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.
ThreeAm said:That line of reasoning makes no sense what so ever.
ThreeAm said:It seems y ou are in a little over your head. Got to work tommorow good night.
Ok, so days can only mean years when Adventist say they should right? Why cant days be years in the Genesis account? Why cant a day be like 1,000 years in this case?Well I trust God to know when to make single evening and a single morning. Also notice Moses inspired by God makes NO DIFFENCE in how he describes the timing of all the days of the week. No matter if the sun and moon were created later in the week.
UUUMMM, maybe because death did not exist.. I mean we are talking about eternity here give me a break.Gen 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If they were not 24hr days but rather eons of timethen how did plants survive without insects to pollinate them for what ...thousands or maybe millions of years?
I'm sure you were trying to repeat what you said previously that plants couldn't survive without light, but this is nonesensical since physical death did not exist till sin came into the world.. Obiviously they were living in eternity so there was no suchthing as death.And if these single evening an single morning was really eons of time and not 24 days how did all the splants all those millions of years of darkness followed by millions of years of light????
Have you ever studied the greek way of thinking that always seems to have an explanation to everything? We as God's children are not supposed to have all the answers but accept things as they are even if they maybe unclear to us. Now in answer to your question i'll repeat no death no sin, no sin no death, God can do whatever he wants.Gen 1:11 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. [A single evening and a single morning.]
An how did all those plants survive for eons
Obviously if the insects did not come into existence till the sixth day and plants were already in existence, so much for the cross pollinating.without INSECTS to cross pollinate them????
Not so, you mean to tell me that Adam and Eve could have died before they transgressed?Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Insects were created on the 6th day but the plants would died eons and eons before the insects ever came along.
I have no problem with your view on a young earth and a literal six 24 hour day creation. Now when you raise up these arguments that make no sense is when i start to question.Solution God created the earth in six 24hr day and rested on the 7th 24 hr day.
Well, God loved us and died for us while we were still his enemies. So he has actually already saved people who don't love him. Think about it, it's almost the opposite of what you seem to suggest. I think it's a very serious thing to say that God won't save people who don't love him. Because the reality is that we love him because he loved (saved) us first.I believe our obedience is a sign of our love for God. I also believe that willful disobedience is a sign of our rebelion against God. I don't think that God will save those who do not love him.
Yes and no. I can't become more like Christ by striving, but rather by looking at him. Fixing your eyes on Jesus has the most amazing results. Peter walked on the water, not by trying, and not because he was good or clever, but simply because he looked at Jesus. I mean, all the time and effort I've put into changing myself for the better and holier hasn't had 0.0000000000001% of the effect one gets from simply gazing at Christ.Sanctification is the slow process of becoming more Christ like in our lives. It is a life long process that will never be completed until the second coming but a process that we should strive to every day.
And before you once again bring up the same tired argument about God having created the world with old material, let me make sure you are being consistent. If the material in the fossil record is excessively old, then we would have to adjust ALL datings accordingly. This apparently means that even the recent dates given by radiometric substances (I am referring to substances other than radiocarbon) must be adjusted. The problem with this contention, as I see it, is that many of those recent dates are already accepted by YECs as being accurate. Thus your claim, if it proves anything, would only prove too much, as I see it.
If you are going to be condescending, fine, perhaps I deserve it - but show your work, because in all too many cases I have seen condescending people on this forum have nothing to back up their condescension.
Not to be pushy, but can you guys take the YEC/OEC discussion to another thread, trying to stay OT here and I keep seeing 2-3 pages of creation talk in between, not really sure how sabbath has anything to do with the OP as of now.
Well, God loved us and died for us while we were still his enemies. So he has actually already saved people who don't love him. Think about it, it's almost the opposite of what you seem to suggest. I think it's a very serious thing to say that God won't save people who don't love him. Because the reality is that we love him because he loved (saved) us first.
Willful disobedience... is there such a thing as disobedience that's not willful? I mean, did you ever sin without choice? I see your point though, I just think the distinction between sin and willful sin is unnatural and destructive.
Yes and no. I can't become more like Christ by striving, but rather by looking at him. Fixing your eyes on Jesus has the most amazing results. Peter walked on the water, not by trying, and not because he was good or clever, but simply because he looked at Jesus. I mean, all the time and effort I've put into changing myself for the better and holier hasn't had 0.0000000000001% of the effect one gets from simply gazing at Christ.
Your spirit is transformed, born again, in an instant, but it's a fact that a renewed mind and personality takes time. God is patient, though. Let's be like him.
Frankly, I don't really see the need to prolong this debate over YECism, because the very first objection to sabbatarianism that I raised on this thread seems to me sufficiently devastating. Allow me to recap. Sabbatarians claim that we should take the 10 commandments literally. I pointed out that the commandment in debate here says the following, "SIX DAYS YE SHALL LABOR, and do all thy work, on the seventh ye shall rest." But sabbatarians do not labor six days. They labor five days, and have no qualms about taking a two week vacation. (I have a coworker who is a DEVOUT 7th day Adventist - in fact she occasionally tried to shove her sabbatarianism down the throats of other Christians. A while back she asked for a three month leave of absence from her job because her (military) husband would be stationed in Germany where she has relatives and consequently she wanted to vacation there. Our company only gives two weeks vacation, so she was asking for unpaid time off from work).
Anyway, repeatedly I asked ThreeAm to answer the following question (paraphrased here), "When reading the ten commandments, must we, in each case, take the WHOLE verse literally? YES or NO?" In other words, do we take literally only those parts of the verse most tasteful to us - in this case the part about RESTING as opposed to the part about WORKING six days? ThreeAm has had every opportunity to answer this question. He has abstained. I came into this thread with the suspicion that this argument devastates the sabbatarian position. ThreeAm's conspicuous silence to my repeated question (a simple Yes or No question) has been, for me, the most confirmatory factor that I could hope for.
Therefore (unless I get really bored), I am finished with this discussion.
Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.We have lots of labors and responsibilities in life perhaps this co-worker of yours felt it was her job in part to be with her husband.
Ok, so days can only mean years when Adventist say they should right? Why cant days be years in the Genesis account? Why cant a day be like 1,000 years in this case?
UUUMMM, maybe because death did not exist.. I mean we are talking about eternity here give me a break.
.................................
I have no problem with your view on a young earth and a literal six 24 hour day creation. Now when you raise up these arguments that make no sense is when i start to question.
Your unsatisfactory response was debunked by me in posts 160 and 161. Bottom line - you DON'T take the command "work six days" literally. Or, to put it differently, you have REDEFINED what a literal reading of these words would entail, in such a way that it "justifies" a five day work week, and assorted vacations. And that's fine - as long as you admit that the non-sabbatarian is equally justified in redefining what it means to literally accept the REMAINDER of the verse (the supposed "Saturday" portion of the verse).Well if you look back at my posts I have already addressed this ridiculus line of reasoning in my post 159 when you first posted it..perhaps you missed it.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=28850899&postcount=159
Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.
Well, to begin with, your position really isn't substantially different from OEC. Since I'm an OEC myself, it might be hasty for me to regard your postion here as indefensible. On the other hand there is the larger issue that sabbatarians claim we are supposed to follow God's example set forth in Genesis. According to Sabbatarians, in regard to the "act of creating" God:ThreeAm said:Now back to Radiometric dating. OE supporters would estimate the earths age at about 4.567 billion years. I simply believe that God made the earth from old material as old as 4,567 billion years old. I believe he gathered those materials from the universe and formed the earth. So it should be of no surprise then that we find all the radioisotope forms of all elements on our earth. So when were find lead we can't automaticaly say since we find lead the earth has to be X years old. Rather when we find lead we know know the materials used in the creation of the earth is X years old instead. God took old matter and gave it form. Sort of like if we build a house and use a beam from a 200 year old oak. Is the house now two hundred years old or is the material used to build the house 200 years old. Of course the answer is the material is 200 years old and the house is brand new.
As I can discern no connection between this comment and mine, it's difficult to responid to this one. Where did I deny that Moses gave TO ISRAEL a 24 hour sabbath analogically symbolic of God's non-24 hour sabbath? That's what in fact I insisted!Absurd and reasoning on your part.
And it was the Lord that with held Manna one 24 hr day each week for 40 years so no work of gathering would be done on that day. That day was the Sabbath. Therefore it is the LORD that has identified the appropriate length of the sabbath.
As I can discern no connection between this comment and mine, it's difficult to responid to this one. Where did I deny that Moses gave TO ISRAEL a 24 hour sabbath analogically symbolic of God's non-24 hour sabbath? That's what in fact I insisted!
Anyway, repeatedly I asked ThreeAm to answer the following question (paraphrased here), "When reading the ten commandments, must we, in each case, take the WHOLE verse literally? YES or NO?" In other words, do we take literally only those parts of the verse most tasteful to us - in this case the part about RESTING as opposed to the part about WORKING six days? ThreeAm has had every opportunity to answer this question.He has abstained. I came into this thread with the suspicion that this argument devastates the sabbatarian position. ThreeAm's conspicuous silence to my repeated question (a simple Yes or No question) has been, for me, the most confirmatory factor that I could hope for.
Therefore (unless I get really bored), I am finished with this discussion.
Your unsatisfactory response was debunked by me in posts 160 and 161. Bottom line - you DON'T take the command "work six days" literally. Or, to put it differently, you have REDEFINED what a literal reading of these words would entail, in such a way that it "justifies" a five day work week, and assorted vacations. And that's fine - as long as you admit that the non-sabbatarian is equally justified in redefining what it means to literally accept the REMAINDER of the verse (the supposed "Saturday" portion of the verse).
Apparently, then, ThreeAm, this is your "justification" for her leave of absence - extenuating circumstances. Agreed. By conceding this point, you have acknowledged non-sabbatarianism. It is is precisely our claim that etenuating circumstances can exist for ENTIRE NATIONS and that, as a result, a Saturday-obligation cannot be presumed apriori. It is the Lord's decision, not YOURS, how how to govern the nations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?