popsthebuilder said:
A day can refer to an age or period of time.
That is true. So does that mean that Jesus was in the tomb 3 ages? Was Jonah in the fish for 3 long periods of time? No...of course not. Context always determines the meaning. So why do you reject the context in the chapters that are foundational to the gospel?
Lets try this..... the word 'day' is used hundreds of times in the OT, outside of Genesis 1. Can you find any instance where there is no context leaving the meaning ambiguous? (I already* gave you an example from Genesis 2, where 'day' is used with two different meanings.... Can you determine the meaning from context?)Yes!
popsthebuilder said:
And again; GOD is infinite so a day could literally refer to any amount of time technically.
Absolutely not. Context context context. The context in Genesis 1 does not allow for just any amount of time. Throughout the OT, every single time the word 'YOM' is combined with an ordinal number (Ex 40 days, or third day), it refers to a 24 hour day. Throughout the OT, every single time the word 'YOM' is combined with words of“evening and (or )*morning”, it refers to a day measured by the night-day cycle. So why compromise God's Word in Genesis?
Not only that but God seemed to know there would be the hard of believing so He defined what a day is for you..."God calledthe light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”*And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day". It then seems God knew He needed to emphasize the point..'evening and morning..day 2'...'evening and morning..day 3'.. etc etc
popsthebuilder said:
How does the gospel message demand that the word day in Genesis must refer to a 24 hour period?
A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.
“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.
“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”
A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…
if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"
A Biologist Answers*
Dr Georgia Purdom says
"many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."
An Atheist Answers
From atheists.org/atheism
"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.
Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.
All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it."
A Prof / PhD Biblical Studies Answers*
Dr. Tom Wang says
"Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”
Our Creator Answers*
JESUS speaking
"Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"
popsthebuilder said:
You say exegesis demands it, but we know that the Word of GOD is truthful and simple.
Yes... For example Ex.20:11 is truthful and simple
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
popsthebuilder said:
We also know that GOD doesn't condemn actual truthful scientific endeavor, and the plain science shows that the earth is well over 6000 years old. I mean, the last ice age is estimated to have occurred 2.6 million years ago, but the earth is only 6000 years old. That flies in the face of simple and truth.
You seem to suggest that secular opinion overrides what God says...(And overrides thousands of scientists who say the evidence is consistent with God's Word, and a young earth). Jesus also accepted the plain simple straight forward reading of Genesis referring to male and female "from the beginning of creation"
I like Martin Luther's Words on this
"When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go"
or, John Wesley "We are not to think but that God could have made the world in an instant: but he did it in six days, that he might shew himself a free agent, doing his own work, both in his own way, and in his own time; that his wisdom, power and goodness, might appear to us, and be meditated upon by us, the more distinctly; and that he might set us an example of working six days, and resting the seventh."
