why couldn't God create the appearance of age?

[Critias]

Whereas Genesis clearly tells that there hasn't, and that people didn't appear for several days. In other words, the phrase in Acts is a figure of speach.

Six days of creation is when the world began. Not everything was created on day 1. Creation is understood as six days of creating and a seventh day of rest.

Peter is making a point through reference to a shared myth. Only if you deny God the right to speak through myth would you deem this evidence of anything historical.

It is funny that the Church Fathers, Apostles, and theologians agreed that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative. Only since the rise of Darwinism has Genesis been disputed as not being a historical narrative.

God can speak however He wishes. It just so happens that Genesis' literary structure in Hebrew is a historical narrative. It doesn't reflect Hebrew poetry, Hebrew myths, or Hebrew allegories as a literary style.

The odus is on the TEs here who claim that Genesis is a Hebrew myth to prove it. Haven't seen one yet be able to do so here, but many who feel qualified to teach it as a myth without evidence.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Well, someone must tell those who sell wine this new revelation. Wine that has been grown in the right climate and is aged will sell for more than one that is grown in the right climate and is new. Why would the price be higher, if both bottles are from the same maker, same type of wine, same climate, but different age, for the one that is aged more?

A conundrum!

It is well understood that in those days Romans and Greeks knew good wine and good wine was always aged.

Wine is also usually made with grapes. That the wine was good no more imlies that the wine was aged than the existence of the wine implies that a vineyard was involved. Jesus makes no claim that the wine was made in the usual way nor does he make the claim that it was aged. If he had bottled the wine and put an old date on the bottles, things would be different.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Its not a deception since God told us that Creation was created to look like this. If he hadn't told us about it, then it would be deception.

 

[ebia]

[/i][/font]

Six days of creation is when the world began. Not everything was created on day 1. Creation is understood as six days of creating and a seventh day of rest.

Sounds like you want to redefine beginningto make your statement true.

It is funny that the Church Fathers, Apostles, and theologians agreed that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative. Only since the rise of Darwinism has Genesis been disputed as not being a historical narrative.

This is incorrect, as I'm sure you are aware.

God can speak however He wishes. It just so happens that Genesis' literary structure in Hebrew is a historical narrative. It doesn't reflect Hebrew poetry, Hebrew myths, or Hebrew allegories as a literary style.

I'll leave answering that to others who can do a better job than I.

The odus (sic) is on the TEs here who claim that Genesis is a Hebrew myth to prove it.

It has been, many times. That you refuse to accept that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Critias]

Sounds like you want to redefine beginningto make your statement true.

Creation, as the Bible talks about it, is the six days of creating and the seventh day of rest.

This is incorrect, as I'm sure you are aware.

You have quote, right that shows them stating the Genesis isn't a historical narrative?

I'll leave answering that to others who can do a better job than I.

So, you will let others do your work for you and you will continue to make a case with no evidence?

It has been, many times. That you refuse to accept that is your problem, not mine.

No, it hasn't. Not here. People here have only talked about the English, not Hebrew.

 

[ebia]

Creation, as the Bible talks about it, is the six days of creating and the seventh day of rest.

So? Beginning is beginning, not the bit after the beginning. Unless you are redefining beginning.

You have quote, right that shows them stating the Genesis isn't a historical narrative?

The quote from St Augustine is so well known I'm sure it doesn't need repeating.

In addition to suppose that any the early church fathers would understand anything as being historical narrative in the 20th/21st century sense is absurd.

So, you will let others do your work for you and you will continue to make a case with no evidence?

I will leave others to deal with it. Unlike many people on this forum, I know the limits of my expertise.

No, it hasn't. Not here. People here have only talked about the English, not Hebrew.

On this thread possibly not (I can't be bothered to trawl back through the pages to check), but on CF in general we both know they have.

 

[Critias]

So? Beginning is beginning, not the bit after the beginning. Unless you are redefining beginning.

Creation, is all things created. This took place in six days of creating and a seventh day of rest. These six days is the beginning of the world.

The quote from St Augustine is so well known I'm sure it doesn't need repeating.

You ought to read more of St. Augustine. He claimed Genesis was a historical narrative. His belief was that either creation happened in an instant or in six days, and yet he concluded six days is true.

Even Origin claimed Genesis was a historical narrative. He chose to look at it allegorically, looking for Jesus Christ in the text.

In addition to suppose that any the early church fathers would understand anything as being historical narrative in the 20th/21st century sense is absurd.

They didn't have to use the exact words, historical narrative. Rather, they gave the meaning of historical narrative for their understanding of Genesis.

I will leave others to deal with it. Unlike many people on this forum, I know the limits of my expertise.

Have you ever looked into it yourself?

On this thread possibly not (I can't be bothered to trawl back through the pages to check), but on CF in general we both know they have.

They have tried using English texts and assuming the modern English view is the same as Ancient Hebrew view.

 

[ebia]

Creation, is all things created. This took place in six days of creating and a seventh day of rest. These six days is the beginning of the world.

So you are redefining beginning to make the statement true.

You ought to read more of St. Augustine. He claimed Genesis was a historical narrative. His belief was that either creation happened in an instant or in six days, and yet he concluded six days is true.

Even Origin claimed Genesis was a historical narrative. He chose to look at it allegorically, looking for Jesus Christ in the text.

They didn't have to use the exact words, historical narrative. Rather, they gave the meaning of historical narrative for their understanding of Genesis.

You miss the point. It's not the word's that they would not have had, but the modern understanding of history. You are projecting a 20th century understanding of history back onto first millennium people.

Have you ever looked into it yourself?

Yes.

They have tried using English texts and assuming the modern English view is the same as Ancient Hebrew view.

That is untrue, and I cannot see how you could possibly not know that it is untrue.