism
According to Acts 2:38, the only way to have "remission for sin" is to be baptized. That contradicts Heb. 9:22.
I feel like a cat at a ping pong tournament, let's try a little exposition here, ok:
Here's what our brother John Mark has to tell us:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:6)
Funny he would fail to mention that failure to be baptized results in condemnation, that's not very nice. Or maybe, he wanted us to be baptized because we believe it's a profession of faith, and wants to put the heart of the emphasis on that crucial point of doctrine. A text without a context is a pretext, it's kind of rare to the the context of the proof text ignored so deliberately but perhaps you have a larger point to consider.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:38-41)
So it's almost like Peter is saying you should be baptized because you received the message of the gospel. I wasn't exactly a straight A student in Bible college but I do try hard to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Let me see if I got this one straight. You believe the gospel, receive the Holy Spirit of promise and then you get dunked in water as an expression of faith in Christ. Did I miss anything? I'm kind of puzzled, how do you think this contradicts Hebrews 9:22 again?
Here is another:
If we take "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;", then I can be cleaned by hyssop!
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." -Psa. 51:7 (KJV)
Are we to believe that sprinkling us with hyssop is able to "purge" us to the point of being clean, whiter then snow?
I don't really get the point but I've always liked the literary features of the ancient Hebrew. If God washes me, I will be whiter then snow, that doesn't mean he makes me snow. I will be clean the way clothes are clean when washed in hyssop, notice the metaphor is qualified, as is true of all figurative language in the Old and New Testaments.
Here is one more.
If "Believes whatever the Bible says is so' is the "standard, we have no other alternative than to believe "unicorns" do, or did, at one time exist.
"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." -Num. 23:22 (KJV)
Do you realize that there are some nine references in the scriptures to "unicorns"?
Yes, and they are not mythical unicorns and I know you realize that. You do realize that the exact meaning of unicorn in those passages is unknown right, what exact animal it refers to is a mute question because it's not talking about a mythical unicorn, the suggestion is laughable to say the least.
Now to one extent, I do "Believe whatever the Bible says is so" within reason.
Well I would never try to discourage someone from being reasonable about such things.
I do not accept the "YEC" (Young Earth Creation: 6-24 hour "days") theory neither do I accept the "OEC" (Old Earth Creation: 6-1000 year "days") theory.
Your not left with a lot of options now, you have just rejected to two alternatives, but let's see where you go with this.
If we, as Christians really and truly believe God is omnipotent/all-powerful, that alone blows both theories out of the water!
You went from the semantics of Genesis 1, to some unrelated texts in the New Testament, to the omnipotence of God, to a victory dance of some nebulous origins theology theories being 'blown out of the water'. What was your major in college? I dare say it wasn't exegetical studies because you are all over the road here.
Not only that, but I could also go even deeper.
Now that would be refreshing.
Just because the creation account uses the word "day" does not necessarily mean a "literal 24 hour" time period.
Thank you, much appreciated, let's see what our beloved Bible scholars have for us on the subject shall we:
Wow it's almost like day means day, let's take a closer look:
KJV Translation Count — Total: 2,287x. The KJV translates Strong's H3117 in the following manner: day (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x), ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full (8x), always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x).
2,008x out of 2,287 times day means day, including the passage in Genesis 1. So apparently day means day, wow, I wasn't even a straight A student and I can see that one.
And here again, if we accept "Believes whatever the Bible says is so" as the "standard" for Fundamentalism, then we, as a whole, absolutely must abandon our beliefs and join Catholicism because Catholicism teaches salvation and remission of sins in "baptism".
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" -Mk. 16:16 (KJV)
Mark 16:16 adds a condition to salvation: baptism!
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Baptism for the remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38. In other words, baptism is the only way to receive "remission of sins".
Or maybe just brush up on our exegetical studies a bit. Not really ready to rush out and get converted to Catholicism because a verse taken out of it's natural context. I'm a little stubborn about that sort of thing and not a big fan of leaps of logic like this.
Even the Fundamentalist handbook of Theology disagrees with that!
"
Faith is a vital principle. "If it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17,18). Two things are required of the believer, immediately upon his profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, namely, verbal confession and water baptism. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10. See also Psalm 107:2; Matthew 10:32,33; Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:15, etc.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because "Faith without works is dead, being alone." Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him," an habitation of God through the Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 19:5; 22:15,16; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 2:3; 3:22).
The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Theology, Chapter 12, The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D
Wow, I didn't realize the Fundamentalist Handbook actually supports justification by grace through faith, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I would just love to know what their exposition of Genesis 1 is but I'm going way out on a limb here and suggesting they probably think day means day in the Genesis 1 account, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
So here again, if this is the standard to go by: "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;". Everything I said previously is incorrect. The handbook of theology for Fundamentalist (1920) is incorrect.
Your a victim of leaps of logic resulting in a regretful equivocation fallacy, nothing more. We all fail in our logic at one time or the other, it's a common mistake. I think you really need to work on your expositions a little bit, because this one was subpar. Just saying...
Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" directly contradicts what Luke wrote several verses earlier in Acts 2:21:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Mark 16:16 directly contradicts what Paul taught:
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -Rom. 10:9-10 (KJV)
So in this one instance, who has the correct theology, Mark: believe + baptism = salvation; or: Paul and Luke: confession + belief = salvation?
Like I said, I do believe whatever the bible says is so, within reason. (The most obvious would the 24 hr "day" theory in regards to the creation and the apparent contradiction between Mark and Paul)
God Bless
Till all are one.
I think you have done a fine job of refuting water salvation, my compliments on a genuine insight there. Relating it to Genesis 1 on the other hand was a whole lot more sketchy to say the very least. For a fundamentalist, which I assume you still maintain, you have some issues with regards to hermetical expositions.
Bear in mind my brother, I've spent a great deal of time on Origins Theology, especially with regards to expositions of the Genesis account of creation. I could dump a truck, but I'm going to spare you that. Day means day in Genesis 1 and at the heart of the emphasis in the Genesis account of creation, do take care and kindly consider this, my meager insight into the passage if it's not too much trouble.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27)
If you want to relate Genesis 1 to New Testament theology let's consider that God created life. That is infinitely more important in New Testament theology since if we are to believe God has promised to grant us eternal life, doesn't it make since that we should believe God created life in the first place. Specifically, our first parents Adam and Eve. The eight times Adam is mentioned in the New Testament he is spoken of as our first parent, he even appears in the genealogy of Luke as 'son of God', indicating he had no earth parents, obviously, since he was created.
By the way, Genesis 1:27 is a parallelism, it's repeated three times for the sake of emphasis that Adam was created along with Eve for a very important reason. God created life.
Thanks a million, that was fun, it's always a pleasure getting down to the basics with my fundamentalist brethren.
Grace and peace,
Mark