EvC Forum: Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Message 347 of 607 (566099)
06-23-2010 2:19 AM

Reply to: Message 346 by Dawn Bertot
06-22-2010 11:21 PM

Re: Satan

Hi DB,

Dawn Bertot writes:

Hey while you guys are in a break, do you mind responding to my last post above. That is if you have time

I hadn't answered it before as I did not think it was needed.

In Message 341 you asked:

Dawn Bertot writes:

Just a quick note. Why in the wildest imagination would you think God would punish or torture a being or tool as you put it, for something for which they had no control, freewill or decision.

I said nothing about torture.

I said he would be tormented forever. There will be no one to deceive, tempt, and no accusations to make before God.

For Satan that might be classified as cruel and indemon punishment.

The Bible does not say Satan will be tortured. He will be tested.

Dawn Bertot writes:

That is if Satan had no choice at all and could not avoid his actions and conclusions, why should he be punished at all. Certainly its not a big play or game.

You right it is not a game it is all out war.

He can't be destroyed. So what are you going to do with him?

Dawn Bertot writes:

Your assertions on this partiular matter dont seem to be consistent with your normal Biblical approach.

The scripture does not tell us very much about Satan.

Men seem to be obsessed with him and have twisted the scriptures to tell them all kinds of stories about Satan.

All I know for a fact is that Satan is evil, and his final resting place will be the lake of fire.

God created evil,

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

If God created Satan evil then Satan had no choice in the matter. He operates at God's pleasure. He can do nothing that God does not allow him to do. Case in point Job.

Can you imagine what heaven would be like with Satan on the loose.

He would come up to you and start reminding you of all the things that God had wiped away when He wiped the tears away from your eyes. He would have a field day reminding everybody how bad, unthankful, and unholy they had been when they lived as humans. He would make heaven into hell.

That animal has to be caged.

Now if you know of any scripture that says angels has freewill then spit them out.

I know there are those who believe Satan was cast out of heaven because of his rebellion.

Problem is he is still there accusing the brethren.

One day he will be cast out of heaven but that is still in the future.

Peter is the only one I know of that said there was angels that sinned and was cast into hell for it.

The Greek word hamartan translated sin has a primary meaning of:
1) to be without a share in.

If God created Satan and his angels evil then they have never nor will they ever have a part in eternal life with God.

I suppose you think people will be cast into the lake of fire because they have sinned.

No one goes to the lake of fire because they have sinned.
No one goes to the lake of fire because they are not a church member.
No one goes to the lake of fire because they are not baptized.
No one goes to the lake of fire because they did not do good works.

A person goes to the lake of fire because their name is not written in the Lambs book of life.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How does one get their name written in the book of life?

It appears when one is born into God's family by the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

That takes place when a person hears the Word of God. Believes that Word, Is convicted by the Holy Spirit, and seeing their need they put total trust in God to do what He says He will do.

John writes:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mankind is condemned already.

The reason mankind is condemned already is:

"because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

You don't believe that but that is your problem.

Why don't you take it up with God?

John writes:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God so loved He can and will give everlasting life to whosoever will. That includes everybody.

Those who believe in Him to the point they trust Him for salvation will never perish.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 346 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-22-2010 11:21 PM		Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 389 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-25-2010 9:35 AM		ICANT has replied

jaywill

Member (Idle past 1972 days)

Posts: 4519

From: VA USA

Joined: 12-05-2005

(1)

Message 348 of 607 (566118)
06-23-2010 4:53 AM

Reply to: Message 345 by ICANT
06-22-2010 9:50 PM

Re: God's Instruction's

The second and later story in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 being about 6,000+ years ago.

That's pretty much how I have understood it.

jaywill writes:
Tell us that the word does not appear in Genesis 1:26.

Are you referring to the Word of John 1:1? If so He created everything.

No. I mean the word adam appears in Genesis 1:26.

jaywill writes:
Two adams is "man's misunderstanding". At the moment you are the man propogating this misunderstanding.

Two Adams is your misunderstanding.

Because you do not understand that adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word which means mankind, or man.

I do understand that because the footnote in my Bible says for Gen. 1:26 - " Or, mankind; Heb. adam, So also in the next verse ..."

Then the same footnote goes on to say "Adam, the first man, typifies Christ (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45,47; Psalm 8:4-8; Heb. 2:6-9) as the center of God's creation (Col. 1:16-17), as the Head of all creation (Col. 1:15) and of all men (1 Cor. 11:3, as God's expression in God's image and likeness (Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), and as God's epresentative to rule over all things created by God (Psa. 8:6-8; Matt. 28:18).

There was a mankind formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.

There was mankind created male and female in Genesis 1:27.

The geneologies identify the individual Adam.

"And Adam lived one undred thirty years and begot a [son] in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth"

Adam is as much an individual as Seth is here. So we could say that the first human being was called Mankind.

jaywill writes:
Two assumptions have to be made here to accept your view:

No assumption has to be made to accept my view. All you have to do is read the Word of God and accept it.

This is a dogmatic view. It says "I have no interpretation".
But I think you do in this passage.

jaywill writes:
1.) The usage of "yom" cannot mean anything but something like "before the next darkness falls".

All you have to do is accept the Word of God.

You mean all I have to do is accept your dogmatic opinion here.
But I don't think you are interpreting the passage rightly.

I have no problem with your quotation of the passage but your interpretation of it.

Where the RcV says "When" they supply the footnote "Lit. in the day". While they inform of the litural they feel the meaning of yom should be understood better by the English When.

jaywill writes:
2.) "You will die" could not mean the death of a portion of Adam's being like his human spirit. The sinners are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1)

ICANT:
It could but that would require several assumptions.

Why would I have to make such an assumption I don't know that the man formed from the dust of the ground had a spirit.

It told us that God breathed into his nostrils this spirit.

And Job 32:8 says "There is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding"

So this created man possessed God's breath as his own human spirit.

I know he had a body that was formed from the dust of the ground God breathed into that form and it became a living being. Nothing is said about this man being formed in the image of God.

We were told that man was created in the image of God in chapter one. But you regard that as a different man.

But without Genesis 1:26,27 I know that the One who came to Adam in the cool of the evening after he sinned seemed in the same likeness as Adam. (I take image to be more inward and likeness to be more outward).

"And they heard the sound of Jehovah God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden.

And Jehovah God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?

And he said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid myself." (Gen. 3:8-10)

I think it is a good assumption that God came to the garden in the same way that God came and had lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18. He came in the likeness of a man.

The passage does not stress God's omnipresence but His strolling in the cool of the day looking and asking for Adam. Of course an ominscient and omnipresent God knows where Adam is hiding. But here before the incarnation of Christ God comes, I think, in the likeness of a human man.

So I think it is safe to say Adam is in the likeness of God and vica verse there. To prove that Adam is also in the image of God there without Genesis 1:26,27 may require another post. But the crucial question is:

Why should I NOT be informed by Genesis 1:26,27 that Adam there is in the image of God ? ( I know YOUR answer already )

jaywill writes:
God could have meant the beginning of the process of Adam's death started and would consummate with his physical death years latter.

If He meant that why didn't He say that?

He says it latter in the divine revelation of the word of God.

What do you think the serpent meant ? It is not SAID right there. Latter in the divine revelation it is SAID.

Considering then, the whole Scripture, the death may mean it starts with the kernel of his being and spreads out until his body eventually turns to dust.

We had a long debate elsewhere about whether or not there was a concept of "spiritual death" in the Old Testament. In my opinion, I think it was demonstrated that there was.

God could have meant anything but He said:

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

ICANT, respectfully as possible, there is NO WAY I am going to understand that the man Adam who died in Genesis 5:5 is someone OTHER than the man whom God warned would die.

If you argue that it could not be because that Adam did not die on that same day as he ate the fruit, then I say the problem must be with our understanding of the warning, in some way.

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, AND HE DIED "(Gen. 5:5)

He was the first to be recorded as dying. He is followed by scores of others of whom it also says "and he died". Do not try for any reason to make the Adam of Genesis 5:5 some other Adam beside the first man and the Adam of Genesis 2:7.

Did God lie when He said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

jaywill writes:
There is no way that I am going to understand Genesis 5:5 as refering to anyone else but the Adam of Genesis 2:7.

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died." (Gen. 5:5)

So God lied to Moses when He gave him:

You said that. I didn't.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

These verses declared these are the generations of the mankind created in the likeness of God.

The only people said to have been created in the image/likeness of God was created in Genesis 1:27.

I understand your opinion. Moving on a little.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If you don't want to believe God's Word you will never reach the conclusion that Genesis 5:1 refers to the mankind created in Genesis 1:27.

And Gen. 1:27 is given to us again in Gen. 2:7 with different emphasis and some rather paradoxical details.

But that is adam in both passages.

jaywill writes:
If you want to talk about a lie, I would say that the lie is the teaching that the Adam of Genesis 5:5 is not the Adam of Genesis 2:7. I would count that teaching as a mistake at best. But it could possibly also be a lie, a doctrine of demons.

So now I am a liar teaching the doctrine of demons.

What did I say ? I said at best it is a mistake. But it could be that you are gripped with a doctrine of demons.

For years misunderstood a passage about the priest Zecharias. I thought that the New Testament said that when John the Baptist was born immediately he began to praise God and prophesy. One day it dawned upon me that I had been misreading the passage. It was the tongue of the priest that was loosed and began to praise God at the birth of John the Baptist. It was not the little baby that began to speak.

I only mention this because you said you first came to some understanding at 11 years old. And you clung to it. I also continued my erroneous understanding for some years before I realized I was mistaken.

Something like this could be the case with you. We can be deceived. We can be encouraged to cling to something by evil spirits. We can develop also a "system of error".

If that is the case why don't you prove it by refuting what I have presented in this thread?

I have done much debating on this point as you know. I only brought out that point because of your attitude that if I do not agree with your interpretation it must mean that God has lied.

Maybe you are being lied TO.

jaywill writes:
I know this is likely to offend. But our enemy is not flesh and blood. And I do not aim this charge at you personally. I think you may be gripped with a doctrine of demons. No offense is meant. But I do mean to be honest.

You call a man a liar.

You accuse him of teaching doctrines of demons.

It could be. If Peter could be led astray to be rebuked by the Lord you and I cannot also be ?

I know that I could be deceived. Not on this point. But I know that it is possible for me to be deceived. We sometimes have to check with others.

Do you think I never had to question some opinion I held to ?
We could be led into doctrines of demons in these last days:

"But the Spirit says expressly that in the later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons." (1 Tim. 4:1)

Now I DO NOT mean in any way, that you have departed from the faith in Christ. I am quite edified by your words about salvation in Christ.

But maybe you have on this point of man's creation, picked up a demonic teaching.

Then you say no offense is meant.

If I get to the point I make that accusation against you I will mean to offend you so remember that.

Dear brother. What do I do when you continue to insinuate that if I do not buy your dogmatic opinion I accuse God of lying ?

Huh ? Is that flattering ?

Until then I will just chalk it up to you being incorrigible.

Maybe we should discontinue exchanging on this matter.

If I was too harsh I am sorry.

jaywill writes:
Answering what the text says is quite easy.
The contraversy comes in how the text should be interpreted.

BY "generations of the heavens and the earth" I don't think Moses is speaking of geneologies of people.

Who said Moses was speaking of genealogies of people.

He was giving the history of the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth. At least that is what the Bible says.

jaywill writes:
Genesis 2:4 does not mean before God created man in the imageof God, male and female, He made man Adam and Eve on or before the first recorded Day of Genesis 1.

If there is no light period that Genesis 1:1 took place in that the History of that day is given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 the first day only consisted of a dark period and with the morning the second day began. That would have been a 12 hour dark period called a day. That does not fit God's definition.

jaywill writes:
Previously, you said to me that just because I assumed something it did not make it necessarily true.

Now I turn to you and say, just because it "stands to reason" in your mind ALSO does not necessaily make it true.

So I am supposed to assume God did not know what He was talking about when He gave the definition of yowm.

Is that what you are saying?

I believe I will accept what God says and discard what jaywill or anybody else says. I hope that meets your approval.

What God says is truth whether I or anyone else believes it or not.

jaywill writes:
Rather then continue along that line I would prefer to speak of the purpose of two sections or two creation accounts.

You have called me a liar.

You have accused me of teaching the doctrine of demons.

And then you have the audacity to refuse to refute anything I have presented.

Then you begin to lecture me, on your view of what God says and means.

Unless you desire to debate honestly and engage in debate by refuting what I have said throughout this thread. I will be wasting no more time responding to your accusations, assertions, and lectures.

Now what do you expect a person to do, when you say that if they do not agree with you, they are saying God lied ?

That's pretty strong too.
I hope you progress more and more in your growth in spiritual life and insight into the word of God.

Agape.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 345 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 9:50 PM		ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 349 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2010 7:05 AM	jaywill has replied
	Message 397 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 2:24 PM	jaywill has replied

purpledawn

Member (Idle past 3488 days)

Posts: 4453

From: Indiana

Joined: 04-25-2004

purpledawn Posts Only

Message 349 of 607 (566130)
06-23-2010 7:05 AM

Reply to: Message 348 by jaywill
06-23-2010 4:53 AM

Re: God's Instruction's

quote:
I have no problem with your quotation of the passage but your interpretation of it.

Exactly!!!!

The printing on the page is not the issue. It's his interpretation that's being questioned and how it impacts commonly understood doctrine.

quote:
I only mention this because you said you first came to some understanding at 11 years old. And you clung to it. I also continued my erroneous understanding for some years before I realized I was mistaken.

It is amazing what gets into our heads as a kid and sticks there. I've cleared out a few of those errors over the years.

quote:
Dear brother. What do I do when you continue to insinuate that if I do not buy your dogmatic opinion I accuse God of lying ?

Annoying, isn't it?

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 348 by jaywill, posted 06-23-2010 4:53 AM		jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 350 by jaywill, posted 06-23-2010 9:21 AM	purpledawn has replied
	Message 351 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 9:51 AM	purpledawn has not replied

jaywill

Member (Idle past 1972 days)

Posts: 4519

From: VA USA

Joined: 12-05-2005

Message 350 of 607 (566142)
06-23-2010 9:21 AM

Reply to: Message 349 by purpledawn
06-23-2010 7:05 AM

Re: God's Instruction's

Exactly!!!!

purpledawn, you've awoken with a vengence.

The printing on the page is not the issue. It's his interpretation that's being questioned and how it impacts commonly understood doctrine.

And where is the greater weight of evidence.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only mention this because you said you first came to some understanding at 11 years old. And you clung to it. I also continued my erroneous understanding for some years before I realized I was mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is amazing what gets into our heads as a kid and sticks there. I've cleared out a few of those errors over the years.

That might make a good thread. That is things each of us UNlearned over the years.

I have quite a few.

I have a Christian friend who tells me every so often he "reboots". He says he throws away all his theology and reads the Bible as if for the first time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear brother. What do I do when you continue to insinuate that if I do not buy your dogmatic opinion I accuse God of lying ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annoying, isn't it?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 349 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2010 7:05 AM		purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 363 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2010 1:50 PM		jaywill has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Message 351 of 607 (566149)
06-23-2010 9:51 AM

Reply to: Message 349 by purpledawn
06-23-2010 7:05 AM

Re: God's Instruction's

quote:
I have no problem with your quotation of the passage but your interpretation of it.

Exactly!!!!

But... but... he is just affirming what is written...

ICANT is not an honest man.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 349 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2010 7:05 AM		purpledawn has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.7

Message 352 of 607 (566157)
06-23-2010 11:00 AM

Re: Interpertation

Hi All,

In Message 348 jaywill says:

jaywill writes:

I have no problem with your quotation of the passage but your interpretation of it.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This verse says in the beginning.
God created the Heaven and the Earth.

My interpertation:

In the beginning which no one can give a date for.
God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Does anyone disagree with my interpertation?

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This verse says:

God called the light Day.
God called the darkness night.
God called that first evening and the following morning the first day.

My interpertation:

God called the light portion a day.
God called a light portion and a dark portion a day.

Now anyone who cares too please tell me where my interpertation is incorrect.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse says:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,

in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

My interpertation:

These are the history of the Heaven and the Earth.
These include all the things following Genesis 2:4-4:24.

In the day. God created the Heaven and the Earth in a light period or a light period including a dark period. There could not have been a second light period or second dark period. Because the text says in the day.

We do find a dark period in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

There was darkness upon the face of the deep.

I draw the conclusion from the combination of those two verses that :

The Heaven and the Earth was created in the beginning in a light period that lasted from the beginning until the evening we find in Genesis 1:2.

Where are my interpertations wrong?

You have said they are wrong now prove your point.

You have nothing to use except the text as presented. As these passages is what you are saying I have interperted wrong.

Don't worry about the other texts you think I have wrong these two must come first. The others can not be attacked until these are settled.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
	Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:18 AM		ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Message 353 of 607 (566159)
06-23-2010 11:18 AM

Reply to: Message 352 by ICANT
06-23-2010 11:00 AM

Re: Interpertation

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This verse says in the beginning.
God created the Heaven and the Earth.

My interpertation:

In the beginning which no one can give a date for.
God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Does anyone disagree with my interpertation?

I do. Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..."

It is not declaring that there was one first day there with a complete Earth existing.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse says:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,

in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

My interpertation:

These are the history of the Heaven and the Earth.
These include all the things following Genesis 2:4-4:24.

We do find a dark period in Genesis 1:2.

You're too literal. You don't allow for any flavor. It doesn't have to be referring to some specific day as it could just be another idiomatic phrase like "In the beginning".

You're focusing to much on individual and specific words and what they must be exactly pointing to rather than trying to understand what the author was intending to convey.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 352 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 11:00 AM		ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 354 by Coragyps, posted 06-23-2010 11:32 AM	New Cat's Eye has not replied
	Message 358 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 12:31 PM	New Cat's Eye has replied

Coragyps

Member (Idle past 765 days)

Posts: 5553

From: Snyder, Texas, USA

Joined: 11-12-2002

Coragyps Posts Only

Message 354 of 607 (566164)
06-23-2010 11:32 AM

Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 11:18 AM

Re: Interpertation

Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..."

Which is translated into Oilfield Story as, "Now this ain't no shit....."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:18 AM		New Cat's Eye has not replied

jaywill

Member (Idle past 1972 days)

Posts: 4519

From: VA USA

Joined: 12-05-2005

Message 355 of 607 (566165)
06-23-2010 11:46 AM

To some of you who seem to be getting a belly laugh that two orthodox Christians are having some squabbles over fine doctrinal points in Genesis ... don't be so excited.

purpledawn, Catholic Scientist

On essentials of Jesus the Son of God, His redemptive death and resurrection and lordhip, I am sure ICANT and I stand together.

Whatever one's interpretation, if it enceases his appetite for Jesus, it is safe, even if it is a little off.

If it decreases one's appetite for Jesus, its wrong even if it is dead right.

Jesus is the center of the Bible.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
	Message 356 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:54 AM	jaywill has replied
	Message 359 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 12:34 PM	jaywill has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

Message 356 of 607 (566166)
06-23-2010 11:54 AM

Reply to: Message 355 by jaywill
06-23-2010 11:46 AM

ICANT is trying to reconcile the seeming errors in the Bible with the scientific understanding of reality. We know the Earth is more than 10,000 years old but a literal interpretation of the Bible suggests otherwise. Enter Gap Creationism:

quote:
Gap creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.

It doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. Its about maintaining the Bible's authority as literal and inerrant.

If you have to rely on that about the Bible to keep your faith in Jesus, then you've got problems.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 355 by jaywill, posted 06-23-2010 11:46 AM		jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 357 by jaywill, posted 06-23-2010 12:23 PM	New Cat's Eye has not replied
	Message 361 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 12:58 PM	New Cat's Eye has replied

jaywill

Member (Idle past 1972 days)

Posts: 4519

From: VA USA

Joined: 12-05-2005

Message 357 of 607 (566178)
06-23-2010 12:23 PM

Reply to: Message 356 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 11:54 AM

A clergyman named Usher published his view of calculating earth's age by geneologies.

Not all theologians agreed that his method was reliable. Not all Bible students insist that the age of the universe can be calculated by "literal" statements in the Bible.

Taking the custom of some omitions in Jewish geneological records even the life time of Adam has been assumed by some like F. Schaeffer and H. Ross to be 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. To them literal statements of the Bible push Adam's day back further than 6,000 years.

And the opinion that God originally created a chaos is much enfluenced by ancient Roman and Greek cosmogenies. That is that the first thing in existence was a chaotic yawning mess.

So to such enfluences "the earth was waste and void" is more likely their understanding then the possible and admissible rendering "the earth became waste and void".

The latter meaning creation and destruction.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A theological view of a earth whose age cannot be determined, pre-dates the invention of Geology. Some Hebrew readers record in the end of the first century understood an ancient earth and an unspecified interval in Genesis 1:1,2 without out any motive to accomodate to earth age theories of the 19th century.

It doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. Its about maintaining the Bible's authority as literal and inerrant.

If you have to rely on that about the Bible to keep your faith in Jesus, then you've got problems.

The authority of life being imparted into us is very important. The authority for God to dispense life into our hearts through His word.

"Faith comes by hearing. And hearing by the word of God"

When a person searches the Scripture, he should simultaneously come to Christ for spiritual life.

Of course some people are not interested in faith or in the life of God being dispensed into them. But that is what the Bible is for. And that is the best way to take it.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 356 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:54 AM		New Cat's Eye has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.7

Message 358 of 607 (566181)
06-23-2010 12:31 PM

Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 11:18 AM

Re: Interpertation

Hi CS,

Catholic Scientist writes:

I do. Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..."

But it does not say "once upon a time".

It does say "In the beginning'. A specific starting point.

"God" the subject.

"Created" verb of completed action.

"The Heaven and the Earth" Object produced in the action of God's creating.

CS writes:

It is not declaring that there was one first day there with a complete Earth existing.

I would agree that there is not a 12 hour period of light that the completed Universe and Earth began to exist in.

But there was a period of light that existed from the beginning until the evening we find at Genesis 1:2. This light period of existence is of an undetermined existence. It could have been 20 billion years or longer there is no way of knowing.

But however long it was it ended in the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 and when the dark period that ended with the following light period was declared the first day.

CS writes:

You're too literal. You don't allow for any flavor. It doesn't have to be referring to some specific day as it could just be another idiomatic phrase like "In the beginning".

I will take "you're too literal" as a compliment.

I do believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

Not just the idiomatic phrases of mankind.

CS writes:

You're focusing to much on individual and specific words and what they must be exactly pointing to rather than trying to understand what the author was intending to convey.

Words have meanings and that is the way we convey our messages. The author of Genesis used words to convey what he was trying to say to us. Those words have specific meanings. He did know other words that could have presented the views some here hold.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:18 AM		New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 360 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 12:51 PM		ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.7

Message 359 of 607 (566182)
06-23-2010 12:34 PM

Reply to: Message 355 by jaywill
06-23-2010 11:46 AM

Re: Standing Together

Hi Jay,

jaywill writes:

On essentials of Jesus the Son of God, His redemptive death and resurrection and lordhip, I am sure ICANT and I stand together.

Amen

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 355 by jaywill, posted 06-23-2010 11:46 AM		jaywill has not replied

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member