Seven Days: Why is "I don't know" unacceptable?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi again skywriting,

You know, I honestly cannot fathom your understanding concerning soil. You don't believe that God can command a physical ball of matter, which He called the earth, to come to exist in a moment with soil, rocks, sand, water, magma and all the rest that makes up the physical shell and body of the earth to be just like it is? That God, knowing that plants that He is going to create in a few days will need dirt in which to sink its roots into, can't create just as much for every need of the plants that He is going to make just as much as He has provided for every need that man is going to need.

You don't believe that God can do that, right?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I really don't like the use of "you don't believe God can do that" argument. First of all, its actually a lie. Anyone who believes in God believes He can do anything, but there is the little matter of, also, what did He actually do. So its a lie in two ways; it is a lie about what the other person believes, and its a lie about the argument the other person is putting forth, a misstatement about that argument.

Second, its perfectly easy to turn it around and use it against ANYTHING.

You don't believe God can create via evolution, right? You don't believe God can leave a clue in His word about a day being as a thousand years to allow for scientists to discover the true great age of the earth and leave His first chapter still a valid part of His word . . . right?

But I don't choose to use that argument because I choose to not tell lies.

 

[miamited]

I really don't like the use of "you don't believe God can do that" argument. First of all, its actually a lie. Anyone who believes in God believes He can do anything, but there is the little matter of, also, what did He actually do. So its a lie in two ways; it is a lie about what the other person believes, and its a lie about the argument the other person is putting forth, a misstatement about that argument.

Second, its perfectly easy to turn it around and use it against ANYTHING.

You don't believe God can create via evolution, right? You don't believe God can leave a clue in His word about a day being as a thousand years to allow for scientists to discover the true great age of the earth and leave His first chapter still a valid part of His word . . . right?

But I don't choose to use that argument because I choose to not tell lies.

Hi paul,

They were questions. There is no such thing as a question that is a lie. A question can certainly be based on a lie, but a question always leaves open that there is an answer. Let's wait until we get the answers to the questions before we determine what is or isn't a lie.

If you want to test this understanding, then ask me a question that is a lie. While I'm not from Missouri, show me, in the form of a question, how it can be used against anything.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi paul,

They were questions. There is no such thing as a question that is a lie. A question can certainly be based on a lie, but a question always leaves open that there is an answer. Let's wait until we get the answers to the questions before we determine what is or isn't a lie.

If you want to test this understanding, then ask me a question that is a lie. While I'm not from Missouri, show me, in the form of a question, how it can be used against anything.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Oh come on, you've never heard this old chestnut of a lie in a question?

"How long is it going to be before you stop beating your wife?"

And here's some of the exact wording: "You don't believe that God can do that, right?"

That's not a simple question. That is what is called a rhetorical question in which the answer is anticipated in the question itself. Such a rhetorical question can be fairly called a lie.

 

[miamited]

Oh come on, you've never heard this old chestnut of a lie in a question?

"How long is it going to be before you stop beating your wife?"

And here's some of the exact wording: "You don't believe that God can do that, right?"

That's not a simple question. That is what is called a rhetorical question in which the answer is anticipated in the question itself. Such a rhetorical question can be fairly called a lie.

Hi paul,

Anticipated possibly. Rhetorical maybe.

But even rhetorical questions can be answered. 'How long before you stop beating your wife?' is a question in which the questioner assumes that the person being asked is beating their wife. That may or may not be true. The answer to the question will help determine if it is or not.

The person being asked can simply answer that they don't beat their wife. They can answer with some future time if they are beating their wife. So, while I agree that rhetorical questions assume a fact, that fact may or may not be true. It doesn't make the question a lie.

Lies are made by statements. Questions are how we seek to uncover the truth. Attorneys are great at 'planting' possibilities within questions such as you post, but it still doesn't make the question a lie.

Just as in your initial response to me you asked, although you didn't write it as a question, 'you don't believe God can do that?' That's a question. You assume that because you believe God can do anything, although the Scriptures say He cannot abide with sin, that God can do anything and therefore everyone else must believe that. Is that a correct assumption to make of everyone else faith? God cannot lie. Do you believe that God can lie?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed Ted, well said.

 

[Aman777]

No, there aren't two *biblical* versions of creation. If you're referring to the "version" in Chapter 1 and thinking it's a different "version" from what's in Chapter 2, you need to realize that Chapter 2 is simply a detailed description of Day 6 instead of a different version of creation.

Not quite, since Genesis 2 begins with an outline of the 7th Day, then takes us back to the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and trees which were made AFTER Adam was made. Gen 2:4-7 The narrative continues until the present 6th Day when Eve was made. Gen 2:22

This means that Genesis 2 is speaking of THREE of God's Days instead of just the present 6th Day. The present 6th Day will NOT end until Jesus returns and changes ALL living creatures into vegetarians. Gen 1:30 AND Isa 11:7 Each of God's Days can better be understood as Ages. Amen?

 

[miamited]

Hi Aman,

While it is certainly true that the verses 4-7 of chapter 2 do speak of the days before Adam and Eve were created, the subject of chapter 2 is pretty much all about Adam and Eve from verse 8 forward. We must always be mindful that the chapter and verse divisions are not a part of the Scriptures.

God begins what we have divided as chapter 2 by saying that God completed His work of creation. For me, it would seem more logical to begin chapter 2 at verse 4. But, for whatever reason, whoever decided the divisions of the Scriptures decided to assign the chapters and verses as they are. However, we always need to be mindful that they are not divisions really found in the writing of the original MSS. Many of them seem to be fairly arbitrary.

Why, for example, would 'Jesus wept' be an entire verse?

But, to get back on point, all that we find after verse 7 does deal with and explain the creation and life of Adam and Eve.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Aman777]

Hi Aman,

While it is certainly true that the verses 4-7 of chapter 2 do speak of the days before Adam and Eve were created, the subject of chapter 2 is pretty much all about Adam and Eve from verse 8 forward. We must always be mindful that the chapter and verse divisions are not a part of the Scriptures.

Adam and Eve were NOT "created" in God's Image, which is Spiritually in Christ, Col 1:15 until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 Gen 2:4-7 shows that Adam was "formed" of the dust on the THIRD Day before the plants herbs and rain.

*** God begins what we have divided as chapter 2 by saying that God completed His work of creation.

Not quite since Gen 2:1-3 speaks of a FUTURE time, the 7th Day when ALL of God's work is complete or brought to perfection. Before we can get there, the FUTURE events, at the end of the present 6th Day MUST be fulfilled. This Day (Yowm-Heb-period of time) ends AFTER Jesus returns and changes Lions into vegetarians. Gen 1:30 and Isa 11:7

*** For me, it would seem more logical to begin chapter 2 at verse 4. But, for whatever reason, whoever decided the divisions of the Scriptures decided to assign the chapters and verses as they are. However, we always need to be mindful that they are not divisions really found in the writing of the original MSS. Many of them seem to be fairly arbitrary.

I like the way Genesis is divided since Chapter One is the complete HISTORY of the 6 Creative Days/Ages, written thousands of years ago by the Holy Spirit, since He sees the end from the beginning. Gen 2:1-3 tells us of the future 7th Day, which has NO ending since it's Eternity. Gen 2:4 takes us BACK to the events of the 3rd Creative Day to "add details" to the outline of the events of the 6 Days. The rest of the Bible does the SAME. The ENTIRE History of God's Creation is written in the first 34 verses of Genesis. EVERY other verse of Scripture refers BACK to the first 34 verses.

*** Why, for example, would 'Jesus wept' be an entire verse?

But, to get back on point, all that we find after verse 7 does deal with and explain the creation and life of Adam and Eve.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Scripturally, Adam and Eve were NOT created by the Trinity until AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 This shows that both of our first parents have been born again Spiritually in Christ since it takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a New Creature in Christ. Gen 1:27, Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16. God Bless you.

 

[miamited]

Hi aman,

I appreciate your response, but mine can only be that I don't understand a word of it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Aman777]

Hi aman,

I appreciate your response, but mine can only be that I don't understand a word of it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

It's okay since only the people of the last days, who are current on the latest discoveries of Science, can possibly understand. Those who study the ancient traditional religious view are confused. The only way to agree with me is to follow what the actual text says, instead of what some ancient theologian THOUGHT it said. Those who teach the old time view CANNOT support their views with actual Scripture, so they claim to not understand. God Bless you

 

[miamited]

Hi aman,

Well, I'm claimin' to not understand.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Aman777]

Hi aman,

Well, I'm claimin' to not understand.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

1. The traditional religious story of the Creation is False
2. God hid His Truth from mankind in the discoveries of today's Science
3. God told Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Only the born again Christians of the last days will have the increased knowledge, which ancient men who lived thousands of years before Science, could NOT have possibly known. This insures that ONLY those who come to God by FAITH in His Truth can be saved, since there are so many denominations which CANNOT support their "truth" with actual Scripture.

It's ALSO proof of God since NO ancient man could have known and written of current scientific discoveries, thousands of years ago. Our God is the Supreme Intelligence and there are many who CANNOT understand His Advanced Perfect Truth in the first chapter of Genesis. A good example is the fact that God made 3 Heavens/Universes by the 3rd Day. Gen 1:8 AND Gen 2:4 Amen?

 

[miamited]

Hi aman,

Well, that may be your understanding but it isn't mine.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Aman777]

Hi aman,

Well, that may be your understanding but it isn't mine.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Then you don't believe what Genesis actually says? Can you give another meaning to the words which are written?

 

[miamited]

Hi aman,

No, that's not it. I believe every word of Genesis.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Aman777]

Hi aman,

No, that's not it. I believe every word of Genesis.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Then you must agree that Gen 1:8 tells us that God made the FIRST firmament, which He called Heaven on the 2nd Day AND that He made other HeavenS (Plural) on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 Amen?

 

[miamited]

Hi aman,

No, I don't agree that's the correct understanding of the text.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ScottA]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/7-day-creation-literal-or-figurative.7682639/

I see the above thread has found new life. It's one of those topics that will be discussed forever. While my position is that the first chapters of Genesis refer to the historical events surrounding God's creative acts, I find the "literal or figurative" debate to be a false dichotomy.

I have fun discussing my view and the views of others when the participants have the right attitude. But I think of such discussions as speculation. If pressed with, "What really happened?" my answer would be, "I don't know."

So why do so many seem to find that an unsatisfactory answer?

I should think...that it is like the rich man being the hardest to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In this case, I believe the learn[ed] have the hardest time taking the scriptures literally...because what they have learned - is not scripture, but the teachings of men, whom have no authority and no understanding.

 

[Aman777]

I should think...that it is like the rich man being the hardest to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In this case, I believe the learn[ed] have the hardest time taking the scriptures literally...because what they have learned - is not scripture, but the teachings of men, whom have no authority and no understanding.

Not so, since Genesis Chapter One is filled with the FUTURE discoveries of Science. NO man who lived thousands of years BEFORE Science could have possibly written the first chapter of the Bible and got EVERYthing scientifically correct. It's empirical Evidence of the Literal God. His name is Jesus. Amen?

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you must agree that Gen 1:8 tells us that God made the FIRST firmament, which He called Heaven on the 2nd Day AND that He made other HeavenS (Plural) on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 Amen?

It never says he made other heavens. You are making that assumption based on the use
of the word heavenS. It merely says that the heavens and the earth were finished.