The Flood

[Preecher]

I think maybe you missed the point being made by Moses, here. Try reading Exodus 31:12-17 in its entirety. He's not teaching YECism; he's talking about honouring the Sabbath.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

 

[Assyrian]

You missed out the bits before it.
Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
He is quoting Genesis to teach Sabbath observance, not six day creationism.

The thing is, illustrations don't even have to be literal, Jesus taught using parables as illustrations and they are not literal. If we look at the same commandment in Deuteronomy it says,
Deut 5:12 "'Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Here the illustration to teach Sabbath observance is the Exodus, but it isn't a literal description of the Exodus, God's ' mighty hand and an outstretched arm' is a metaphor. Even in the ten commandments metaphors can be used to illustrate the teaching. Here is another: Deut 5:6 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. They weren't all imprisoned in one literal giant house.

The thing is, we need to look at what the message being taught is, not mistake the illustration for the real meaning. Moses was no more teaching literal six day creationism, than he was divine anatomy, or Egyptian architecture.

Yes he was.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

How does quoting another verse with exactly the same problem of context help you? Especially a verse I have shown is an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God being refreshed after a day's rest? But your big problem is you haven't tried dealing with my argument.

 

[theFijian]

Do you know why is there a concept of the end time in Christianity? What you said is one of the major reason. The end-time concept is anti-evolutional.

Utter utter nonsense. It's hard to know where to begin with such unadulterated cobblers, it's so wrong I'm thinking of writing to Oxford English Press to get each of the specific words you used removed from their dictionary so that such a heinous sentence can't ever be constructed again.

Evolutionary biology, in fact any branch of science, has absolutely zero effect on the end-times no matter what your eschatology, the two things have no bearing on each other and to say Christ's second coming is anti-evolution is just teh kind of ad hoc non-sequitur we'd expect from you. And the idea that the end-times concet exists specifically as some kind of bullwark against evolution, or any branch of science, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what God 's special revelation through scripture. I'm fed up of people appropriating the Bible to preach against their pet-hates.

 

[Mallon]

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

Simply repeating yourself doesn't make your argument any stronger. If I said the sun revolved around the earth and cited Joshua 10:12-13 a dozen times, it wouldn't make geocentrism any more true.

Again, you're missing the point of Exodus 31:17 if you think it's teaching a six-day creation. It's teaching about honouring the Sabbath.

 

[Preecher]

How does quoting another verse with exactly the same problem of context help you? Especially a verse I have shown is an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God being refreshed after a day's rest? But your big problem is you haven't tried dealing with my argument.

You have no argument. I.E.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

 

[Preecher]

Simply repeating yourself doesn't make your argument any stronger. If I said the sun revolved around the earth and cited Joshua 10:12-13 a dozen times, it wouldn't make geocentrism any more true.

Again, you're missing the point of Exodus 31:17 if you think it's teaching a six-day creation. It's teaching about honouring the Sabbath.

It is clear confirmation from God that it is a literal six day creation.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It is clear confirmation from God that it is a literal six day creation.

No it isn't. It uses the Hebrew word 'yom', it doesn't say 'six twenty-four hour literal days.'

 

[Preecher]

No it isn't. It uses the Hebrew word 'yom', it doesn't say 'six twenty-four hour literal days.'

Another Hebrew expert?

 

[Mallon]

It is clear confirmation from God that it is a literal six day creation.

Referencing a story that the Hebrew people would have recognized in order to make a point about theology does nothing to confirm its historicity.

If I were to reference Aesop's fable about the grasshopper and the ant in order to make the point that it is good to plan ahead, does my referencing the fable necessarily imply that I take it to be historically accurate? No. The analogy to the creation story is the same. God's point here isn't that the world was made in six days; it's that a day of rest is necessary, as reflected in the creation story of Genesis.

 

[Preecher]

Referencing a story that the Hebrew people would have recognized in order to make a point about theology does nothing to confirm its historicity.

If I were to reference Aesop's fable about the grasshopper and the ant in order to make the point that it is good to plan ahead, does my referencing the fable necessarily imply that I take it to be historically accurate? No. The analogy to the creation story is the same. God's point here isn't that the world was made in six days; it's that a day of rest is necessary, as reflected in the creation story of Genesis.

Comparing God's Word to Aesop's fable? How sad.

 

[Mallon]

Comparing God's Word to Aesop's fable? How sad.

(I saw that coming.)

What's sad is that you aren't able to defend your argument. You just keep repeating yourself as though it makes a difference.

Besides, I don't see what is inherently sad about drawing comparisons between parts of the Bible and other types of literature, like fables, for instance. Perhaps you could explain.

 

[Preecher]

(I saw that coming.)

What's sad is that you aren't able to defend your argument. You just keep repeating yourself as though it makes a difference.

What's to defend. It's perfectly clear.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

Besides, I don't see what is inherently sad about drawing comparisons between parts of the Bible and other types of literature, like fables, for instance. Perhaps you could explain.

The Bible is God's holy Word of Truth. Comparing it to fables is near blasphemous.

 

[Mallon]

What's to defend. It's perfectly clear.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

There you go like a broken record again. Clearly, this isn't a fruitful discussion.

The Bible is God's holy Word of Truth.

I haven't denied that.

Comparing it to fables is near blasphemous.

What's blasphemous about it? Please explain.

 

[Preecher]

There you go like a broken record again. Clearly, this isn't a fruitful discussion.

Simply addressing your argument.

I haven't denied that.

Glad to hear it.

What's blasphemous about it? Please explain.

All attacks on God's Word approach blasphemy. I.E. comparing it to fables.

 

[philadiddle]

Comparing God's Word to Aesop's fable? How sad.

So the bible doesn't have a wide variety of writing styles? Didn't Jesus speak in parables?

Since the creation accounts are based on the mythologies of the surrounding cultures, then it is reasonable to look to the meaning of it instead of trying to make it into actual history, just like what we do with fables. If you think there is a flaw with this, please explain it. (And by "explain" I don't mean requote the same verse again.)

 

[Preecher]

So the bible doesn't have a wide variety of writing styles? Didn't Jesus speak in parables?

It's still God's Word, not fables.

Since the creation accounts are based on the mythologies of the surrounding cultures, then it is reasonable to look to the meaning of it instead of trying to make it into actual history, just like what we do with fables. If you think there is a flaw with this, please explain it. (And by "explain" I don't mean requote the same verse again.)

No reason to believe it is "mythologies". That would be unbelief of God.

 

[Assyrian]

You have no argument. I.E.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Sorry, simply claiming I have no argument does not deal with the argument I can understand why you might want to hide behind proof texts, but they are no substitute for actually getting to grips with the text and trying to understand what they are teaching.

 

[Mallon]

Simply addressing your argument.

Repeating Bible verses without explaining their significance to your argument doesn't constitute "addressing my argument." My argument is that referencing the Genesis creation account(s) in order to make a theological point doesn't make those accounts historical in nature. Simply reciting those verses back to me in no way, shape, or form does anything to address the argument.

All attacks on God's Word approach blasphemy. I.E. comparing it to fables.

Again, why do you consider comparing parts of the Bible to a fable "blasphemous"? You haven't actually explained yourself yet. Please use the brain God gave you and provide a rational explanation of why it is blasphemous rather than just repeating to me that it is.

 

[Preecher]

It's sad to see such unbelief in the Word of the living God. It means what it says and nobody has proven otherwise.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

 

[Mallon]

That's YECism for you. Stick your fingers in your ears and just proof text ad nauseum until everyone else gives up on you.