- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,856
- 8,382
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
IT looks like the plants are yielding seed - and not like the seed is giving rise to plants from the Gen 1 description -- which is another reason it looks like instant creation of plants to me.
I didn’t say that reformers did these things it was the Roman Catholic Church that did this during the inquisitions. And you’ll never hear me say anything good about Calvin, I find his doctrines to be one of the farthest from the truth in modern day theology. The man obviously didn’t understand scripture.
You mean it’s the reason why you assume the days are figurative. If God placed a light near the planet and the planet revolved 1 rotation every 24 hours that would still give us day, evening, night, & morning.
Is that what the text says? No. It doesn't.
I don't believe it profitable to literally add to Scripture or just make something up and put it in Scripture just to make one's interpretation of Scripture "come out right".
-CryptoLutheran
Yes, that would be another reason we know that the "days" are figurative, as many early Christians knew. This is common sense, and refutes the notion that the days are literal ones.
I didn’t add to scripture nor make anything up I provided and interpretation of scripture. So your accusation is false and unwarranted. Since God provided the light before the creation of the sun and there was morning, day, evening, and night it is plausible that the light was on one side of the planet and the rotation of the planet resulted in the changing from daytime to nighttime and back to daytime. My statement was in reply to this post.
My statement that you quoted also began with the word “IF” indicating a hypothetical explanation not an actual biblical statement. I merely provided a hypothetical explanation that is plausible according to the evidence given in scripture in order to explain how my position does not contradict the biblical creation account.
God divided light from darkness. That's what the text says. It doesn't say there was a light placed anywhere in the material cosmos. Just that light now exists, and it is separate from not-light (darkness). You are adding to the text by turning that light into a thing that God placed somewhere. As that isn't what it says.
There are no material lights to govern day and night until Day 4, with the creation of sun, moon, and stars. Until then light is is simply something distinct from darkness.
-CryptoLutheran
I don't understand how this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. There is NO straightforward reading of Genesis. How can there be "7 literal days" (in the conventional sense of the term day) if there was no sun mentioned until the fourth day? I personally happen to think the text is literal - but by no means is it perfectly straightforward.Why not just accept it as it reads ... instead of cramming evolution into it?
Ex 20:11 makes it 7 literal days and so does Gen 1-2:3
I don't understand how this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. There is NO straightforward reading of Genesis. How can there be "7 literal days" (in the conventional sense of the term day) if there was no sun mentioned until the fourth day? I personally happen to think the text is literal - but by no means is it perfectly straightforward.
You accuse everyone else of "cramming things into it"- but you yourself do just as much cramming as everyone else. Sheer hypocrisy.
“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
Genesis 1:3-5 NASB1995
Evidently there was day, evening, night, and morning before the 4th day.
Again, with no sun in place, how is that straightforward? Is a conventional day fostered thus?Evidently there was day, evening, night, and morning before the 4th day.
Well, let's take a look...
He thinks their faith is of equal standing. But that doesn't at all refute what Jesus told him. Sorry.
Im not adding anything. God divided light from darkness? Is that all that it says about the light?
“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
Genesis 1:3-5 NASB1995
Evidently there was day, evening, night, and morning before the 4th day.
Note that, at no point, does it say there was a light source of any kind mentioned. There is, as I said, a division between light and dark.
There are no lights to rule day and night until Day 4.
This would be in keeping with a poetic way of describing things. Where the use of evening and morning function as a poetic refrain. And the use of days is intended for its poetic function to separate the acts of creation.
I don't think it's just a coincidence that the first three days and the second set of three days parallel each other. Day 1 has light separated from darkness, just as Day 4 has the sun, moon, and stars to rule the day and the night; or that Day 2 has the separation of waters below and waters above while Day 5 has creatures to rule the seas and the sky, etc. I believe this is a deliberate literary framing device.
-CryptoLutheran
Ephesians 5
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Subject to Christ ... not Peter ... not the pope.
Peter was a sinner .... the pope is a sinner .... Jesus don't build His church on sinners ... It is built on Him ... only He is sinless. Every human being is a sinner.
Romans 3
21But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. 22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Note that, at no point, does it say there was a light source of any kind mentioned. There is, as I said, a division between light and dark.
There are no lights to rule day and night until Day 4.
This would be in keeping with a poetic way of describing things. Where the use of evening and morning function as a poetic refrain. And the use of days is intended for its poetic function to separate the acts of creation.
Subject to Christ ... not Peter ... not the pope.
Peter was a sinner .... the pope is a sinner .... Jesus don't build His church on sinners ...
The presence of light does seem hard to refute - if we assume a highly literal account. I find it understandable that some people are not so inclined.God said let there be light and there was light. Now if you want to claim that there was no light source I’m not going to argue that because the scriptures don’t actually say whether there was or wasn’t, either way that’s irrelevant. There was light, there was darkness, there was day and night and morning and evening. That much is irrefutable.
I personally happen to think the text is literal - but by no means is it perfectly straightforward.
But I, personally, don't think those daylights were only 24 hours long.
St. Augustine wrote De Genesi Ad Litteram ("the literal meaning of Genesis) but meant it in the sense of "what it actually says" rather than "A literal account of events." Is that what you mean here?
St Augustine was born 4,300 years after creation. He had the same material we have to base his interpretation on. Not to mention that he admitted to making several errors in his writings so that’s hardly conclusive evidence to support anything.
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?