Why not take the Bible for what it says?

[Floodnut]

Where did Moses mention 6,000 years? Why do you think he forgot to include the creation of water in the 6 days of creation? Why did he talk about creating "the heavens AND the earth" when the earth is automatically a part of the heavens? Could it be that you have not paid attention fully to what Moses wrote?

Again, You make it plain that you reject the Bible here. Why do you keep pretending to believe in the Bible?
Water was present with the earth itself on the first day of Creation, where it is stated that the Spirit of God moved on the face of the Waters. You make up your own interpretation, attempting to harmonize it with the supposed evidences of evolutionism. You reject the simple sense of the text, but then you aren't denying that are you?
All things were created by Jesus of Nazareth, whose goings forth are from everlasting.

 

[Floodnut]

But we don't know that the simple sense is the right sense.

We don't know that either.

You are right, you don't know. You don't trust Jesus in how he took it, and you don't trust Peter in how he took it. The simple sense is the right sense. But you have already unashamedly declared that you determine how to interpret Scripture based on the findings of science.

 

[seebs]

I observe the Sabbath and I don't see it anywhere in Genesis 1.

Huh? It's right there!

 

[Floodnut]

the MOST important theme of Genesis 1 is the Sabbath. but yor aren't Sabbatarian, you have reinterpreted Genesis 1 to escape the implications of the eternal Sabbath as a creation ordinance. in fact when i brought up the issue before no one even knew what sabbatarianism was, it had been that long since the general American church taught Sabbatarianism... it took another reformed person to even recognize the term. yet the sabbath is the KEY element of Gen 1.

don't tell me you are taking Genesis in it's simple, most literal sense. if you were you would be Sabbatarian.


....

Please don't tell me what to tell you or not tell you. I am taking Genesis in its simple and most literal sense. I am not a Sabbatarian. God created the entire world and all that is in it about 6000 years ago, IN SIX DAYS, and this was the basis for the Sabbatarianism of Adam, Noah, and Moses.

 

[Floodnut]

I asked you for a citation, no? I still haven't seen it.



Moses asserted that you can divorce for many reasons, too.

And frankly: No, Moses did not assert six 24-hour days of creation about 6000 years ago, or a worldwide flood. Moses wrote down a bunch of stories his people told, with nothing anywhere saying "this is literal and not allegorical". He wrote them down using the sorts of linguistic structures (heavy repetition, symbolic language, and so on) typical of poetic mythology, not typical of literal history.

Look at the huge difference in style between Genesis 1 and Exodus 1. These are not the same kinds of stories.

Frankly, Seebs, Moses DID assert six literal 24-hour days of creation, about 6000 years ago, and he asserted a worldwide flood, in his pre-exodus compilation of ancient accounts, collected and recorded under the moving of the Spirit of God, so that his writing were verbally inerrant and infallible. It is literal history. They are not the same kinds of stories, but both are literal history. Exodus is written by one who was present as the events transpired, while Genesis is the account of Moses based on reports given to him, either written, oral, or by direct revelation.

 

[seebs]

Again, You make it plain that you reject the Bible here. Why do you keep pretending to believe in the Bible?

Not being a bibliolator, I do not "believe in the Bible", because I save my belief-in for Jesus.

I do think the Bible an accurate source of information about faith and morals.

 

[seebs]

Frankly, Seebs, Moses DID assert six literal 24-hour days of creation, about 6000 years ago, and he asserted a worldwide flood, in his pre-exodus compilation of ancient accounts, collected and recorded under the moving of the Spirit of God, so that his writing were verbally inerrant and infallible. It is literal history. They are not the same kinds of stories, but both are literal history. Exodus is written by one who was present as the events transpired, while Genesis is the account of Moses based on reports given to him, either written, oral, or by direct revelation.

Okay, let's try this again.

This is the third time:

Where is your citation?

You have made two claims. One is that Moses claimed a literal history. The other is that Jesus said I cannot believe in Him unless I believe Moses.

Where is your citation?

If I wanted to read the exact claim you made before, I could go to that page of the thread and click "reload" a few times. My hope was that you would share your apparently vast knowledge of Scripture by providing exact citations for your claims.

 

[Critias]

Here are the verses for those who don't know them:


Why did Moses allow divorce? Jesus answers this:

""It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied." Mark 10:5

What did Jesus have to say about believing Moses and what he wrote? This is what Jesus has to say:

""He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "" Luke 16:31

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." John 5:46

For those who deny that God did speak to and with Moses:

"We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from."" John 9:29

For those who deny Adam as historical and deny a young earth:

Read 1 Chronicles 1-9 for historical geneologies. The ancient hebrew writing actually has the subtitle for the first chapter declaring it historical.

For those who deny a six day creation read Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20:11.

For those who deny that all men came from one man read Acts 17:26 where Paul states all mankind came from one man.

For those who deny a global flood read Genesis 6-10, Matthew 24 where Jesus Himself speaks of a literal flood (which cannot be mistaken given the Greek context), and in 2 Peter who taught a global flood.

To deny these historical accounts is to deny that the Scriptures are God-breathed, to deny that the Hebrew says the geneologies are historical, to call Peter and Paul into error while they are under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and finally to call Jesus Christ, Son of God wrong. And if Jesus made an error or told false tales to deceive one into believing they were real, Jesus is not God.

That is the slippery slope we see in this forum, occuring right now. First Genesis is incorrect, then 1 Chronicles is not history when it states it is, third Peter is wrong, fourth Paul is wrong, and lastly Jesus is wrong. All to uphold man's teachings of the day.

Calling these holy men and God into error is to stand as their accusers, a role that Satan loves to play.

 

[seebs]

Where's the declaration that Genesis is historical? What do we know about how Hebrews viewed history?

 

[statrei]

Where's the declaration that Genesis is historical? What do we know about how Hebrews viewed history?

Genesis itselt contains clues to alert us that it is not historical. (And I believe in Creation).

 

[seebs]

Genesis itselt contains clues to alert us that it is not historical. (And I believe in Creation).

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[statrei]

Could you elaborate on this?

God created everything. Of that I am certain. Now here comes Moses writing a report "years after the event." In all of the six days of creation not once is water mentioned as being created. Where is the water? It is in v. 2 before the creation began. Moses did not hide his cards. He knew he was not watching a DVD of the Creation, why should we pretend he was?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

For those who deny that all men came from one man read Acts 17:26 where Paul states all mankind came from one man.

we discussed this.
it says all the "ethnos" of man came from one "blood".
it does not say "all mankind" nor does it say "one man", both are clearly marked in the NASB as extrapolations.


....

 

[statrei]

we discussed this.
it says all the "ethnos" of man came from one "blood".
it does not say "all mankind" nor does it say "one man", both are clearly marked in the NASB as extrapolations.


....

I don't understand why we debate some things. Like atheists who pretend that creation is foreign to nature, and this one that seems to disregard the fact that is possible for two people to produce a large population. There will have to be incest somewhere along the line, but we have modern examples of that illustrious practice.

 

[gluadys]

You are right, you don't know.

The simple sense is the right sense.

How ironic. Creationist oppose teaching evolution as fact, even though it is. But you want me to take as fact that the "simple" sense, as you define it, is right, with nothing but your assertion that it is so.

Look, I have no problem with you believing that your simple sense is the right sense. You can believe what you want. My problem is with you stating this as fact when there is no evidence that it is fact. And, IMO, plenty of evidence in scripture itself that it is not fact that your simple sense is the right sense.

I think the first readers did find Genesis simple to understand. But, as rmwilliamsll says, what they found simple to understand in Genesis was its polemic against polytheism and its sabbatarianism. These things are very plain to see in the text and couldn't have been missed in a Jewish OT community.

 

[seebs]

God created everything. Of that I am certain. Now here comes Moses writing a report "years after the event." In all of the six days of creation not once is water mentioned as being created. Where is the water? It is in v. 2 before the creation began. Moses did not hide his cards. He knew he was not watching a DVD of the Creation, why should we pretend he was?

Good point. Moses was, of course, thinking in terms of the Hebrew view of land as something which rests on water, with the dome above it.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Not being a bibliolator, I do not "believe in the Bible", because I save my belief-in for Jesus.

I do think the Bible an accurate source of information about faith and morals.

Reps, bro.

 

[Critias]

we discussed this.
it says all the "ethnos" of man came from one "blood".
it does not say "all mankind" nor does it say "one man", both are clearly marked in the NASB as extrapolations.


....

Forget the NASB and lets go to the Greek where it implicity implies mankind came from one man.

Do you know what ethnos means? It means a multitude or nation of the same nature and genus. Within the context it is directly implying mankind by the use of anthropon. The ending of anthropon is gender neutral and is used in context to refer to all mankind (male and female) - all encompassing. Enos (heis) is the Greek number one. Ez enos pan ethnos anthropon literally means from one man every nation of mankind.

As has been previously stated, you can deny what it is actually saying, but it doesn't change what it is actually saying.

 

[Floodnut]

Okay, let's try this again.

This is the third time:

Where is your citation?

You have made two claims. One is that Moses claimed a literal history. The other is that Jesus said I cannot believe in Him unless I believe Moses.

Where is your citation?

If I wanted to read the exact claim you made before, I could go to that page of the thread and click "reload" a few times. My hope was that you would share your apparently vast knowledge of Scripture by providing exact citations for your claims.

So, if you don't want to read my claims over and over, join the club. I see the claims here over and over asserting all sorts of stuff. And the claims continue to be made. And if you don't want to read the claims, then don't read them. Or put me on ignore. That feature does work in this forum.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Forget the NASB and lets go to the Greek where it implicity implies mankind came from one man.

Do you know what ethnos means? It means a multitude or nation of the same nature and genus. Within the context it is directly implying mankind by the use of anthropon. The ending of anthropon is gender neutral and is used in context to refer to all mankind (male and female) - all encompassing. Enos (heis) is the Greek number one. Ez enos pan ethnos anthropon literally means from one man every nation of mankind.

As has been previously stated, you can deny what it is actually saying, but it doesn't change what it is actually saying.

where is the word man in the verse?
it says from one or some manuscripts says from one blood.
it does NOT say from one man. that is an extrapolation, you even wrote the verse and still insist on inserting "one man" why?
ethnos is NOT the modern nation state, it is racial/linguistic/cultural group.
for instance, the USA is NOT an ethnos, Hebrew or Persian is.
you are reading into the verse.

do you have any idea the depth of division that this verse has engendered over the centuries? it is certainly not simple, history alone testifies to that.


....