Is death just another life?

[way 2 go]

That's when he received his death sentence. He didn't die physically, and he didn't die spiritually, just like we don't die spiritually...

dead spiritually
Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

.else how can we respond to the Gospel message?

Joh_6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

good verse for spiritually dead needing Gods spirit to revive them

 

[way 2 go]

Why do you leave out “in”?

why do you ignore "eat" ?

 

[glorydaz]

dead spiritually
Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Under condemnation, not dead. In the same way that "sin came alive".

You see here no more "condemnation".

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Joh_6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.


good verse for spiritually dead needing Gods spirit to revive them

Of course the flesh is no help, and I don't think we're talking about the flesh, are we, because we know Adam didn't die physically that day?

I'll ask you this. Why do we preach the Gospel message, and expect spiritually dead people to respond so they can be given the Holy Spirit to begin with? It's because they aren't spiritually dead. They're just under condemnation of death.

 

[Clete]

I didn't establish the criteria.
[2Co 13:1 KJV] This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Of course, Paul didn't just make that up, the principle came from other places (or "mouths") in scripture.

God stands as Three in One. Thus, His testimony is already so corroborated.

Having said that, I would also say that just because a doctrine can be established with a single biblical sentence, does not imply that it is THE only biblical sentence on the subject.

Further, the veracity of the bible as a whole would allow for a single sentence to establish a doctrine even if it was THE only sentence on a particular subject. That, of course depends on both the doctrine in question and the sentence being used to establish it but the point is that the bible has proven to be a reliable witness and every topic it discusses.

So, as an example...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.

By this single sentence we know that the Heaven and the Earth are created things. They have not always existed nor did they happen by some accident of physics.

Is that the only sentence in the entire bible that talks about the Creator creating the Heavens and the Earth? No, it isn't.
Would there need to be other sentences on the subject in order for us to trust the truth of the very first sentence of God's word? Certainly not!

Clete

 

[Clete]

That's when he received his death sentence. He didn't die physically, and he didn't die spiritually, just like we don't die spiritually....else how can we respond to the Gospel message?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Saying is doesn't make it so.

 

[Derf]

God stands as Three in One. Thus, His testimony is already so corroborated.

Having said that, I would also say that just because a doctrine can be established with a single biblical sentence, does not imply that it is THE only biblical sentence on the subject.

Further, the veracity of the bible as a whole would allow for a single sentence to establish a doctrine even if it was THE only sentence on a particular subject. That, of course depends on both the doctrine in question and the sentence being used to establish it but the point is that the bible has proven to be a reliable witness and every topic it discusses.

So, as an example...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.

By this single sentence we know that the Heaven and the Earth are created things. They have not always existed nor did they happen by some accident of physics.

Is that the only sentence in the entire bible that talks about the Creator creating the Heavens and the Earth? No, it isn't.
Would there need to be other sentences on the subject in order for us to trust the truth of the very first sentence of God's word? Certainly not!

Clete

Gen 1:1 is a great example! God obviously didn't consider it sufficient, because He follows it up with the 7-day creation story. And not only that, but He follows that up with a summary: [Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Thus, your example justifies my point--3 witnesses.

Your points about things we can learn from that verse are valid. But just because we can learn something from a verse doesn't establish a doctrine by itself, and God didn't expect it to, apparently.

 

[Right Divider]

Gen 1:1 is a great example! God obviously didn't consider it sufficient, because He follows it up with the 7-day creation story. And not only that, but He follows that up with a summary: [Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Thus, your example justifies my point--3 witnesses.

Your points about things we can learn from that verse are valid. But just because we can learn something from a verse doesn't establish a doctrine by itself, and God didn't expect it to, apparently.

Verse 1 establishes that God is the Creator of all things. Nothing more needed in that regard.
The details in the following verses are not required to establish that God is the Creator of all things.
See how that works.
I believe that was the point that Clete was making.

 

[Derf]

Verse 1 establishes that God is the Creator of all things. Nothing more needed in that regard.
The details in the following verses are not required to establish that God is the Creator of all things.
See how that works.
I believe that was the point that Clete was making.

That was the point Clete was TRYING to make. But it isn't enough, according to God.

I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with believing the text of a single verse. We give God glory based purely on Gen 1:1! He made the heavens and the earth--hallelujah! But what does that include, just the ball (if it was even a ball shape by then) and the space it exists in? No, it includes the waters, the dry land, the plants, the animals, the birds, the sun, the moon, the stars, and mankind. We don't get that detail in Gen 1:1--it would have to be assumed if that's all we had. The 7-day story (well, 6-) gives us that important detail, which is then corroborated with the summary in Gen 2:1, "and all the host of them".

 

[Right Divider]

That was the point Clete was TRYING to make. But it isn't enough, according to God.

I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with believing the text of a single verse. We give God glory based purely on Gen 1:1! He made the heavens and the earth--hallelujah! But what does that include, just the ball (if it was even a ball shape by then) and the space it exists in? No, it includes the waters, the dry land, the plants, the animals, the birds, the sun, the moon, the stars, and mankind. We don't get that detail in Gen 1:1--it would have to be assumed if that's all we had. The 7-day story (well, 6-) gives us that important detail, which is then corroborated with the summary in Gen 2:1, "and all the host of them".

Again, Genesis 1:1 proves some things but not others. So you are missing the point.

 

[Derf]

Again, Genesis 1:1 proves some things but not others. So you are missing the point.

I'm not saying it isn't useful for proving some things--I'm just as likely as the next guy to use a single verse as proof of my assertions.
What I'm saying is that God didn't think it was sufficient for establishing a doctrine of creation.

If I use Gen 1:1 as the basis for my beliefs on creation, that's good! But that's not all there is to the doctrine of creation. 2 + 2 = 4 is both accurate and useful, as well as essential, but it isn't a "doctrine of addition".

 

[Clete]

No, I didn't say he didn't die. I said he did die, and in that day. But just like Gen 2:4, the day is an era, or a timeframe longer than a day. That's what the context gives you.

And I don't have to redefine "death" or "day".

And as I showed, there are two ways that context shows it isn't a 24-hour day. One is in Gen 2:4. The other is [Gen 5:5 KJV] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. This is the first time there is any mention that Adam actually died. And there's no reason to believe that this is in opposition to [Gen 2:17 KJV] 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.

I love it when people I'm debating just drop all pretense and just start stating contradictory things as though they make perfect sense.

You redefine day as being an age and then say you don't have to redefine a day. You say that Adam died but then say he didn't die until almost a millenium later and THEN say it doesn't contradict Gen. 2:4.

To all of which I respond...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

You disagree with Gen 2:4? That's pretty bold.

I'm the one who believes that it actually means what it says.

No, not "died the day", but "died IN the day" he ate that fruit.

Like I said, I'm the one who simply reads the text and doesn't have to play games with it. I read it and understand it to mean precisely what it seems to be saying.

Do you have some other passage that even talks about whether it was the actual 24 hour day? If not, then the predication is yours, not the bible's.

This is hogwash and you know it.

There is no reason to believe that "day" in Genesis 2 means anything other than what it means in Genesis 1. If you want to say otherwise then the burden is on you! I take the plain meaning of the text. You read your doctrine into the text.

How about a verse that says "Adam died the day", as you put it?

You disagree with Gen 2:4? That's pretty bold!

How about any verse with any form of "die" and "Adam" that suggests how long it took Adam to die? You may include "spiritual death" in you search, if you want. I could only find one:
[Gen 5:5 KJV] And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

The plain reading of the text is in keeping with all the other aspects of biblical death that I have already established and which you cannot refute without arbitrarily altering the placement of commas and doing so for no reason at all other than to squeeze your a priori doctrine past a passage that would otherwise flatly falsify that doctrine.

So context is undoubtedly on my side--I might even say THE ENTIRE BIBLE.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

But here's something you should consider. If your faith is based on your understanding of THE ENTIRE BIBLE, and the entire bible doesn't have any sentence that says Adam died in some other way before he died physically, and you think the entire Bible is predicated on that fact that Adam died within 24 hours of eating that fruit--you are heading toward a conflict of faith, Brother. Hold onto truth more than you hold onto predications.

Nice dodge. I'll ignore it. The alternative is to ignore you entirely.

I don't need your advice. I know what I believe and I know why I believe it. I don't need to justify it to you in any way shape or form. You've shown up here with an off the wall doctrine that no one in the world but you believes in. If you want to defend it then I'm happy to let you try to convince me but so far, your attempts have been rather weak and feeble to say the least. There doesn't seem to be ANY biblical reason to believe whatever convulted thing it is that you think death is.

So you're saying that Paul died the day he heard the commandment? I don't see the word "day" in that verse. And to make that scenario fit Adam, since it wasn't metaphorical, now you're saying that Adam died the day God commanded him not to eat the fruit? That's pretty odd.

Okay, that's all. I'm not going any further. You've stopped responding with anything that even pretends to be substantive.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Gen 1:1 is a great example! God obviously didn't consider it sufficient, because He follows it up with the 7-day creation story. And not only that, but He follows that up with a summary: [Gen 2:1 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Thus, your example justifies my point--3 witnesses.

Your points about things we can learn from that verse are valid. But just because we can learn something from a verse doesn't establish a doctrine by itself, and God didn't expect it to, apparently.

Why do you respond as though I said nothing?

Are you trying to waste my time?

 

[Derf]

You redefine day as being an age and then say you don't have to redefine a day. You say that Adam died but then say he didn't die until almost a millenium later and THEN say it doesn't contradict Gen. 2:4.

Huh? Gen 2:4 doesn't deal with Adam's death at all. Did you read it?

You disagree with Gen 2:4? That's pretty bold!

I agree completely with Gen 2:4. Especially where it says God created the heavens and the earth "in the day", despite the verses previous saying it took 6 days (2:2 "ended on the 7th"). Did you read it? If not, please do. If so, can you explain where anything I've said shows I don't agree with Gen 2:4?

The plain reading of the text is in keeping with all the other aspects of biblical death that I have already established and which you cannot refute without arbitrarily altering the placement of commas and doing so for no reason at all other than to squeeze your a priori doctrine past a passage that would otherwise flatly falsify that doctrine.

The plain reading of Gen 2:4 is that God created the heavens and the earth in an era of creation, and it doesn't say how long it took (how long the era lasted). We know from Gen 2:1-2 that it took 6 days. Thus, in the same chapter that God says Adam would die "in the day" he ate the fruit, it also describes the creation of the world as "in the day" immediately after acknowledging that it took six days, and He rested on the seventh.

Here's Gen 2:1-4 again:
[Gen 2:1-4 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 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,

You've shown up here with an off the wall doctrine that no one in the world but you believes in.

There are a few people on this site that believe in it. I agree it's not the "traditional" view, but I already addressed that in my comparison with open theism. Your claim here sounds just like someone that disagrees with open theism and can't think of any good arguments against it.

E.W. Bullinger seemed to agree with me, based on this book he wrote (by the way, I don't endorse the website, it was just a convenient place to find a free copy of the book): https://bibleunderstanding.com/the-rich-man-and-lazarus/
Maybe he's not the most commonly cited theologian, but he was supposedly Mid-Acts, and is mentioned some around here. I've heard the term "Bullingerism" equated with Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, though I don't know how accurate that is. Here's @Right Divider recommending him on a different subject:

Regarding Bullinger, I'd highly recommend his commentary on the Book of Revelation.

On to the minutiae:

Okay, that's all. I'm not going any further. You've stopped responding with anything that even pretends to be substantive.

Followed by a new post 5 minutes later:

Why do you respond as though I said nothing?

Are you trying to waste my time?

You seem to have plenty of time for bluster. Sorry to hear you're leaving the conversation.

 

[Clete]

Huh? Gen 2:4 doesn't deal with Adam's death at all. Did you read it?

I agree completely with Gen 2:4. Especially where it says God created the heavens and the earth "in the day", despite the verses previous saying it took 6 days (2:2 "ended on the 7th"). Did you read it? If not, please do. If so, can you explain where anything I've said shows I don't agree with Gen 2:4?

The plain reading of Gen 2:4 is that God created the heavens and the earth in an era of creation, and it doesn't say how long it took (how long the era lasted). We know from Gen 2:1-2 that it took 6 days. Thus, in the same chapter that God says Adam would die "in the day" he ate the fruit, it also describes the creation of the world as "in the day" immediately after acknowledging that it took six days, and He rested on the seventh.

Here's Gen 2:1-4 again:
[Gen 2:1-4 KJV] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 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,


There are a few people on this site that believe in it. I agree it's not the "traditional" view, but I already addressed that in my comparison with open theism. Your claim here sounds just like someone that disagrees with open theism and can't think of any good arguments against it.

E.W. Bullinger seemed to agree with me, based on this book he wrote (by the way, I don't endorse the website, it was just a convenient place to find a free copy of the book): https://bibleunderstanding.com/the-rich-man-and-lazarus/
Maybe he's not the most commonly cited theologian, but he was supposedly Mid-Acts, and is mentioned some around here. I've heard the term "Bullingerism" equated with Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, though I don't know how accurate that is. Here's @Right Divider recommending him on a different subject:




On to the minutiae:

Followed by a new post 5 minutes later:

You seem to have plenty of time for bluster. Sorry to hear you're leaving the conversation.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:

- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)

* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everything was very good" on Day Six


P.S. I wasn't saying that I was done with the converstion. I was saying that I wasn't going any further with that post because it got ridiculous.

Clete

 

[Derf]

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:

- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)

* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everything was very good" on Day Six

I agree with you in all of that. That you felt the need tells me you didn't understand what I wrote. I'll try again. Gen 2:4 uses the same expression "in the day" that is used in the exact same chapter when God warned Adam not to eat of the tree Gen 2:17--because he would die "in the day" he ate of it.

Stay with me here.

If God used the phrase "in the day" in vs 4 to refer to the 6 days, which is more than just 24 hours, then it tells us--in the same chapter, remember, that "in the day" is not necessarily talking about just a 24 hour period.

If you hold to the idea that "in the day" only refers to a 24 hour period, then you have a considerable conflict between Gen 2:1-3 and Gen 2:4, not to mention, as you have above, between Gen 2:4 and all of Gen 1.

P.S. I wasn't saying that I was done with the converstion. I was saying that I wasn't going any further with that post because it got ridiculous.

Ok. But if you didn't understand the one part, as you showed above, perhaps you didn't understand the other part and assumed ridiculousness. Something to think about.

 

[Clete]

I agree with you in all of that. That you felt the need tells me you didn't understand what I wrote. I'll try again. Gen 2:4 uses the same expression "in the day" that is used in the exact same chapter when God warned Adam not to eat of the tree Gen 2:17--because he would die "in the day" he ate of it.

Stay with me here.

If God used the phrase "in the day" in vs 4 to refer to the 6 days, which is more than just 24 hours, then it tells us--in the same chapter, remember, that "in the day" is not necessarily talking about just a 24 hour period.

If you hold to the idea that "in the day" only refers to a 24 hour period, then you have a considerable conflict between Gen 2:1-3 and Gen 2:4, not to mention, as you have above, between Gen 2:4 and all of Gen 1.

Ok. But if you didn't understand the one part, as you showed above, perhaps you didn't understand the other part and assumed ridiculousness. Something to think about.

This is nothing but you reading the text in any manner possible to preserve your a priori doctrine. A doctrine that you still have not clearly defined nor expressed a single good reason to believe in.

In addition to that, I've asked you multiple times what if any is the rational conesquence of believing that death is one type or another of separation and you can't tell me but there's a ton of consequences that are easy to articulate that come as a result of this ridiculous idea that a day isn't a day.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:

- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)

* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everything was very good" on Day Six

 

[Gary K]

This is nothing but you reading the text in any manner possible to preserve your a priori doctrine. A doctrine that you still have not clearly defined nor expressed a single good reason to believe in.

In addition to that, I've asked you multiple times what if any is the rational conesquence of believing that death is one type or another of separation and you can't tell me but there's a ton of consequences that are easy to articulate that come as a result of this ridiculous idea that a day isn't a day.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:

- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)

* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everything was very good" on Day Six

Hog wash. I believe much like Derf on this subject and I reject all of your assertions that I bolded. Only someone as woodenly literal as you would possibly say those things. And it is not something that Derf has ever claimed to believe. In fact, I've never run across anyone that believes that set of fallacies in more than 20 years of actively participating in theology forums.

 

[Derf]

This is nothing but you reading the text in any manner possible to preserve your a priori doctrine. A doctrine that you still have not clearly defined nor expressed a single good reason to believe in.

In addition to that, I've asked you multiple times what if any is the rational conesquence of believing that death is one type or another of separation and you can't tell me but there's a ton of consequences that are easy to articulate that come as a result of this ridiculous idea that a day isn't a day.

* List of Day-Age Theory Consequences: The initial presentation of Day-Age might seem reasonable, that the word "day" can mean a long age and so Genesis accommodates an old earth. What isn't always presented upfront however is that as supporters try to maintain the Day-Age theory, they not only lengthen the days but then also:

- must rearrange the order of those days (since they claim the Sun existed before the Earth and land animals before birds, so Day 4 comes before Day 1, and Day 6 comes before Day 5, and Day 3 plants before Day 4's Sun is also an issue for them)
- reject that there were no thorns before Adam (as Genesis states)
- reject that all was "very good" until sometime after Day Six
- reject that there was no death before Adam's fall (as the Bible states)
- reject the great ages that the antediluvians (like Methuselah) lived to
- reject the global flood (and all the evidence for it)
- reject that the languages originated at Babel
- reject the dispersion from Babel (preferring Out of Africa)
- reject the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
- reject the Exodus (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jericho's fall (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Joshua's conquest of Canaan (and all the evidence for it)
- reject Jesus' genealogy in Luke
- reject Jesus affirming Noah entering the Ark before the flood destroyed the rest of the world
- reject that God made us male and female as stated in Genesis and by Jesus
- reject Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that God made mankind at the "beginning" of creation
- reject Hebrews 1:10 and Gen. 1:1 on God making the Earth at "the beginning" of creation
- reject that God instituted marriage in Eden between one man and one woman
- etc. (for ex., they even reject the 2018 evidence that Solomon indeed made the gates found in Israel)

* List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days; The above is a list of the consequences that result from rejecting normal-length days of creation. A direct way of showing that these Genesis Days equaled 24 hours include observing that:

- On Day Four the sun and moon were to rule over the day and night, virtually mandating literal days 4, 5, and 6
- The Day Three plants needed the Sun of Day Four to survive therefore Day 3 could be hours but not years long
- Each of the six Days have ordinals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., which are typically used with literal and not figurative days
- Each of the six Days have evening and morning descriptions typically used with literal and not figurative days
- The 7th Day sabbath model is that God made the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days
- The purpose of Genesis carefully listing the ages of the patriarchs was for calculating the years since creation
- Jesus said that God created Man at the beginning of, that is, not not long after, creation (Mk. 10:6; etc.)
- Lucifer in the Garden of Eden hadn't yet fallen, no suffering or thorns yet till after "everything was very good" on Day Six

How long was the day in Gen 2:4?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How long was the day in Gen 2:4?

"In the day" is a figure of speech that refers to a longer period of time.

It itself is not a "day."

Genesis 2:4
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

 

[Derf]

"In the day" is a figure of speech that refers to a longer period of time.

It itself is not a "day."

Genesis 2:4
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Thanks. Does @Clete agree with you?