6days
New member
You forgot 'illogical'.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Young Earth or Old?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
6days
New member
Apple..... Do you know what they say about a bag of hammers?Apple7 said:
Do you have trouble with easy to understand literature... or only the Bible?
Did you know sometimes words have more than one meaning?
For example.... Did you know that the word 'day' (and also YOM in Hebrew) have a variety of meanings always determined by context?
Here is an easy test for you...
In my fathers day, it took 3 days of fishing during the day only, to catch our limit?
Ok... so the word DAY is used 3 times with 3 meanings in one sentence. If you can figure that out... then go back to Gen.2:4 and use the same logic. It may hurt, because it contradicts your beliefs. BTW... There are more than 3 meanings to the word day in the OT... Its ALWAYS easy to understand with context
Apple7
New member
That is the only thing that we can agree upon.
How you managed to get that correct, and everything else so very wrong, is on you...
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If you are right then the absolute beginning was not day six because five days preceded the sixth day.
The only one here saying "absolute" beginning is you, Jerry.
Jesus Himself didn't say "at the absolute beginning."
So quit moving the goalposts.
6days
New member
Correct...(sort of). Jesus was not referring to day 6 as the beginning. He was referring to "the creation" which was a 6 day event in Genesis 1.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Did we put this OP /thread to bed yet 6days? It's young, right? The earth? It's young. Nobody has any impenetrable argument to the contrary, neither 'scientific' or logical /scriptural. The earth is young, it's young. It just is, and it is because of the Resurrection of Christ, because that means God's real, and if God's real, there's nothing stopping God from creating just the way it reads in Genesis 1-3, and I personally don't care whether it can be interpreted in metaphorical ways because, the text isn't demanding or even requesting that we do that. It's set out as an event over six days, and I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.
And I think we both agree that this is not a salvific /salvation issue, and we won't break communion with anybody for believing in evolution and the 'big bang' and other things that we do not believe. You have the right to believe whatever cosmology suits your theology, and your fancy, and so long as you reciprocally respect me, it's not a divisive matter and never will be.
Apple7
New member
So...
You accept the lexical definitions for yom....but deny and ignore the lexical definitions for bara and asah?
6days
New member
No I did not provide lexical definitions for 'Yom'. I did say that the word has various meanings in Scripture which is always determined by context.Apple7 said:
Likewise we don't need you selecting obscure definitions from a lexicon for the words 'create' and 'made'. (Bara and Asah). We can simply look in God's Word to see how the words are often used interchangeably. For example
God made the Sun.... God created the Sun
Psalm 148:5 / Genesis 1:16
God made the Stars... God created the Stars
Gen. 1:16 / Isaiah 40:26
What is the difference between god making and God creating the Stars? Nothing! You are attempting to impose an artificial distinction between two words to fit your belief system rather than accept how they are used in Scripture.
More...
God Bara the heavens and earth Gen. 2:4
God Asah the heavens and the Earth Gen. 2:4
God Bara man Gen. 2:4
God Asah man Gen. 3:5
Also interesting and contrary to your definitions, Genesis 5:2 tells us that God created the first humans. You seem to have the idea, that word can only mean making something out of nothing. We know male was made out of the dust of the ground and Eve was created from Adam's rib. (So it would seem according to your beliefs that Genesis 5:2 should use the word made instead of created?). There are many more examples how the words 'create' and 'made'are used interchangeably in Scripture, and sometimes within the same verse.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Yes!
It's interesting how those who try to use Job 38 to prop up their sensationalist "The Genesis 6 sons of God had to have been angels, and could not have been men!!!" shtick never seem to actually read the question God is asking Job in that passage: "[W]ho laid the corner stone [of the earth] when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Notice that the question God asks Job is not: "[W]ho laid the corner stone [of the earth]?" (Correct answer: God did!)
Rather, the question He asks Job is: "[W]ho laid the corner stone [of the earth] when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Correct answer: No one did! (Because by the time any morning stars or sons of God were on the scene to even be able to do any singing or shouting, God had already laid the corner stone of the earth.))
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, according to you, Genesis 2:3 tells us that God didn't get man right the first time so He had to fix His mistakes later?
| And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. |
I mean, you apparently think God had made a mistake by forming a dirt-man who at first was not a living soul; and that by later breathing life into man so as to cause man to become a living soul, God was fixing His mistake, no?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Which means that what @Jerry Shugart claims is false:
And yet, the Job 38 passage is thought by the "The Genesis 6 sons of God had to have been angels!!!" crowd to be the ultimate "proof" from the Bible of their sensationalistic claim. It's the one passage that, according to their imagination, "incontrovertibly establishes" the idea that the Bible sometimes uses the phrase "the sons of God" to refer to angels. And, if only they could get that prop to work for them, then they can easily jump from there to saying, "Well, since 'the sons of God' in Job 38 are obviously angels, why couldn't 'the sons of God' in Genesis 6 be angels?"
Just so you know...
I have since been corrected on this matter. Angels were created on day 1. There's a verse in Psalms or Proverbs I think that is rather explicit on the matter.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
And appeals to Job 38, which they misread, are never going to get them out from under their burden. In verse 4, God asks Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" The correct answer is something to the effect of: "Nowhere, O God, for Thou hadst not yet created me." From the tenor of Job 38, are we really supposed to get the idea that, had God asked this same question of some angel, the angel would have been in a position to respond: "Why, I was right there alongside you, inspecting your work! Don't you remember, God? I even encouraged you in your foundation-laying by cheering you on!"
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Oh, thanks. I'd be interested to see what verse you have in mind, if you happen to recall which one it is.
Rebel for truth
Member
The late Pastor Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel taught that be correct translation in Genesis is that the Earth "became" void and without form. That's something devastating happened to the Earth..... If that is so then it's a possibility that the war that took place in the heavens actually involved the Earth.
That would explain why he told man to be fruitful and multiply and "replenish" the Earth.
I believe that the Earth is old very, very, old. And at one point her name was Eden, God's Garden.
I also believe it is only been just over 6,000 years since the "fall" of Adam.
The 6 days, I believe is a mistranslation.
I've read the arguments concerning the word Hebrew word yom. It can also mean a period of time / a span of time / the time when / as well as other things and the translators / writers / first churches chose to use it as a literal 24-hour day.
Hebrew Word Definition: Day | AHRC
Defining Hebrew words within their original cultural context.
ancient-hebrew.org
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I get what you Bible-denying gappers are trying to do with the "re" in "replenish", but it is really silly, and baseless, and will never work out for you. By telling man to replenish the earth, God was not telling man to do something again that had been done before. Rather, God was talking to the first man, Adam, telling him to begin, for the first time, doing something that had never been done before by man: viz., to be fruitful and multiply. Adam could not obey some command to fill the earth with some "pre-Adamite" non-men, since Adam was a man, and man only begats man.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Amen! 6,000 to 10,000 years old is, indeed, very, very, very old!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
God formed the earth to be inhabited by man. If you have a problem with the fact of God's having created the earth just six days before He created man to inhabit it, I fail to see how saying He created it millions or billions of years prior to man's inhabitance of it is supposed to do anything other than drastically exacerbate your illegitimate gripe.