TOPIC SPLIT FROM "I'M FINALLY CONVINCED..."
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 06, 2010, 11:33:20 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 06, 2010, 10:55:44 PMI believe there is no other doctrine that has done more harm to the Christian faith.
Certainly for the people that are Christians.
But if I have to decide science did more harm to Christianity. Or more correctly the reponse of church to science. Earth is flat. All planets circle around earth. Planets move in perfect circles because God won't creating imperfect ellipces etc.
It's often said education drives out religion. I think that's true. But why? I think mainly because of church doctrine. More many people Bible=Church.
But in reality Bible != Church
And that sick ET stuff is part of it
As I wrote before:
UR= Mercy/grace
ED= Justice
ET= Sick/vengence
:2c:
I'm not sure why the study of how God's physical laws work would do harm to Christianity. The study of science has brought me new found awe of God. With that said, I do see what you are saying at work. I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh. Understanding how God makes the universe roll seems to take some of that shock and awe away from many individuals. And the hostility that many scientists have towards God has led to science becoming a religion all in its own.
I am scientifically trained...I like empirical evidence. But, I am also a man of faith...I need no evidence. Blending the two has been a challenge. But, I have found peace in studying what we know and having faith in that which can not ever be measured or studied.
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility. How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence? I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence. I have faith in more based on personal experience. Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science.
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility. How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence? I align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence. I have faith in more based on personal experience. Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science.
If something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them. Creationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence. What evidence does evolution have? but based upon a theory, that things adapt ? and a lot of marketing.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
I'm not sure the average Christian would claim that. Certainly, it can be demonstrated that Adam was created 6000 years ago. There is nothing in the Bible to prove that the earth was created 6000 years ago.
The earth could be 12 thousands years ago
7 days of creating 7000 years
+ 6000- 5000 years of history
- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years
QuoteIf something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them.
TT, it's not about following the majority. At least not for me.
QuoteCreationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence.
I did see no to very little YEC evidence. Note I wrote YEC not OEC.
QuoteWhat evidence does evolution have?
Quite a bit. But if you mean Darwinian evolution. That crumbles more day after day. By research of other science.
The fact that the universe is about 14-15 billion years old doesn't disprove the hand of God. Plus science hasn't figured out everything. The big bang happened but it is against the laws of nature it did happen.
What if the big bang was the first phase of creation?
Quote from: thinktank on September 07, 2010, 09:36:26 PM
The earth could be 12 thousands years ago
7 days of creating 7000 years
+ 6000- 5000 years of history
- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years
plus the gap--it could be any number of years old, including 15 billion.
Quote from: thinktank on September 07, 2010, 09:36:26 PM
The earth could be 12 thousands years ago
7 days of creating 7000 years
+ 6000- 5000 years of history
- 12 thousand or 13 thousand years
Isn't it 6 days of creating + 1 day of rest?
So 1000 years less.
If you take the Biblical timeline as civalisation of mankind then it fits quite well with archelogy.
For example Tubal-Cain=start of Bronze age.
I had a book by a professional scientist that explained with mathmatical proof how, due to relativity, time passing for someone inside the big bang and its subsequent universe compared to time passing for an outside observer, solves the discrepancy between the numbers. An explanation was posted here on tentmaker not too long ago.
It does seem that the literal six days as six thousand years only applies to the re-creation of the earth according to the account in Genesis, not how long the earth or rest of the cosmos has existed. In Genesis the universe with the water covered earth was already here. Upon the face of that is what the Spirit was settling and brooding, as a hen over her chicks before the word, "Light be.".
That was Gerald Schoeder (Genesis and the Big Bang) http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AccordingToGod.aspx
There are other explanations. But the most simple one is that the Hebrew Yom just like aion can mean about everything....
יום
yôm
BDB Definition:
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (plural)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from an unused root meaning to be hot
Same Word by TWOT Number: 852
יוֹם
yôm: A masculine noun meaning day, time, year. This word stands as the most basic conception of time in the Old Testament. It designates such wide-ranging elements as the daylight hours from sunrise to sunset (Gen 1:5; 1Ki 19:4); a literal twenty-four hour cycle (Deu 16:8; 2Ki 25:30); a generic span of time (Gen 26:8; Num 20:15); a given point in time (Gen 2:17; Gen 47:29; Eze 33:12). In the plural, the word may also mean the span of life (Psa 102:3 [4]) or a year (Lev 25:29; 1Sa 27:7). The prophets often infuse the word with end-times meanings or connotations, using it in connection with a future period of consequential events, such as the "day of the LORD" (Jer 46:10; Zec 14:1) or simply, "that day" (Isa 19:23; Zec 14:20-21).
Translating it a day is interpretation. Period would have been more neutral. Likely because it was night and day. That sounds like two 12 hour parts of a 24-hour day. It seem that in Hebrew it's plural. Add to that the fact that the words for light and dark have various meanings and there is even less proof it must be a 24 hour day.
Ive mentioned this before, arent days 12 hours? Doesnt that alone mess of the caculations of man and science?
Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, `Are there not twelve hours in the day? if any one may walk in the day, he doth not stumble, because the light of this world he doth see;
Seems science and theology work from a 24 hour day, at least from what I have read. I think we sometimes forget that the Book was written by[inspired men of] God, and it has little, it anything to do with what man[earthy] and his history conjure up with the foolishness of mans wisdom. My :2c:
WW :bigGrin:
Day 1:
Hedean eon: 4,600-3,900 mya => solidification of earth's crust
Day 2:
Archeozoic eon: 3,900-2,500 mya - bacteria, blue-green algae & archaens start to oxygenate atmosphere
Day 3:
Early life
Silurian period - 405-425 mya
Day 4:
Sun and Moon.
Between day 1 and 2
Day 5:
Cambrian. 600-400 million years ago
Day 6:
(40 mya)
The above is a bit tricky to summarize.
Genesis doesn't say: THE first day era, but ONE era.
God just states 6 eras. They can chronological. But likely are not.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 07, 2010, 11:55:57 PM
Ive mentioned this before, arent days 12 hours? Doesnt that alone mess of the caculations of man and science?
Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, `Are there not twelve hours in the day? if any one may walk in the day, he doth not stumble, because the light of this world he doth see;
Day=light=order=holiness. Night=dark=chaos=sin
So I think the verse has a double meaning. And yes of course many day's mentioned in the Bible are real 12 hour days.
Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights. That's max. 6*12 hours. Not 72.000 years or 72 seconds.
QuoteSeems science and theology work from a 24 hour day, at least from what I have read. I think we sometimes forget that the Book was written by[inspired men of] God, and it has little, it anything to do with what man[earthy] and his history conjure up with the foolishness of mans wisdom. My :2c:
Maybe the foolishness of man was to assume he knows how to translate the Bible :)
A 12-13th century Jewish scholar wrote earth was very old. He even described the very first fraction of a second of the Big Bang. Mass was created and was followed by time. "when time grabs hold"
He's concindered the greatest Jewish scholar ever. I still don't know how that man leaened those things. Vision from God or is it really in the Hebrew text?
Meaning 'our' text lacks a great deal of depth.
QuoteWW :bigGrin:
M :laughing7:
willieH: Hi Shawn... :winkgrin:
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility. How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?
FIRST --- The biggest problem with science is that they OFTEN state THEORY and HYPOTHESIS as if it were FACT... Just tune into the Nat Geo, History or Discovery Channels on any given day, and you will witness this.
SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that
aligns the
evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being,
6000 years... For the
WORD of God is the
TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the
TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...
THIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE".
IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY
WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe. There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.
Also, the
WORD notes that DEATH
entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion --
Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED.
This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and
DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present
IN the CREATION, as we speak. :JCThink:
reFORMer notes a "re-creation" of the Earth, ...however this subtle assertion, is as much a CONJECTURE ...as make the scientists of the "BIG BANG"...
The
WORD does not note that there was a "re-creation"... it simply notes that the "earth" (and heaven) was WITHOUT FORM (yet to be shaped), and VOID (empty) until GOD decided to FILL the emptiness, and DRESS (shape) it with LIFE that it NOT be "VOID"...
DISPATCHING His
WORD in doing so --
Isaiah 55:11 -- Gen 1:3--2:1GOD has no beginning... and neither does
anything within Him (
Acts 17:28)...
The "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the
WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE! :dontknow:
The word "created" noted in
Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean
DISPATCHED...
The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of
YHVH... but its
PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the
WORD within
YHVH, which is the
maker of
ALL things --
John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".
The book of the REVEALING of the
WORD of
YHVH (Revelation of
JESUS CHRIST), upon
IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away... and shall no longer be an existent thing...
The
WORD does NOT CHANGE --
Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does
YHVH --
Mal 3:6... so WHY would
DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the
WORD as well (for the
WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their
DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well?
Is God revisiting
DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation? If so, WHY? What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"? Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to
DEATH as well? :dontknow:
If the
WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) --
John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in
IT's "revelation" and conclusion --
Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?
REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON,
this Earth... If the
WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation?
That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. God is REVEALING His
WORD in and on THIS Earth... and
CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. --
Heb 9:26 -- 10:10The
TRUTH is that the
WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 08:49:05 PMI align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence. I have faith in more based on personal experience. Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science.
How can it be possible, that Science which was CREATED by GOD, ...NOT be in ALIGNMENT with His
WORD?
There IS an explanation... but most (hardly
any), either holding the opposing Spiritual or Scientific positions ...will not listen to it, for it takes a combining of the PHYSICAL with the SPIRITUAL to gain it, ...and the SPIRITUAL (faith/infinite/which needs no "substance" of the Physical) actively refuses the PHYSICAL (science/finite/which requires "proof") ...And in kind, the PHYSICAL (science) promptly refuses the SPIRITUAL (faith) as well...
BOTH failing to realize that
BOTH find their source in
YHVH God...
No matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's
WORD (which notes a 6000 year time frame... is the
TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.
...willieH :cloud9:
"Maybe the foolishness of man was to assume he knows how to translate the Bible :)" WW
But it is the indwelling Spirit that gives the understanding to what Jehovah is revealing to His creation.
I personally think all of mans time trying to figger out the "time" in the Book is man wasting time, most of the time. :2c:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 09:38:00 PM
QuoteIf something is true why should one follow the majority in order to please them.
TT, it's not about following the majority. At least not for me.
QuoteCreationists seem to think the earth is 6000 years old and have some solid evidence.
I did see no to very little YEC evidence. Note I wrote YEC not OEC.
QuoteWhat evidence does evolution have?
Quite a bit. But if you mean Darwinian evolution. That crumbles more day after day. By research of other science.
The fact that the universe is much 14-15 billion years old doesn't disprove the hand of God. Plus science hasn't figured out everything. The big bang happened but it is against the laws of nature it did happen.
What if the big bang was the first phase of creation?
The Creationists have little evidence that a scientifically trained eye would find credible. The earth is not 6000 years old. And I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory. It just can't happen. It's just as absurd as saying the earth is 6000 years old.
As for the Big Bang...we are not so sure it happened that way in the classical sense. Looking at string theory and specifically M-theory we are led to believe it's possible that the material in our D-brane (universe) was merely redisturbuted after parrallel branes (universes) collided. The quantum mathmatics doesn't work out when speaking about Big Bang in its classical understanding.
Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AM
willieH: Hi Shawn... :winkgrin:
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 07, 2010, 06:57:53 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh.
I was trying to say, I think many people are pushed away by the claims of church that don't align with science. Earth is 6000 years old, is one of the most known.
Well creationists have done a great deal of harm to Christian credibility. How could anyone believe the earth is 6000 years old after looking at the evidence?
FIRST --- The biggest problem with science is that they OFTEN state THEORY and HYPOTHESIS as if it were FACT... Just tune into the Nat Geo, History or Discovery Channels on any given day, and you will witness this.
SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that aligns the evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being, 6000 years... For the WORD of God is the TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...
THIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE".
IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe. There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.
Also, the WORD notes that DEATH entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion -- Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED.
This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present IN the CREATION, as we speak. :JCThink:
reFORMer notes a "re-creation" of the Earth, ...however this subtle assertion, is as much a CONJECTURE ...as make the scientists of the "BIG BANG"...
The WORD does not note that there was a "re-creation"... it simply notes that the "earth" (and heaven) was WITHOUT FORM (yet to be shaped), and VOID (empty) until GOD decided to FILL the emptiness, and DRESS (shape) it with LIFE that it NOT be "VOID"... DISPATCHING His WORD in doing so -- Isaiah 55:11 -- Gen 1:3--2:1
GOD has no beginning... and neither does anything within Him (Acts 17:28)...
The "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE! :dontknow:
The word "created" noted in Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean DISPATCHED...
The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of YHVH... but its PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the WORD within YHVH, which is the maker of ALL things -- John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".
The book of the REVEALING of the WORD of YHVH (Revelation of JESUS CHRIST), upon IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away... and shall no longer be an existent thing...
The WORD does NOT CHANGE -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does YHVH -- Mal 3:6... so WHY would DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the WORD as well (for the WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well?
Is God revisiting DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation? If so, WHY? What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"? Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to DEATH as well? :dontknow:
If the WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) -- John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in IT's "revelation" and conclusion -- Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?
REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON, this Earth... If the WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation?
That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. God is REVEALING His WORD in and on THIS Earth... and CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. -- Heb 9:26 -- 10:10
The TRUTH is that the WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 08:49:05 PMI align my thoughts with intelligent design based on the evidence. I have faith in more based on personal experience. Christianity, the Bible certainly align with science.
How can it be possible, that Science which was CREATED by GOD, ...NOT be in ALIGNMENT with His WORD?
There IS an explanation... but most (hardly any), either holding the opposing Spiritual or Scientific positions ...will not listen to it, for it takes a combining of the PHYSICAL with the SPIRITUAL to gain it, ...and the SPIRITUAL (faith/infinite/which needs no "substance" of the Physical) actively refuses the PHYSICAL (science/finite/which requires "proof") ...And in kind, the PHYSICAL (science) promptly refuses the SPIRITUAL (faith) as well...
BOTH failing to realize that BOTH find their source in YHVH God...
No matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's WORD (which notes a 6000 year time frame... is the TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.
...willieH :cloud9:
Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate? Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs? Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be?
Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings. Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise? A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 01:42:11 AM
Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings. Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise? A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.
$$$
Your wisdom is well beyond your years. :bigGrin:
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p
But thanks for the compliment anyhow! I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me. After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:16:48 AM
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p
But thanks for the compliment anyhow! I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me. After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^
I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale? While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature. Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons. Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?
Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity. I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists. I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation. I believe the imagery is symbolic. If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense. While some say science should fit the Bible. I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 01:42:11 AM
Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings. Why can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise? A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.
Friend I believe you have got that correct about Genesis. Aint so sure about the Apocalypse. Just my thoughts.
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 02:37:23 AM
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:16:48 AM
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p
But thanks for the compliment anyhow! I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me. After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^
I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale? While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature. Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons. Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?
Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity. I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists. I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation. I believe the imagery is symbolic. If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense. While some say science should fit the Bible. I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.
I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic. I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places :sigh:. I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.
Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating. :punish: I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know. However, I found the following interesting. It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic. If we wander too far and too long off-topic, I'll split this into another thread...
This from Michigan University Internet Church site; "Yes, even though some may say that a whale couldn't swallow a man, as well as live in its belly for 3 days. First of all, Jesus believed it (Matthew 12:40). Secondly, the Creator of the universe "prepared a fish" to swallow
Jonah (Jonah 1:17). We also must realize that some species of whales and sharks can swallow a man whole. The sperm whale, white shark, and whale shark have been found with whole animals as large or larger than man in their stomachs. There have been recorded events in whaling history where men have been swallowed by these animals and rescued. As far as the 3 days and 3 nights, there remains the possibility that these were not 3 entire nights and days. It may have been an entire day and parts of 2 other days (38 hours).
A man named James Bartly in 1895 is known to have survived for one and a half days before being rescued. There is always air in the whale's belly and as long as the victim is still alive in the belly, digestive juices will not flow. If this answer does not suffice, couldn't God have performed a miracle? The last possibility was that
Jonah suffered and died and the Lord raised him from the dead."
http://www.muiczone.com/FAQ_View.cfm?FAQID=23
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 02:37:23 AM
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:16:48 AM
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p
But thanks for the compliment anyhow! I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me. After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^
I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale? While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature. Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons. Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?
Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity. I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists. I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation. I believe the imagery is symbolic. If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense. While some say science should fit the Bible. I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.
I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions :icon_joker:
But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4 Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3
Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.
Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:52:15 AM
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.
Not really because evolution states that the species evolves for it's own advantage or survival. But God does not look for it's own but for the benefit for others.
Quote from: jabcat on September 08, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 02:37:23 AM
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:16:48 AM
Lol, I can only hope the wisdom isn't mine to begin with. :p
But thanks for the compliment anyhow! I hope it'll be a blessing to you as it was to me. After having long, drawn out, vicious battles with Atheists over my YEC beliefs...which have since then become "Either way, doesn't matter, God is God", it really helped me when it came to me that the beginning of the book, is fitting to be like the end. ^^
I mean do people really believe a man lived in the belly of a whale? While anything is possible with God I am more apt to believe many of the stories are symbolic in nature. Jesus spoke in parables...nonliteral stories to teach lessons. Why would Christians take issue with looking at other scripture like that?
Yeah YEC has serious problems with validity. I could more align myself with OEC...progressive creationists or even theisitic evolutionists. I believe the book of Genesis is a nonliteral accounting of creation. I believe the imagery is symbolic. If it's not...then you have alot of dancing to do in order for it to make sense. While some say science should fit the Bible. I say science will fit the Bible...but only if interpreted correctly.
I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic. I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places :sigh:. I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.
Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating. :punish: I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know. However, I found the following interesting. It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic. If we wander too far and too long off-topic, I'll split this into another thread...
This from Michigan University Internet Church site; "Yes, even though some may say that a whale couldn't swallow a man, as well as live in its belly for 3 days. First of all, Jesus believed it (Matthew 12:40). Secondly, the Creator of the universe "prepared a fish" to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17). We also must realize that some species of whales and sharks can swallow a man whole. The sperm whale, white shark, and whale shark have been found with whole animals as large or larger than man in their stomachs. There have been recorded events in whaling history where men have been swallowed by these animals and rescued. As far as the 3 days and 3 nights, there remains the possibility that these were not 3 entire nights and days. It may have been an entire day and parts of 2 other days (38 hours).
A man named James Bartly in 1895 is known to have survived for one and a half days before being rescued. There is always air in the whale's belly and as long as the victim is still alive in the belly, digestive juices will not flow. If this answer does not suffice, couldn't God have performed a miracle? The last possibility was that Jonah suffered and died and the Lord raised him from the dead."
http://www.muiczone.com/FAQ_View.cfm?FAQID=23
A split might be a good idea because I really like this topic. Question...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story? Like I have said before, anything is possible with God. But, either view doesn't change the message. But, taking a literal account of Genesis then taking the YEC stance against scientific knowledge is short sighted at best. In that sense, the literal vs figurative does matter because it makes some Christians look like consipiracy theorists. I think it's important for us to be even minded and not reactive to new scientific data. We should not look at science as the enemy of Christianity. We should look at science being the word of God in motion.
Quote from: thinktank on September 08, 2010, 03:14:00 AM
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 02:52:15 AM
If -GOD- created mankind via Evolution, we are the carefully sculpted images of God.
Not really because evolution states that the species evolves for it's own advantage or survival. But God does not look for it's own but for the benefit for others.
I think you are really stretching here TT. But, I will say this...there is zero way neo-evolution happened without the presence of a creator. I have written an article on random mutations and why that alone can disprove a creatorless evolution. In order for evolution to have occured, there must have been a hand to guide the process.
Split from "I'm Finally Convinced UR Isn't True.."
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 01:42:11 AM
Revelation is a (the last, the ending) book of the Bible that uses symbolic language (and literal language too) to describe literal happenings.
Must be a bad book then because the ending is in 1 Cor :winkgrin:
QuoteWhy can't Genesis, the beginning of the Bible be likewise? A book that uses symbolic language, to describe literal happenings.
Maybe so. But that doesn't take away the strong possibility there are translation errors.
Rev speaks about a dragon. Because Rev is symbolic would you find it ok if a new translation writes about the "great hamster"?
Even very obvious symbolism should be translated as accurately as possible. Not doing so is adding or removing from the word for me.
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 01:29:16 AMAnd I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory. It just can't happen.
It gets even worse if you see (microscopic) life existed in a very early stage of earth. ~3 billion years ago. The suddenly and very recently (on evolutionary timescale) many species appeared during the Cambrian explosion. Ignoring the stats of random mutations it's also impossible because the earth doesn't even have enough material ("food") to support the massive amounts of intermediate lifeforms (that never have been found)
Microbiology shows that certain algae that exist for billions of years are DNA wise far more complex than everything else on earth. Including humanity.
Quote from: jabcat on September 08, 2010, 02:48:58 AM
I'm certainly open to many things being symbolic. I'm just generally not sure what is and what isn't in many places :sigh:. I personally feel a need to be very careful picking and choosing - I believe I need deeper revelation on various issues to know which is which.
Anyway, we're in danger of hijacking/derailing this thread, and I'm participating. :punish: I won't vouch for its scientific accuaracy, because I just don't know. However, I found the following interesting. It may at least encourage us to take extreme care with what we judge as literal vs. symbolic.
It's even very difficult to define literal and symbolic.
Early lifeforms had no sexe (sp?) But after a while male and female life appears.
X-chromosone
Y-chromosone
The Y chromosone is missing a side (side=rib in Hebrew) -> Adam and Eve
If the above was true would that make the creation of (Adam and) Eve symbolic or literal?
Quote from: thinktank on September 08, 2010, 02:50:27 AM
I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions :icon_joker:
But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4 Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3
Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.
Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
The first question is: are the YEC scientists really scientists?
In defence of Darwin; he saw big problems in his own theory. He hoped to resolve them (but didn't) But hardcore atheists took the ball and started pushing their agenda. Science isn't perfect. It frequently changes its views. But in the field of evolution there has been a lot of fraud.
A site you might like: http://www.doesgodexist.tv/
Quote from: jabcat on September 08, 2010, 07:12:20 AMSplit from "I'm Finally Convinced UR Isn't True.."
You have a sharp eye for quickly noticing off-topic threads.
Speaking about UR :laughing7:
:wink3:
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 03:17:31 AMQuestion...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also mean figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.
I find that interpretative differences on the literal or figurative meanings in relation to the creation can co-exist with some scrutiny. How long was a 'day' before the sun was created/emerged, for instance(As WW discussed in a previous post about the meaning of 'yom'). To me the only issue that stands out as defensible and critical to the faith is this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (Joh 1:1-3)
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds(aions). (Heb 1:1-2)
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:15-16)
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
(Rom 8:19-22)
These scriptures state that there is nothing that has been done/created in which God was not the imperative will- acting through Jesus, the Logos. Whether we see the processes of His creative might in the same way is not as important as recognizing that, "For from Him, and through Him and to Him are all things". In other words, there is nothing apart from God, who is the source.... and nothing apart from Christ who is the fount, the Alpha and Omega. Some things we see through a glass darkly, and always will from this side of the glass. As the process of the gathering into one of all things in Christ (Eph1:10) is completed until God is All in All(1 Cor 15:28) and the whole creation is set free into the glorious liberty of the sons of God(Romans 8:21) we have been predestined according to His purpose who causes all things to work according to the counsel of His will(EpH 1:11,12)
He is the first-born of creation, we are the first fruits- having the first fruits of the Spirit, called, chosen and predestined as sons to participate in the reconciliation of all things- the restitution of all things-the redeeming of the whole creation is into this "glorious liberty"- all things made new, the RENEWED Creation.
Only God can do such awesome and mighty wonders. Man piddles around the edges of His ways and seeks to measure himself by his knowledge- based on tiny threads sticking out from under the door of the Almighty Invisible One.
Do pull on the threads- they lead to greater vision, but don't get to carried away with your own understanding because.....
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:33-36)
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 02:22:37 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 03:17:31 AMQuestion...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also me figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.
Ok, you believe it does. So, for you how does taking a literal interpretation vs a figurative one of the Jonas story change it's meaning? I would like to know. I don't want to be missing something in this story.
Quote from: reFORMer on September 07, 2010, 11:16:04 PM
I had a book by a professional scientist that explained with mathmatical proof how, due to relativity, time passing for someone inside the big bang and its subsequent universe compared to time passing for an outside observer, solves the discrepancy between the numbers. An explanation was posted here on tentmaker not too long ago.
It does seem that the literal six days as six thousand years only applies to the re-creation of the earth according to the account in Genesis, not how long the earth or rest of the cosmos has existed. In Genesis the universe with the water covered earth was already here. Upon the face of that is what the Spirit was settling and brooding, as a hen over her chicks before the word, "Light be.".
$$$
Time is relative and dependent. For instance, as you approach the speed to light time significantly slows down. Time is a relative and not a constant. Not to mention God's time is not our time. It's speculated that while we are able to observe a 3D +1 world...it's a 10D +1 multiverse. In that universe there is a blurring of past, present and future.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 12:11:45 AM
Day 1:
Hedean eon: 4,600-3,900 mya => solidification of earth's crust
Day 2:
Archeozoic eon: 3,900-2,500 mya - bacteria, blue-green algae & archaens start to oxygenate atmosphere
Day 3:
Early life
Silurian period - 405-425 mya
Day 4:
Sun and Moon.
Between day 1 and 2
Day 5:
Cambrian. 600-400 million years ago
Day 6:
(40 mya)
The above is a bit tricky to summarize.
Genesis doesn't say: THE first day era, but ONE era.
God just states 6 eras. They can chronological. But likely are not.
If you take this approach how do you explain dinosaurs. Unlike some I actually believe the scientific evidence. If sin brought death...how would have the dinosaurs died off before man? Despite some notions that man walked with dinosaurs I don't believe the vast body of evidence supports that.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 01:29:16 AMAnd I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory. It just can't happen.
It gets even worse if you see (microscopic) life existed in a very early stage of earth. ~3 billion years ago. The suddenly and very recently (on evolutionary timescale) many species appeared during the Cambrian explosion. Ignoring the stats of random mutations it's also impossible because the earth doesn't even have enough material ("food") to support the massive amounts of intermediate lifeforms (that never have been found)
Microbiology shows that certain algae that exist for billions of years are DNA wise far more complex than everything else on earth. Including humanity.
You know your stuff and you are indeed correct. Neo-evolution must ignore the fossil record. Neo-evolution must ignore the catastrophic effects of negative mutations. The ONLY way evolution could have happened the way scientists say it happened is if the hand of God were at work.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 09:26:33 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 08, 2010, 02:50:27 AM
I think science has a lot to offer and is solid in many aspects. However when it comes to evolution, creation etc science is a bit sloppy. How can some scientists say that the ea brarth is 6000 years old while others say it's millions and millions of years old and others say millions and millions and millions :icon_joker:
But what other sciencench says maths 2 + 2= 4 Scientists B no maths 2+2 = 3
Only one of them is correct. But to me evolutionist scientists have much more data, time and money than the creationist scientists and so have an unfair advantage.
Aslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
The first question is: are the YEC scientists really scientists?
In defence of Darwin; he saw big problems in his own theory. He hoped to resolve them (but didn't) But hardcore atheists took the ball and started pushing their agenda. Science isn't perfect. It frequently changes its views. But in the field of evolution there has been a lot of fraud.
A site you might like: http://www.doesgodexist.tv/
Again you are right on. We see eye to eye on these issues. But, this goes both ways. You have evolutionists pushing an agenda (funding, job security, atheistic views etc) with very poor science. You have YEC scientists pushing back with even poorer science.
Just to make it clear: When I say "symbolic language to describe literal happenings"
I am not speaking of it as "esoteric figurative language", IE: this isn't Mason rites stuff here. But something that seems to fit with Biblical language.
"A day to God is as a thousand years!"
Well, that doesn't have to literally mean that 24 hours = 1000 years. But it is a symbolic way of saying that what is short to God, is to us an age's worth - a literal statement, described symbolically.
As for the "Great Hamster" I'd have an issue with that, since it would be a mistranslation entirely, and wouldn't go with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of "The Serpent". :)
The problem with YEC and Atheist science is not so much that their science is wrong (indeed both are), it is their whole purpose behind their science!
YEC are trying to prove God, and do God's job of keeping his sheep away from Atheistic folds "Hopping off to Hell". Atheists are too busy trying to replace God with the what I call "God/Goddess Chance (Fortune/Reason), and Randomocity", because God holds them accountable for their pride, and rebellion which is the fruit of it. They are intelligent...They despise authority that might dull them, or get in the way of their success. They think they are the best, the brightest, that they can do it better!
That's the root of it, they'd believe in God if that God would let them do what they want without consequence.
But that aside, their science is biased, both on YEC, and on Evolution.
Science had really only had its greatest leaps forward in practical, applicable, usable science - when it was someone trying to figure out from a childlike stand - "How God did it".
Not what scientists today are trying to do..."How to make it look like God did it this way / How to make it look like God didn't do it at all".
God will not be contained by any box that man makes for him. YEC or Atheist. Science will conform in God's due time to God's design itself, not the interpretation of Man.
Really, it all boils down to Man wanting God to give a full account of himself to them concerning his doings, on their terms. And so they take everything as literally literal as a means of trying to control the flow of God's word, when it really is simply so that God gives what he deems is needed for his own purposes, for it is God who controls and rules the flow of his word: Even the interpretation of it! Via his Holy Spirit.
"In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth"
That's all we need to know concerning that, for God has left it to us as a gift to find out "The How".
In that single portion of verse alone, could be contained the fullness of countless epochs of carefully carved, and beautifully designed physics, and material. Just like in the single word Agape, is contained the vast infinity that is God. God is Love/Agape. Beginning is Vast-preparation.
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 06:29:28 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 02:22:37 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 03:17:31 AMQuestion...does it really matter if we use the literal or figurative interpretation of the Jonah story?
I think it does matter. A lot.
With wrong interpretations we will miss a lot of things. Compare it with movies. Some movies barely have a story line. The plot is obvious from watching the first 2 minutes. Some movies have several story lines. A obvious one on the surface and some more hidden story lines. If you just watch the movie with the surface-story-line you might wonder why the people in the movie do things. You missed a big part of the movie by ignoring what's beneath the surface. When we ignore literal or figurative in the Bible we get a shallow understanding of it. If fire in the Bible is only literal then we get ET views. If we can figure out fire can also me figurative we create a foundation for views like UR.
Ok, you believe it does. So, for you how does taking a literal interpretation vs a figurative one of the Jonas story change it's meaning? I would like to know. I don't want to be missing something in this story.
Maybe I should have written we should
try to find the meanings. I don't know the deeper meanings of many/most things. But still I try...
As for Jonas. Obviously it's linked to Jesus time in the grave. But how exactly :dontknow:
I think your interesting question is worth a new thread. Otherwise a this thread has to be split of the second time this day :winkgrin:
PS for me literal vs figurative
can change a meaning. But it can also
can add a meaning.
It helps to remember too, that everything God does is multi-faceted.
That is why the Bible is not for private interpretation, but should always be done through the partnership of the Holy Spirit (God himself, who wrote it/breathed it through us).
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 06:50:40 PMAgain you are right on. We see eye to eye on these issues. But, this goes both ways. You have evolutionists pushing an agenda (funding, job security, atheistic views etc) with very poor science. You have YEC scientists pushing back with even poorer science.
Very true. And that's not only true for science and/or religion. Many individuals/companies try to blindly push their agenda. I wasn't trying to defend YECs. I'm a OEC. (I've read quite a few books of both sides)
I think many YECs fear old earth/science takes away the glory of God.
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 07:05:03 PMAs for the "Great Hamster" I'd have an issue with that, since it would be a mistranslation entirely, and wouldn't go with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of "The Serpent". :)
You.. you! Hamster hater! :icon_jokercolor:
But what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster? Same for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?
Right On and Amen to Eaglesway! :thumbsup:
QuoteBut what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster?
My question for you would be: Is the original Hebrew that way?
QuoteSame for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?
As long as the translation is correct. Time = time, so long as it is time.
Quote from: Lefein on September 08, 2010, 09:05:17 PM
QuoteBut what if the word serpent wasn't in the Bible. Say both the serpent and the hamster are called "animal" in Hebrew. Is a translator allowed to translate it as dragon/hamster?
My question for you would be: Is the original Hebrew that way?
Nope. It's chimp in Hebrew. Didn't you know that? :winkgrin:
It was just an example Lefein. Not a claim.
Serpent:
ָנָחשׁ
nāḥāš: A masculine noun meaning snake. It is used to refer to an actual serpent (Exo 4:3; Num 21:6; Deu 8:15; Ecc 10:8; Amo 5:19); or an image of one (Num 21:9), but it is also used figuratively. Some of these symbolic uses include the tempter (Gen 3:1-2, Gen 3:4, Gen 3:13-14); the tribe of Dan (Gen 49:17); wicked rulers (Psa 58:4 [5]); and enemies (Isa 14:29; Jer 8:17; Jer 46:22).
נחשׁ
nâchâsh
BDB Definition:
1) serpent, snake
1a) serpent
1b) image (of serpent)
1c) fleeing serpent (mythological)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: from H5172
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1347a
H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
BDB Definition:
1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1348
ָנַחשׁ
naḥaš: A verb meaning to practice divination, to observe omens. This verb described the pagan practice of seeking knowledge through divination, which was expressly forbidden in the Law of Moses (Lev 19:26; Deu 18:10); and was used as an indication that the kings of Israel and Judah were wicked (2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6; 2Ch 33:6). In its other usages, Laban used divination to confirm that Jacob was a blessing to him (Gen 30:27); Joseph claimed that a cup helped him practice divination (Gen 44:5, Gen 44:15); and the Arameans took Ahab's words as an omen (1Ki 20:33).
QuoteQuoteSame for yom. Is a translator allowed to translate it as day instead of "age" "period" or something similar?
As long as the translation is correct. Time = time, so long as it is time.
I don't agree with that. HS inspired things a certain way. Do we know better than HS? Jesus was in the grave for 3 months and 3 minutes. That's a correct translation because it's also time?
For
me it's simple. If HS inspired 'period' then the translation must be 'period'. Of course I have no problem with lenghty commentaries explaining why that 'period' in that context has to mean a 24 hour day.
:2c:
YOM =day H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours),
whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially):
- age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
TIME in this verse is the same as "yom" DAY in Gen. 1:5
H3117 yôm as DAY in Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Very curious. It tells me all the more that Genesis 2-? is more allegory that history.
QuoteIt was just an example Lefein. Not a claim.
And I understood it as such. My point was that what it says is the issue, not what it is translated to. We still have enough of the original text to fall back on when we are uncertain, whether or not Satan embodied himself as a serpent/wyrm/dragon (all of which are serpentine creatures, myth or not), or a hamster.
QuoteI don't agree with that. HS inspired things a certain way. Do we know better than HS? Jesus was in the grave for 3 months and 3 minutes. That's a correct translation because it's also time?
For me it's simple. If HS inspired 'period' then the translation must be 'period'. Of course I have no problem with lenghty commentaries explaining why that 'period' in that context has to mean a 24 hour day.
There is more to translating a word like "Time", than just translating the word itself. Context, and surrounding words determine much of it - Hence, time = time, so long as the translator is correct, it is correct.
willieH: Hi Shawn... :Sparkletooth:
Though you are under no obligation to answer my points, ignoring them only substanciates them concerning you.
It is easy to see that you are attempting to use the "thinktank" method of
encapsulating my entire post, avoiding the DETAILED content of it, ...and with the question which is asked at the end, you cannot see that question #2 of the 3 questions you ask, has already been ANSWERED in the post you respond to! :mshock:
Here are your questions (separated):
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 01:38:06 AM[#1]Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate? [#2] Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs? [#3] Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be?
Here is the answer to #2:Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AM
SECOND --- There has to be an explanation that aligns the evidence which "seems" representative of a massive amount of TIME, with the Biblical account of time being, 6000 years... For the WORD of God is the TRUTH (above ANY scientific THEORY or CONJECTURE)... and the TRUTH notes that (approx) 6000yrs has taken place in time, since Adam's creation on the 6th "day"...
You purposely IGNORED the point made here... The
WORD of God is TRUTH, certainly ...ABOVE... any conjectures of FINITE men, who in their arrogance call themselves "scientists"...
The
WORD notes an approximate time frame of 6K years... Science IGNORES this figure because it does not align with their conjectures that the Earth must be OLDER than the
WORD says that it is... Using their LACK of knowledge of the DINOSAURS as a foundational element that they claim, "establishes" their CONJECTURE (because in the end, they/you have no "proof", only speculations) :laughing7:
Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AMTHIRD --- Science bases its conjectures (theories, hypotheses), upon proximity to ITSELF, which in the end, IS the problem concerning their determinations of the Earth and its "AGE".
IOW, because there appears discrepancies such as strata layers in the earth, dinosaurs, etc... that they use to determine that the stated time frames noted in the HOLY WORD of GOD, are not possibly correct... and therein lies the fault in their FINITE determination of the INFINITE source of the Earth and Universe which they observe. There IS an explanation which brings these (science's view of Millions of years VS 6000 years), but they will not consider it.
You only have proved this statement by the LACK of response to it, below. :winkgrin: (that there IS an explanation, but SCIENCE and its proponents shall NOT LISTEN to it -- they IGNORE it instead, hiding from the TRUTH which says that DEATH
ENTERED this WORLD via the SIN of ADAM)
Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AMAlso, the WORD notes that DEATH entered (into the CREATION) by Adam's indescretion -- Rom 5:12 -- so prior to Adam's sin... death had no portion within the Creation, having NOT ENTERED.
This includes the "evidences" such as Dinosaurs which had LIVED, and DIED... and which "evidences" are YET present IN the CREATION, as we speak. :JCThink:
FIRST --- Instead of responding to this you have chosen to IGNORE it. Many practice this method concerning the
TRUTH. :sigh:
The "bones" of DINOSAURS (evidence of their life and subsequent
DEATH) are found existent within a WORLD (this one) in which GOD says
IN HIS WORD (which YOU IGNORE), that
DEATH entered
THIS WORLD via and upon, the SIN of ADAM --
Rom 5:12SECOND --- Don't know what kind of "scientist" you are (or aren't), but it doesn't take a
"ROCKET SCIENTIST" :laughing7: ...to note that if DEATH entered THIS WORLD, via ADAM's SIN... and indeed there is EVIDENCE of DEATH (human, dinosaur, etc)... found in THIS WORLD, that the DINOSAURS had to have had their existence IN THIS WORLD, in some moment
AFTER the SIN of ADAM.
MORE you IGNORE:
Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AMThe "Creation" is the "beginning" of the REVELATION of the WORD which was (is, will be) within Him... All that proceeds from Him, has ALWAYS been part of Him, as He does NOT CHANGE! :dontknow:
The word "created" noted in Gen 1:1 can and DOES mean DISPATCHED...
The "Earth" was (is, will be) ETERNALLY present in the Heart of YHVH... but its PHYSICAL presence was yet to be manifest by the Revelation of the WORD within YHVH, which is the maker of ALL things -- John 1:3 -- Col 1:16 -- and therefore, nothing PHYSICAL (including "dinosaurs" which were once living PHYSICAL entities), had yet to "BE".
The book of the REVEALING of the WORD of YHVH (Revelation of JESUS CHRIST), upon IT's "REVEALING" ...notes in concluding that "revelation" that DEATH passes away... and shall no longer be an existent thing...
The WORD does NOT CHANGE -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- neither does YHVH -- Mal 3:6... so WHY would DEATH --- of the "DINOSAURS" and other things in a "prior creation" which had to have been produced by the WORD as well (for the WORD is the maker of ALL THINGS that are "made"), ...have existed prior to THIS EARTH, and evidence of their DEATH, survived to be EXISTENT in "this creation" as well?
Is God revisiting DEATH which preceeded in a prior creation? If so, WHY? What REASON exists that He did not "do away" with it in THAT "creation"? Why let another (this) Creation effort fall to DEATH as well? :dontknow:
If the WORD of GOD is LIFE (which it IS) -- John 14:6 -- which also PUTS AWAY DEATH in IT's "revelation" and conclusion -- Rev 21:4 -- Why was it [death] allowed to survive a previous "creation" and extend into this one?
REASON dictates that LIFE conquered DEATH in and ON, this Earth... If the WORD declares that DEATH shall PASS AWAY permanently... why was it "re-allowed" to CONTINUE to exist from a "prior" creation?
That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. God is REVEALING His WORD in and on THIS Earth... and CHRIST died ONCE (not twice) for ALL. -- Heb 9:26 -- 10:10
The TRUTH is that the WORD of God makes no such statement (of the existence of a "prior creation")... it is nothing but an "imagination", just as is ...the "Big Bang".
:sigh: And finally you IGNORE this:
Quote from: willieH on September 08, 2010, 12:52:30 AMNo matter who argues the point (from either spiritual or scientific viewpoints)... the FACT remains that GOD's WORD (which notes a 6000 year time frame... is the TRUTH... and somehow, the "ANCIENT evidence" fits within that time frame.
NOW to address your other "2 questions"...
QUESTION #1:Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 01:38:06 AM[#1]Have creationists ever considered their interpretation of scripture is inaccurate?
FIRST --- The very same question can be asked of "science"... :dontknow: No matter who is projecting a viewpoint, ...because we are incomplete as far as KNOWLEDGE is concerned... We must ALL in HUMILITY confess that our viewpoint is possibly INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE or otherwise.
SECOND --- Can't speak for you, Shawn (wouldn't think of it), ...but as for ME, ...being a DEVOTED believer in the
WORD of God as
"the TRUTH"... and IT's notation of a 6K year time frame, requires within that belief, that the
TRUTH is that the Earth and Creation are 6K years old.
REASON is also incorporated in the
WORD... and the
TRUTH my friend, ...is that SCIENCE will not align itself with the
WORD, due to its arrogant, fickle and incomplete position which... within their claim to be SCIENTISTS, ....indeed are amidst exalting their pathetic FINITE and relatively miniscule KNOWLEDGE (accumulated over a few thousand years)... ABOVE the INFINITE and ETERNAL
WORD of God, which notes the WORLD to be 6K years old.
THIRD --- One cannot "sit on the fence"... thinking that Science's deduction which OPPOSES the
WORD, is somehow "aligned" with it. No more than an "agnostic" can truly call him/herself a BELIEVER in God.
Either the
WORD is correct and "the TRUTH".... OR... Science is correct... for the world cannot BE... 6K years old, and at the same time be BILLIONS of years old.
Funny enough (and I will be very curious as to whether or not you respond to this, but):
YOU have made a statement in another post in this thread, which actually helps to conclude WHY and HOW the Earth is INDEED 6K years old, even though it appears to be older. Do you even know what YOU said, that in part, explains the "conundrum"? :dunno:
QUESTION #3:Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 01:38:06 AM[#3] Don't you think a few of those dinosaurs would have had a few human bones where their stomachs should be?
Hmmm... Why would you ASSUME that DINOSAURS ate bones? Most modern predators, eat the flesh around the bones, leaving the bones...
Even though you know absolutely NOTHING of the eating habits of DINOSAURS (nor do I), you think to deduce that they consumed their prey WHOLE or in part, and that ELIMATION of things such as BONES was not part of their digestive process. As well, that you know NOTHING of the DIGESTIVE systems of the DINOSAURS means that due to that lack of KNOWLEDGE, their systems might have been capable of DISSOLVING "bones" of which YOU KNOW NOTHING, eh?
I would like to REVISIT and answer straight-up --- your Question #2...
Quote[#2] Do you really believe man walked with the dinosaurs?
YES... Men even today, live amidst predatory animals which are capable of killing and eating them. There are primitive tribes in remote areas which LIVE IN PROXIMITY to and amidst MANY species of animals capable of
killing AND
eating them. :dontknow:
If you are a believer in God, then you know that God has given MEN intelligence ABOVE all animals... and even though some men will perish in confrontation... MORE animals will perish when the 2 find confrontation.
...willieH :cloud9:
Honestly, Willie your posts are exhausting and lengthy. I have no desire to debate with you for various reasons but one is your aggessive debating style. The second is because you include too much information in your posts. Be concise, and civil and you will get a proper response.
Willie I find your posts tremendous in a good way. There is so much there to study and learn from that I print them out and study your text I have yet to find you to error from the Book.
Peace and Love Through Jesus :happy3:
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format. The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.
Will, from a brother to another; essay form please? And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too. Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.
I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...
Peace to you.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 01:09:20 AM
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format. The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.
Will, from a brother to another; essay form please? And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too. Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.
I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...
Peace to you.
I have never read a complete post of Willie's because they are too wordy. The advice I would give is to shorten, and make the concise and to the point. Essay style is certainly nice. For every Micah there is a guy like me who will feel overwhelmed by the style. I'm sure Willie has good things to say and should be heard (his thoughts should be read). I think Willie this would get you a better response from a wider crowd. The colors and fonts and all that jazz are distracting and make the posts seem disjointed.
Also, I find certain styles of debate abrasive. I'm sure there are those here who don't care for my style as well. I can be salty and cranky but I do try to respond in a loving manner. I don't always succeed. I know you are passionate about your stances but respecting other positions will open people up to agreeing with you on some points. What can be frustrating is when you get theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points. This isn't about being right. This is about learning. That is my take at least. Take it for what it's worth.
I believe what you post is all well and good. What I will say, and I am adamant, you can have all your "theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points. This isn't about being right."
Its about the truth and not opinons on what one considers to be what the Bible says. D.L. Moody said, "Its what the Bible teaches; not what the Bible says."
Moody was a damnation speaker, but he got that part right, the Bible says alot of things and all that the Bible says can be construed to be what ever one wants it to be.
Be be assured, the Bible teaches and the Teacher is the Holy Spirit and that is the bread and the wine, that is where one will grow in Grace and in Spirit into the full stature of a son.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 01:09:20 AM
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format. The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...Like make up, those things should "enhance" the beauty of the sentence, rather than replace it.
Will, from a brother to another; essay form please? And if you have alot of text, resizing it to be smaller would be helpful too. Just for my convenience atleast, but certainly I only ask out of suggestion, not out of command.
I too have lengthy "odd" posts that I should probably figure out how to deal with...
Peace to you.
I'm glad im not the only one. I mean seriously what's up with the caps willie bro, i'm dying to take the mick out of you'r style but have not for polite reasons. Since your a fan of prestyn I often think that his spirit has infected yours, for he also has similar style.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 09, 2010, 02:05:08 AM
I believe what you post is all well and good. What I will say, and I am adamant, you can have all your "theologic chest thumping, stubborn dogmatic positions and guys who are unwilling to concede on points. This isn't about being right."
Its about the truth and not opinons on what one considers to be what the Bible says. D.L. Moody said, "Its what the Bible teaches; not what the Bible says."
Moody was a damnation speaker, but he got that part right, the Bible says alot of things and all that the Bible says can be construed to be what ever one wants it to be.
Be be assured, the Bible teaches and the Teacher is the Holy Spirit and that is the bread and the wine, that is where one will grow in Grace and in Spirit into the full stature of a son.
I don't think any of us would disagree with that. With that said, if the Holy Spirit has revealed something different to me than someone else then maybe there is a reason for that. What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit. Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs.
Maybe I'm taking your posts the wrong way Micah but you seem to have some unforgiveness in your heart towards me. If I have somehow offended you I apologize.
No absolutly none at all.
"What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit. Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs." Shawn
I really believe that those battles come from just that "what the Bible says." What the Bible says is so chuck full of man's understanding and the doctrines he has created to suit his needs, it keeps man on the outside of what The Lord is doing. I dont know when, but somewhere along the way[and I believe that it is in God's plan and purpose] He has put this maze of spiritual understanding in "the race for the high calling," and we all see through this glass darkly 1Co 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
And we all know in part, and it is love, faith, and hope that is the needle, thread, and cloth that will bring us together as one.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 09, 2010, 03:39:19 AM
No absolutly none at all.
"What the Bible says seems to be different to many people who claim to have been lead by the Holy Spirit. Some of these same people butt heads and accuse each other of all sorts of wrongs." Shawn
I really believe that those battles come from just that "what the Bible says." What the Bible says is so chuck full of man's understanding and the doctrines he has created to suit his needs, it keeps man on the outside of what The Lord is doing. I dont know when, but somewhere along the way[and I believe that it is in God's plan and purpose] He has put this maze of spiritual understanding in "the race for the high calling," and we all see through this glass darkly 1Co 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
And we all know in part, and it is love, faith, and hope that is the needle, thread, and cloth that will bring us together as one.
Well said. I like that. I totally agree. That maze of spiritual understanding is very evident. It should call us to an understanding and a love for one another. We are all on this path...none of us completely understand and that along with love, faith and hope should bond us. It shouldn't seperate us.
I believe what the Bible teaches, that God is preparing the heavens and the earth, it is an action being done, and it is not done still, but He will finish is work, in His time.
One has to believe what the Word of God teaches is founded on faith,
Heb 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
OR one will be inclined to conjure up what ever flips and flops in his mind. The mind is a beautiful thing and a terrible thing to waste.
For it is the mind that is vulnurable....
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.
With that said, I believe that creation is 6000 years old, for this is the Truth of the Word. ALL of the other "things" that man discovers and finds scientificlly to have happened, must, is, and will be within the 6000 years of The Creator, I dont care how many "man" years it took.
willieH: Hi Shawn... :happy3:
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 12:46:54 AM
Honestly, Willie your posts are exhausting and lengthy.
Right backacha, Shawn, ...Honestly, with all due respect, ...I think your posts are too limited and short of information... :Sparkletooth:
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 12:46:54 AMI have no desire to debate with you for various reasons but one is your aggessive debating style.
You are welcome to this excuse... :rolleye:
Let's face it brother, ...the "various reasons" are that you are UNABLE to respond, so you don't... :dontknow:
You claim to be "scientific" and a person (which barely graduated high school) such as myself easily confounds your conjectures... and then in order to escape dealing with me, you name ME as "aggressive". Please! :laughing7:
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 12:46:54 AMThe second is because you include too much information in your posts. Be concise, and civil and you will get a proper response.
Give me a break! :omg:
In what way have I been "UNCIVIL" to you, Shawn? I have only stated the TRUTH! What is UNCIVIL about that? If you are speaking of me indicating that you IGNORED what I had written, is that not TRUE? You IGNORED my answer to you quite thoroughly, did you not? :dunno:
Then you criticize me because I answer IN DETAIL? You would rather I answer with LITTLE or NO information (as do you) so YOU are able to deal with it? :mshock:
My
KJV Bible has 1834 pages of writing... FAR IN EXCESS of the
short reply I made to you.
As far as I am concerned, if you do not accept that the Earth is [approximately] 6K years old, then you contend with the
WORD of GOD not with me...
The
WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years... :dontknow: So your "scientific" position (which has no proof, rather is purely conjecture)... is that which OPPOSES the
WORD... and your association with, and alligiance to such a position means that
you OPPOSE the
WORD as well...
Just curious...
Have you figured out yet what YOU have said that in part, "solves the puzzle" of the Earth's age? Or is that TOO MUCH work for your scientific mind to deal with?
I wish you no ill, brother Shawn... but IMO, you and your "scientific" position, ...are
in over your head here at Tentmaker, and when you find difficulty, you quickly resort to STRAWMAN fallacies (such as my "debating style" or "aggressiveness" or "various [unnamed] reasons") in an effort to escape dealing with the difficulties that YOU yourself, have placed yourself amidst.
No credentials given by institutions of MAN are needed in the discussion of SPIRITUAL matters, bro...
Just the
SIMPLE information of the
TRUTH --
Psalm 19:7 -- which ALWAYS has, ...and ALWAYS will, CONFOUND those who oppose the
WORD and the FACTS mentioned within it (in this case "scientific" speculations without basis in TRUTH).
Peace... :Peace2:
willieH :winkgrin:
WELL...I for one am exhausted!
Willie
If that is your style then so be it. I just won't read your posts...just like I didn't read that one.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 01:09:20 AM
I would only suggest out of loving concern, that he put his posts in a more essay-like format. The colours, and the "all caps", and emote stuff throughout overwhelms it for me...
Select, copy and paste into Notepad and you have something that's more essay format.
Quote from: willieHThe WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...
The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 08:18:49 AM
Willie
If that is your style then so be it. I just won't read your posts...just like I didn't read that one.
I have no "style" except as labeled by YOU...
I respond often in challenge to distorted information... If you consider that a "style" then so be it... doesnt matter to me. :dontknow:
You are welcome to do as you like... If I see you presenting (what I consider as challengeable) "distorting" information -- such as your OPPOSITION to the WORD which notes the CREATION to be approximately 6K years old, ...then I will address it accordingly, placing you in 3rd person... and you are welcome to ignore those responses as you so desire... :nod:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Molly... :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: willieHThe WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...
The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?
It does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total,
is NOTED in the
WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the
WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from
the present to the day of Creation.
http://biblebasics.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-age-of-the-earth-according-to-the-bible/http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.htmlThe "bible" ALSO, ...does not
state that
CHRIST lived 2K years ago... but YOU know and
BELIEVE that He did, don't you Molly? :dunno:
Or, have you "insight" you shall share with us, that INDICATES, otherwise? :dontknow:
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.
13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.
--Rom 5
This is not such an obvious verse. What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?
Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?
17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
--Gen 2
So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who, therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].
So when is the time before the law was given? Another era?--
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
--Rom 5
The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law. But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.
Quote from: willieHIt does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total, is NOTED in the WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from the present to the day of Creation.
Well, I will agree that we can deduce Adam at 6000 years ago because I know that Kepler and others did the work to determine that, and I tend to trust their work [although I have never recreated it myself].
But--that just gets us back to Adam. All sorts of things could have gone on before Adam.
God does seem to 'speak' to the men in Genesis 1, but he doesn't put any limitations on them. He basically says, go and have fun boys and girls, rule, subdue, and [re]fill the earth. Eat the fruit of any tree you want. Be happy!
[Because God is not placing any limitations on them, he doesn't actually have to speak to them--he could just give them those attributes, without limitation.]
Adam is the first man to have an actual rule to follow [the law?]. And, this denotes, if not the first language, certainly the first sophisticated language.
He is also given a specific job--to dress and keep the garden of God.
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.
13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.
--Rom 5
This is not such an obvious verse. What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?
Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?
17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
--Gen 2
So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who, therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].
So when is the time before the law was given? Another era?--
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
--Rom 5
The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law. But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.
I think you need to re-read this Molly... :dbook:
SIN,
ENTERED via ADAM -- and therefore WAS not "
in the world", until it
ENTERED!
DEATH
entered the Creation (in which DINOSAUR bones, which are BY PRODUCTS of
DEATH, ...exist due to DEATH) ---> via ADAM... period!
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: willieHIt does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total, is NOTED in the WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from the present to the day of Creation.
Well, I will agree that we can deduce Adam at 6000 years ago because I know that Kepler and others did the work to determine that, and I tend to trust their work [although I have never recreated it myself].
But--that just gets us back to Adam. All sorts of things could have gone on before Adam.
"
COULD HAVE" are the operative imaginary words... :laughing7:
:Yeahright: Name one... Please make REFERENCE to the
WORD as DEPICTED BY IT, ...in naming those "sorts of things"... which
"could have" gone on before ADAM.
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:10:34 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.
13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.
--Rom 5
This is not such an obvious verse. What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?
Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?
17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
--Gen 2
So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who, therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].
So when is the time before the law was given? Another era?--
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
--Rom 5
The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law. But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.
I think you need to re-read this Molly... :dbook:
SIN, ENTERED via ADAM -- and therefore WAS not "in the world", until it ENTERED!
DEATH entered the Creation via ADAM's (in which DINOSAUR bones, which are BY PRODUCTS of DEATH, ...exist due to DEATH) ---> via ADAM... period!
...willieH :cloud9:
Yes. But then he goes on to give this caveat--
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
--Rom 5
So sin was already 'in' the world but was not imputed [had no power] until sin entered into the world through Adam to whom the law was given.
yes?
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: willieHIt does not STATE that the Creation is 6K years... however this APPROXIMATE time total, is NOTED in the WORD, and is demonstratable via the reverse counting of timeframes of Historical events as noted in the WORD... So it IS indicated chronologically reverse from the present to the day of Creation.
Well, I will agree that we can deduce Adam at 6000 years ago because I know that Kepler and others did the work to determine that, and I tend to trust their work [although I have never recreated it myself].
But--that just gets us back to Adam. All sorts of things could have gone on before Adam.
"COULD HAVE" are the operative imaginary words... :laughing7:
:Yeahright: Name one... Please make REFERENCE to the WORD as DEPICTED BY IT, ...in naming those "sorts of things"... which "could have" gone on before ADAM.
Well, I am trying to limit my imagination which is why I didn't say what they were. Just that they exist. God doesn't tell me everything, you know! :laughing7:
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:10:34 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
12 Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people.
13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not judged when there is no law.
--Rom 5
This is not such an obvious verse. What is the time of 'before the law was given.'?
Wasn't Adam the first man to whom the law was given?
17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
--Gen 2
So, Adam is the first man who had language [as far as we know] and who, therefore, could receive the law [the Word of God].
So when is the time before the law was given? Another era?--
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
--Rom 5
The first thing God does after he places Adam in the garden is give him the law. But, this verse refers to a time before that when there was sin in the world but no law, so the sin was not counted.
I think you need to re-read this Molly... :dbook:
SIN, ENTERED via ADAM -- and therefore WAS not "in the world", until it ENTERED!
DEATH entered the Creation via ADAM's (in which DINOSAUR bones, which are BY PRODUCTS of DEATH, ...exist due to DEATH) ---> via ADAM... period!
...willieH :cloud9:
Yes. But then he goes on to give this caveat--
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
--Rom 5
So sin was already 'in' the world but was not imputed [had no power] until sin entered into the world through Adam to whom the law was given.
yes?
NO! SIN was NOT ...
IN... the WORLD until it ...
ENTERED... via ADAM.
The Scripture does not say that SIN was IN the world, then ENTERED via ADAM... Which is what you are trying to manufacture.
It says
AFTER the notation that SIN ENTERED via ADAM... that it was already IN the world... for it had ENTERED via ADAM!
The
LAW which ADAM transgressed BEFORE it was given, is the LAW of MOSES... which indicates SIN --- as is noted by
James 2:11-12 -- which is the LAW of liberty from which
JUDGMENT proceeds.
SIN could NOT be ...IN... the world [creation], until it ...ENTERED it. Which it DID... via ADAM... :nod:
...willieH :happygrin:
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I'm going to bed soon.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=7297.msg83005#msg83005 :winkgrin:
Ok I will admit that Paul can make my head spin--but look what he says here--
'The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law" (I Cor. 15:56)
So--without the law does sin have any power? I would say no. And, it seems to me he also says no with his caveat--
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
--Rom 5
If sin is not imputed, then sin has no power and you have no death.
This is the whole law/sin/death equation that Jesus resolves for us.
One other interesting thing, if you like steak as much as I do. God does not mention eating of meat in Gen 1 [because animals would have to die]. The first implication of an animal dying is in Gen 3, after Adam has broken the law [unless you think you can skin an animal without killing it]--
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
--Gen 3
And, then we see Abel as a shepherd [meaning they are eating meat] and making animal sacrifices to God.
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I'm going to bed soon.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=7297.msg83005#msg83005 :winkgrin:
Yes, I agree--a world system, or an aion. Although there are a lot of references to aions, God doesn't specifically spell them out to us [or if he does, I'm not aware of it.]
But, for me, this aion has as its foundation the lamb slain--
You can't have that without death. And, [I think] you can't have death without the law.
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:31:47 AM
NO! SIN was NOT ...IN... the WORLD until it ...ENTERED... via ADAM.
The Scripture does not say that SIN was IN the world, then ENTERED via ADAM... Which is what you are trying to manufacture.
It says AFTER the notation that SIN ENTERED via ADAM... that it was already IN the world... for it had ENTERED via ADAM!
The LAW which ADAM transgressed BEFORE it was given, is the LAW of MOSES... which indicates SIN --- as is noted by James 2:11-12 -- which is the LAW of liberty from which JUDGMENT proceeds.
SIN could NOT be ...IN... the world [creation], until it ...ENTERED it. Which it DID... via ADAM... :nod:
...willieH :happygrin:
It's not that hard to understand I think...
Lemme explain with a more worldly example.
In teh USA it's a crime to download movies. Where I live it's perfectly legal. Same activity but for some it's illegal (sin) for others not.
But if copyright laws change here downloading movies becomes illegal (sin)
Those that lived before the new download law didn't break the law. Those that live after the new download law and still download are breaking that law.
Adam was the first man that after the new law still downloaded. The download sin entered via Adam.
Quote from: wwThe download sin entered via Adam.
Yeah. If only Adam had lived in the Netherlands, everything would be different.
Quote from: shawn on September 08, 2010, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 08, 2010, 12:11:45 AM
Day 1:
Hedean eon: 4,600-3,900 mya => solidification of earth's crust
Day 2:
Archeozoic eon: 3,900-2,500 mya - bacteria, blue-green algae & archaens start to oxygenate atmosphere
Day 3:
Early life
Silurian period - 405-425 mya
Day 4:
Sun and Moon.
Between day 1 and 2
Day 5:
Cambrian. 600-400 million years ago
Day 6:
(40 mya)
The above is a bit tricky to summarize.
Genesis doesn't say: THE first day era, but ONE era.
God just states 6 eras. They can chronological. But likely are not.
If you take this approach how do you explain dinosaurs. Unlike some I actually believe the scientific evidence. If sin brought death...how would have the dinosaurs died off before man? Despite some notions that man walked with dinosaurs I don't believe the vast body of evidence supports that.
Seems I overlooked this question....
What is death? Physical or spiritually? For who death entered the world? Could it be the death mentioned is only for men? Animals died before Adam ate from the fig tree?
One of the punishments that God gave was making birth more painfull for women.
Why did he say that to couple that didn't have anything to compare birth with. Eve never experienced the pains of giving birth. Neither could she have heard about it from others because they where the first humans.
But... (many not gonna like this :winkgrin:)
Only humans have birth pains. Animals not. It's because we walk upright. But also because our head is very large compared to our body. Heads story knowledge (of good and evil) but it's size cause pain for the mother when giving birth. Could Adam and Eve have seen birth from sub-humans?
I think you will find this (http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Judah-Landa/dp/0963971611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284022532&sr=8-1) book interesting. I've made a summary of it for personal use but have put it online here (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/JL.pdf)
I will throw this bit of info out there. Its been said that "sin entered in via Adam" and if that is the case, and Paul says it as well; but why is it that the FIRST time SIN is mentioned is in accordance with CAIN not Adam?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it.
And let me say this since I read somethings in the post, I dont think that natural death was the dying of Gen 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.
Souls die, man or animals, that dying is part of the cycle or circle of life. Adam/man did not have the slightest notion as to what "death" was and Eve/woman didnt have the slightest notion what "giving birth" was, that it was painful or not. I think as I have always been lead to believe there is more to and in Genesis's first four chapters than I for one, have been allowed to as of yet, to see. I just woke up and read these posts I am now going back to bed. Peace and Love Through Jesus.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 09, 2010, 01:41:58 PM
I will throw this bit of info out there. Its been said that "sin entered in via Adam" and if that is the case, and Paul says it as well; but why is it that the FIRST time SIN is mentioned is in accordance with CAIN not Adam?
Good point. Perhaps because the "entering" is about the offspring of Adam.
In a way Cain entered the world via Adam (and Eve) because they decided to have children.
QuoteAnd let me say this since I read somethings in the post, I dont think that natural death was the dying of Gen 2:17
Agreed because that would mean Adam was immortal before death entered. That would be weird immortality. Plus the fig tree Jesus cursed is about/the tree of good and evil. The fig tree died but still we physically die....
QuoteI just woke up
Maybe your spirit woke up too :winkgrin:
As a gesture to Shawn to keep this thread a little scientifc.... :winkgrin:
I think you will like the articles.
1987 - Mitochondrial Eve - Eve born 100.000-200.000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve)
1998 - Eve's secret of growing younger - Eve was 10.000-20.000 years ago (http://www.reasons.org/human-origins/adam-and-eve/eves-secret-growing-younger)
2003 - Mitochondrial Eve is 6000 years old (http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp)
Flawed? (http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm)
More on Google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=Mitochondrial+Eve&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images)
Quote from: MicahIts been said that "sin entered in via Adam" and if that is the case, and Paul says it as well; but why is it that the FIRST time SIN is mentioned is in accordance with CAIN not Adam?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it.
Quote from: wwPerhaps because the "entering" about the offspring of Adam.
In a way Cain entered the world via Adam (and Eve) because they decided to have children.
Yes, because Adam is giving birth to children with language, to whom the law can be passed down, father to son.
God tells Cain--sin crouches at the door. What door would that be?
"at the door"H6607
פּתח
pethach
peh'-thakh
From H6605;
an opening (literally), that is, door (gate) or entrance way: - door, entering (in), entrance (-ry), gate, opening, place.
The birth canal? [I think it's a double entendre, myself].
Before Cain and Abel, man was given dominion over everything living on the earth.
But, now, God gives the children of Adam dominion over sin.
....and thou shalt rule over him. --Gen 4:7
"thou shalt rule"H4910
משׁל
mâshal
maw-shal'
A primitive root;
to rule: - (have, make to have)
dominion governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.
Thus is sin imputed--they are held accountable.
WillieH; please let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay when it comes to your future responses. I beg you now as a brother in Christ, for your benefit. Simple elegance will suffice, and the main problem is that the posts are simply too neon bold to quote efficiently, let alone answer properly - it hinders discussion...and puts unfortunately a hurdle in my way, a stumbling block if you will.
But on topic, and it may be a little behind since I could only pull part of the quote forth to answer it... :(
The Bible does not ever say that the age of the earth is 6k years.
The Bible only does three things regarding the Genesis account of Creation:
1: State as fact - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void, and the Godhead was present over the waters, which where yet to be ordered into atmosphere - liquid ocean.
The Earth in essence, was Crust and some form of chaotic vapourous covering, over which God was present having made it that way - preparing to order it.
2: God brought order, and stability to the Earth, and its Waters, putting Life on it in the span of six periods of time; literal 24 hour day - or literally symbolic day measuring eons; as God said himself - A day to God is as a thousand years, which is "literally symbolic" language meaning a very, very long time to us, is a short time to God.
3: It was Good.
There is very little concerning the "how" and "how long" when you actually look at it, merely statements of "did", he leaves the finding of "how" and "how long" to us to discover...and quite frankly God had no purpose (as his word shows) in telling us the full details of his work, which most likely would not be graspable to us anyway, and certainly not to the early Hebrews who only had scales for weighing bartering goods, and had no concept of microbiology other than God telling them "if you have mildew, clean your house, and leave your poop outside the camp, buried!": From ISA2
B'racraph bra aleim ath e'shimin u'ath e'artz
in'beginning he-created Elohim >> the'heavens and >> the'earth
u'e'artz eithe theu u'beu u'chshk ol -phini theum u'ruch alehim mrchphth ol phni e'min
and'the'earth she-became chaos and vacancy and'darkness over surfaces-of abyss and spirit-of Elohim vibrating over surfaces-of the'waters
u'iamr aleim iei aur e'iei -aur
and'he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become light and'he-is-becoming-light
u'ira aleim ath-e'aur ki -tub u'ibdl aleim bin e'aur u'bin e'chshk
and'he-is-seeing Elohim >> the'light that good and'he-is-separating Elohim between the'light and'between the'darkness
u'iqra aleim l'aur ium u'l'chshk qra lile u'iei -orb u'iei bqr ium achd : p
and'he-is-calling Elohim to'thelight day and'tothe'darkness he-calls night and'he-is-becoming evening and he-is-becoming morning day one.
"ium" is "yom".
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: willieHThe WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...
The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?
No...Molly it doesn't.
I believe in "Bible speak" it does.
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:48:16 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
Yes, I agree--a world system, or an aion. Although there are a lot of references to aions, God doesn't specifically spell them out to us [or if he does, I'm not aware of it.]
But, for me, this aion has as its foundation the lamb slain--
You can't have that without death. And, [I think] you can't have death without the law.
Yours and Tony's take on the Law issue is interesting. I'd never seen it quite from that perspective before. :thumbsup:
There is no scripture that states or implies the earth is only 6000 years old.
The intepretation is based upon a strict assertion that creation all actually happened in a literal week. There are no scriptures that verify the truth of this timeline, it is religiously asserted the same way it is in this thread.
"If you do not agree then you have a problem with the Word of God". This is nonsense, if scripture says the earth is that old, then it is a simply matter of demonstrating this with the text and it cannot be done.
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 06:15:09 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: willieHThe WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...
The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?
No...Molly it doesn't.
:rolleye:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 09, 2010, 10:52:15 AM
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:31:47 AM
NO! SIN was NOT ...IN... the WORLD until it ...ENTERED... via ADAM.
The Scripture does not say that SIN was IN the world, then ENTERED via ADAM... Which is what you are trying to manufacture.
It says AFTER the notation that SIN ENTERED via ADAM... that it was already IN the world... for it had ENTERED via ADAM!
The LAW which ADAM transgressed BEFORE it was given, is the LAW of MOSES... which indicates SIN --- as is noted by James 2:11-12 -- which is the LAW of liberty from which JUDGMENT proceeds.
SIN could NOT be ...IN... the world [creation], until it ...ENTERED it. Which it DID... via ADAM... :nod:
...willieH :happygrin:
It's not that hard to understand I think...
Lemme explain with a more worldly example.
In teh USA it's a crime to download movies. Where I live it's perfectly legal. Same activity but for some it's illegal (sin) for others not.
But if copyright laws change here downloading movies becomes illegal (sin)
Those that lived before the new download law didn't break the law. Those that live after the new download law and still download are breaking that law.
Adam was the first man that after the new law still downloaded. The download sin entered via Adam.
SIN means "missing the mark"... God is "Gloriously" PERFECT, as are His COMMANDS, as are His standards = the "mark". :idea2:
In coming up short of "the mark", we "MISS" it... :sigh:
SIN
entered by ADAM "missing the mark" of PERFECTION... all subsequent humans which came AFTER the one who "missed FIRST"... "miss" as well.
Nevertheless the FIRST man, was the vehicle in which SIN
entered the Creation.
...willieH :happygrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 09, 2010, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 09, 2010, 01:41:58 PM
I will throw this bit of info out there. Its been said that "sin entered in via Adam" and if that is the case, and Paul says it as well; but why is it that the FIRST time SIN is mentioned is in accordance with CAIN not Adam?
Good point. Perhaps because the "entering" is about the offspring of Adam.
In a way Cain entered the world via Adam (and Eve) because they decided to have children.
Actually GOD decided that they would have children... for in a POSITIVE
directive (just as the "directive" of abstaining from the "tree" was in the NEGATIVE),
YHVH said:
"Be fruitful and multiply..." --
Gen 1:27...willieH :happygrin:
WELL whillieH you might say that Because EVERYTHING (the Earth, Animals, Etc) was put under ADAM'S dominion, that when SIN entered ADAM everything UNDER him suffered the same. :dontknow:
<>---<>---<>
(Warning: Written in long-hand for explicit detail)
The problem is not so much about sin, and the entrance of it perhaps, so much as it is about separation. They disobeyed, and sundered the connection between God and man, not because God sundered it first, but because mankind - Adam and Eve, hid themselves, they fled. They made the first move in separating themselves from God. It was God who sought them first...only to find (alas to his knowing already) that they refused to repent, and in that repentance turn back to him. It is only when we run away from God, that we miss him, and inevitably fall into sin. Whether or not it is running away from God who is Love into the arms of The Law which is Death, or else running away from God into the arms of pagan devils, or even into ourselves, and our own sinfulness.
Sin only occurs due to a lack of God's presence: If we walk in the spirit, we won't fulfill the desires of the flesh.
It is from Death that sin comes; Without The Law we would not know of sin - The Law is Death, the wages of disobedience/sin is The Law, which is death.
When Adam disobeyed, dying he died. From that dying he began to sin - just as a rotting corpse begins to stink.
Sin did not enter into Adam - Death did! Because he, and Eve forfeited life by running away from The Life.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they disobeyed God, and realised immediately the consequences - They became aware! They had a revelation of their shame, their nakedness, they lost their innocence which rendered them responsible to The Law, which is death, because The Law is the mirror by which we see our shame, our nakedness, our destruction, but it does not clothe and heal; The Law is thus - The wages of sin, is death, that is why Grace, which is the superseding force above The Law is a gift, which is Life. The Law is "wages earned", Grace is "a given gift undeserved".
Adam and Eve, upon taking the first bite where already dying, and dead - being responsible to The Law and its wages, the wages of sin - Death. It is only by running away from God, and refusing to repent and turn back to Life that they could not enjoy the fruit of the tree of Life - the gift of life; and so died, and death became the enemy, the real enemy of man.
That is why Death is the "final boss". Satan is a created being, but death is a form of absence; a void...a thing beyond a created being that cannot be stopped except one who is beyond creation - God, who is Life which like light in darkness fills it, and replaces it, casting it out, overwhelming it for as long as even a spark of it remains.
I just wanted to remind everyone that Sin isn't the thing that entered into Adam, and into the creation subjected to him - it was Death, caused by the unrepented separation from God when they ran.
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
It's pretty easy how he creates them he just gets a bit mad and stamps the caps lock key AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEN THROWS AN INSULT OR TWO, great work of art, to annoy and insult the body of Christ :thumbsup:
I myself was not too fond of this...
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 06:15:09 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: willieHThe WORD notes the age of the Earth to be [approximately] 6K years...
The Bible doesn't actually say that, does it?
No...Molly it doesn't.
:rolleye:
But I think we might do well to divert now from WillieH, and let God deal with his postwork. I suspect a devil's plot of division, and I don't want to see the devil succeed in dividing the body over a silly issue that will inevitably amend itself.
willieH: Hi Lefein... :winkgrin:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM
WillieH; please let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay when it comes to your future responses. I beg you now as a brother in Christ, for your benefit.
No offense dear brother, but please, if you would be so kind, ...explain to me, in what way shall
ME changing myself to suit
YOU, ...benefit,
ME? :JCThink:
:omg: You piously instruct me that I need to make my "yea be yea", "nay be nay" ...and then you post all of this?
--->Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMSimple elegance will suffice, and the main problem is that the posts are simply too neon bold to quote efficiently,
Because I use color in my posts, does not inhibit them to be quoted. Again, no offense intended to you brother, ...but this brand of subtle complaint actually is quite lame. Shall we petition the Television producers to resort to Black & White so it is easier to behold? Or maybe a law should be passed that Advertisements on Billboards must be Black & White, that they shall be easier to understand?
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMlet alone answer properly - it hinders discussion...and puts unfortunately a hurdle in my way, a stumbling block if you will.
Please dear brother... I have been a member here, posting as I do in excess of 7 years... Many answer me "properly"! What does color within text, have to do with comprehension?
If my posts pose a "hurdle" to you due to detail, then ignore them brother, Lefein.
Your definition of "simple" appears to be brevity... which is really not the definition of the word. Simplicity can be lengthy and yet remain simple. I do not use enlarged vocabulary which requires one to spend as much time in a dictionary as in reading what is said... I speak in common terms, as the level of my education was quite moderate.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMBut on topic, and it may be a little behind since I could only pull part of the quote forth to answer it... :(
Pretty cryptic words... please simplify so I might understand...
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Bible does not ever say that the age of the earth is 6k years.
I have already addressed this.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Bible only does three things regarding the Genesis account of Creation:
1: State as fact - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void, and the Godhead was present over the waters, which where yet to be ordered into atmosphere - liquid ocean.
Sorry, but the "godhead" is not mentioned in Genesis 1... The word Elohim is used in
Gen 1 -- Elohim, though a plural form, does not imply PLURALITY in being. No more than the word "YOU" as I address YOU... means that YOU are more than 1 being. You wear plural hats (son, grandson, husband, brother, friend, uncle, etc) but YOU remain ONE being.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Earth in essence, was Crust and some form of chaotic vapourous covering, over which God was present having made it that way - preparing to order it.
This is an ASSUMPTION... the
WORD does not mention that either the "WATERS" or the Earth mentioned in
Gen 1:1 -- were physical in nature. They were EMERGING from a SPIRIT... so in that process, their "beginning" was more likely SPIRITUAL, than PHYSICAL (though I, as you, cannot PROVE this to be so).
When
CHRIST speaks of the "drinking of the WATER of life"... neither the "water" nor the "drinking" of it, ...can be considered a PHYSICAL act, even though it's "doing" quenches the "thirst" (which isn't PHYSICAL either) of the SPIRIT within...
The "deep" mentioned in this verse aludes to ABYSS... an ABYSS can be SPIRITUAL in nature as well as PHYSICAL. :dontknow:
"Tartaroo" as used by Peter [
2 Pet 2:4] in its only appearance in the
WORD, alludes to the
deepest ABYSS of hades... Does that mean to you that they "dug to China" to bury those in "tartaroo", Lefein? :dontknow:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM2: God brought order, and stability to the Earth, and its Waters, putting Life on it in the span of six periods of time; literal 24 hour day - or literally symbolic day measuring eons; as God said himself - A day to God is as a thousand years, which is "literally symbolic" language meaning a very, very long time to us, is a short time to God.
Wow! Could you use your own counsel, and
simplify this a bit, Lefein? :laughing7:
"Literally symbolic"? Is that like, Long Shortness? or Empty Fullness? or Heavily Light? :laugh:
The
WORD says that a day (to God) is ...
AS... a thousand years... it does
NOT SAY, that it
IS a thousand years.
It only describes that TIME resembles and assumes a meaningless position to our INFINITE God, than does TIME's position appear to us ...finites.
Actually, the language more implies [IMObservation]... that TIME is totally irrelevant to God. Not that a "day" is
shorter for Him than for us.
To VAINLY attempt to tie GOD to ANY parameter, is to try to CONFINE Him. So any "duration" of a DAY that YOU or I might consider concerning Him, is nothing more than our attempt to CONFINE Him to some aspect of our own limitations. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM3: It was Good.
There is very little concerning the "how" and "how long" when you actually look at it, merely statements of "did", he leaves the finding of "how" and "how long" to us to discover...and quite frankly God had no purpose (as his word shows) in telling us the full details of his work, which most likely would not be graspable to us anyway, and certainly not to the early Hebrews who only had scales for weighing bartering goods, and had no concept of microbiology other than God telling them "if you have mildew, clean your house, and leave your poop outside the camp, buried!": From ISA2
B'racraph bra aleim ath e'shimin u'ath e'artz
in'beginning he-created Elohim >> the'heavens and >> the'earth
u'e'artz eithe theu u'beu u'chshk ol -phini theum u'ruch alehim mrchphth ol phni e'min
and'the'earth she-became chaos and vacancy and'darkness over surfaces-of abyss and spirit-of Elohim vibrating over surfaces-of the'waters
u'iamr aleim iei aur e'iei -aur
and'he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become light and'he-is-becoming-light
u'ira aleim ath-e'aur ki -tub u'ibdl aleim bin e'aur u'bin e'chshk
and'he-is-seeing Elohim >> the'light that good and'he-is-separating Elohim between the'light and'between the'darkness
u'iqra aleim l'aur ium u'l'chshk qra lile u'iei -orb u'iei bqr ium achd : p
and'he-is-calling Elohim to'thelight day and'tothe'darkness he-calls night and'he-is-becoming evening and he-is-becoming morning day one.
"ium" is "yom".
You "reprimand" me that my use of
COLOR in my responses, and that it presents "hurdles" to you, then you spout complexities that wax chaotic. :doh:
FIRST --- Why all this beating about the bush? Come to the point, Lefein... instead of trying to impress with this disjointed ramble.
SECOND --- We do not need to "know microbiology" in order to gain "understanding" of God and His doings... On the contrary --- we need to become AS CHILDREN, to Him... trusting, basic, single minded, ...admitting that we
know NOTHING... and thereby seek Him to FILL us with the
LOVE of CHRIST that "passes knowledge" --
Eph 3:19THIRD --- Actually, we in this "modern day" (concerning the Holy and the PERFECT Almighty
YHVH) are far MORE
degenerate than were the Ancient Hebrews which you so arrogantly, and carelessly discredit, as you bask yourself in the self-adorning light :beach: of your percieved "educational" position... :rolleye:
Take counsel from your own words, and SIMPLIFY Lefein... SIMPLIFY:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM
WillieH; please let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay when it comes to your future responses.
:Peace: :Peace2:
...willieH :cloud9:
Yes but it is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise it hides in the background that damages our souls. It doesn't do willie any favours, if people are shaking their heads at him and he is wondering why, but yet nobody tells him why. If it is not addressed then division is inevitable as mr smith from the matrix often says.
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
It's pretty easy how he creates them he just gets a bit mad and stamps the caps lock key AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEN THROWS AN INSULT OR TWO, great work of art, to annoy and insult the body of Christ :thumbsup:
I have never been "mad" at you
tank, and am not mad at you now... :laughing7:
That you are unable to recognize that I use these things as
emphasis, only displays a failure to attend to detail.
Besides... you are to FORGIVE and BLESS those which you percieve as enemy to you (annoying and insulting)... so where were those, in this post, ...Mr. "body of Christ"?
I consider that you are often embedded in frustration... and forgive you for this childish tirade... :friendstu:
:Peace: Bro!
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
Thank you sister M... :boyheart:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PM
Yes but it is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise it hides in the background that damages our souls. It doesn't do willie any favours, if people are shaking their heads at him and he is wondering why, but yet nobody tells him why. If it is not addressed then division is inevitable as mr smith from the matrix often says.
Agreed...pushing feelings down is not healthy. With that said, when we attempt to correct a brother we should ask ourselves why we do so. I'm not so sure my motives are pure as Willie rubs me the wrong way. That's not Willie's issue...it's mine. So, I should probably keep my comments to myself about Willie in the future.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 10:58:05 PM
But I think we might do well to divert now from WillieH, and let God deal with his postwork.
How piously arrogant of you to say this. :thumbdown:
Is God not "dealing" with YOU, Lefein? Or are you not in need of Him any longer?
God has been "dealing" with
willieH for 65 years, and loving
willieH thru thick & thin, not like SOME that EMPTILY claim to be His followers. :sigh: (I won't mention any names, simply because they have made themselves evident in this thread.)
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 10:58:05 PMI suspect a devil's plot of division, and I don't want to see the devil succeed in dividing the body over a silly issue that will inevitably amend itself.
There is no "devil" except the one that some "Religious" hold as existent. :thumbdown:
And as they give this myth an active and living place in their hearts, so do their hearts actively keep this myth alive IN those hearts... actively using it against others...
Matt 7:1 ---
JUDGE NOT, that ye BE NOT JUDGED...
Try that "division" shirt on... YOURSELF... If the "shirt fits"... wear it. :grin:
I did not seek YOU out to upbraid YOU, ...you appointed yourself to do this to ME, and as we can see, it continues! :idea2:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PM
Yes but it is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise it hides in the background that damages our souls.
The bunch which is preaching the "gospel of death" (ED) or the "gospel of torment" (ET), ...together has pronounced sentence upon me. :sigh:
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PMIt doesn't do willie any favours, if people are shaking their heads at him and he is wondering why, but yet nobody tells him why. If it is not addressed then division is inevitable as mr smith from the matrix often says.
More
gossip... speaking unkindly to others of me, instead of "addressing" me, yourself... :rolleye:
Hmmm... "Mr smith from the matrix" is your point of reference, eh? :sigh:
When seeking to correct another, it is a much better idea to reference the
WORD instead of using, ...the "matrix"...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 09, 2010, 10:52:15 AM
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 10:31:47 AM
NO! SIN was NOT ...IN... the WORLD until it ...ENTERED... via ADAM.
The Scripture does not say that SIN was IN the world, then ENTERED via ADAM... Which is what you are trying to manufacture.
It says AFTER the notation that SIN ENTERED via ADAM... that it was already IN the world... for it had ENTERED via ADAM!
The LAW which ADAM transgressed BEFORE it was given, is the LAW of MOSES... which indicates SIN --- as is noted by James 2:11-12 -- which is the LAW of liberty from which JUDGMENT proceeds.
SIN could NOT be ...IN... the world [creation], until it ...ENTERED it. Which it DID... via ADAM... :nod:
...willieH :happygrin:
It's not that hard to understand I think...
Lemme explain with a more worldly example.
In teh USA it's a crime to download movies. Where I live it's perfectly legal. Same activity but for some it's illegal (sin) for others not.
But if copyright laws change here downloading movies becomes illegal (sin)
Those that lived before the new download law didn't break the law. Those that live after the new download law and still download are breaking that law.
Adam was the first man that after the new law still downloaded. The download sin entered via Adam.
SIN means "missing the mark"... God is "Gloriously" PERFECT, as are His COMMANDS, as are His standards = the "mark". :idea2:
In coming up short of "the mark", we "MISS" it... :sigh:
SIN entered by ADAM "missing the mark" of PERFECTION... all subsequent humans which came AFTER the one who "missed FIRST"... "miss" as well.
Nevertheless the FIRST man, was the vehicle in which SIN entered the Creation.
...willieH :happygrin:
Almost right willie.
Sin is not missing the mark of perfection.
Sin is missing the mark of declared perfection.
Not keeping the Sabbath is missing the mark. But that started when God declared Sabbath.
Moses wrote down 600+ laws. Not following them was/is missing the mark
after Moses notified his people of those laws.
So it's not just the act of doing something that makes things sinful. It's the act of doing something
after God declared He is against such an act.
My point is that sin entering through Adam can't be used as proof for the age of the earth. I agree with you that we can trace geneaoloy to 6000 years to one view. 10000 years is another view. A little longer (speaking of a few 1000 years not milions) to another view. So that 6000-10000+ years is the minimum age of the earth. Adam died at the age of 900 years. Those 900 years started as his birth/creation
not at Genesis 1:1.
And I think that's what this thread is about. Not if sin entered the world (through Adam), because all agree with that. The question is how much time is there between Genesis 1:1 and the creation/birth of Adam. I think billions of years. You think a few days.
My question to you is what proof of "a few days" you have? (of a total of about 6-10 thousand years).
Again I repeat I'm not claiming there are billions of years between now and creation of Adam.
Bottom line on Willies posts everyone , as far as I am concerned, who are we to tell Willie to not use smilies and color?
None of that makes Willie right or wrong, if you disagree with Willie stick to the facts, pointing out that you do not like the way he formats his posts is not a factor that makes him less correct. That's just the facts.
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I think the answer is no. I agree with what you wrote but it won't help in this discussion. I, and I think I can safely include Shawn, think that the kosmos/system is billions of years older than planet earth. For Willie that's obiously not the case because he estimated the age of the whole creation between about 6-10 thousand years.
So even if there is full agreement on the meaning of kosmos/kosmon there is no agreement on the time span involved.
I hope I summarized everybodies opinion correctly in this message.
{Moderator Edit}
QuoteQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Bible only does three things regarding the Genesis account of Creation:
1: State as fact - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void, and the Godhead was present over the waters, which where yet to be ordered into atmosphere - liquid ocean.
Sorry, but the "godhead" is not mentioned in Genesis 1... The word Elohim is used in Gen 1 -- Elohim, though a plural form, does not imply PLURALITY in being. No more than the word "YOU" as I address YOU... means that YOU are more than 1 being. You wear plural hats (son, grandson, husband, brother, friend, uncle, etc) but YOU remain ONE being.
...Now you're just being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.
There is only one God! And God does not change! Behold the following verses:
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The
Godhead was indeed
present! At the beginning; at Genesis.
QuoteQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Earth in essence, was Crust and some form of chaotic vapourous covering, over which God was present having made it that way - preparing to order it.
This is an ASSUMPTION... the WORD does not mention that either the "WATERS" or the Earth mentioned in Gen 1:1 -- were physical in nature. They were EMERGING from a SPIRIT... so in that process, their "beginning" was more likely SPIRITUAL, than PHYSICAL (though I, as you, cannot PROVE this to be so).
Not everything in the Bible has to be "spiritualised" for goodness sakes, wine can be wine, and water can be water. Context!
Just because the acts of God carry a deep spiritual meaning, does not negate the fact that there is a physical aspect to his doings too!
His miracles are not vapourous philosophy! They are acts of
power! Made manifest in our
physical realm, as well as the spiritual reality amidst it.
QuoteWhen CHRIST speaks of the "drinking of the WATER of life"... neither the "water" nor the "drinking" of it, ...can be considered a PHYSICAL act, even though it's "doing" quenches the "thirst" (which isn't PHYSICAL either) of the SPIRIT within...
The context alludes to it being spiritual in this case. In the case of Genesis: It alludes to a physical act primarily - "Let light be!" does not mean
only (providing that a spiritual meaning is there indeed, which I am sure there is) that some vapourous philosophical illumination came to be, it means quite literally "Light be!"
QuoteThe "deep" mentioned in this verse aludes to ABYSS... an ABYSS can be SPIRITUAL in nature as well as PHYSICAL. :dontknow:
Why not both...?
Quote"Tartaroo" as used by Peter [2 Pet 2:4] in its only appearance in the WORD, alludes to the deepest ABYSS of hades... Does that mean to you that they "dug to China" to bury those in "tartaroo", Lefein? :dontknow:
Follow the context...
QuoteQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM2: God brought order, and stability to the Earth, and its Waters, putting Life on it in the span of six periods of time; literal 24 hour day - or literally symbolic day measuring eons; as God said himself - A day to God is as a thousand years, which is "literally symbolic" language meaning a very, very long time to us, is a short time to God.
Wow! Could you use your own counsel, and simplify this a bit, Lefein? :laughing7:
Get thee behind me Satan. Your laughter rooted from a wounded pride is not welcome, and neither is your abrasiveness.
Quote"Literally symbolic"? Is that like, Long Shortness? or Empty Fullness? or Heavily Light? :laugh:
Twice behind, your laughter is not welcome.
Literally Symbolic is a term that God himself gave to me! If you must know...
It means quite simply that God uses symbolic language to describe literal events, it is a phrase he gave me to indeed
simplify, to
name that concept.
QuoteThe WORD says that a day (to God) is ...AS... a thousand years... it does NOT SAY, that it IS a thousand years.
It only describes that TIME resembles and assumes a meaningless position to our INFINITE God, than does TIME's position appear to us ...finites.
Actually, the language more implies [IMObservation]... that TIME is totally irrelevant to God. Not that a "day" is shorter for Him than for us.
Then it only bolsters the fact that the six days could be however long God wanted them to be! It could be whole epochs and life ages of the universe in a single second of that "24-hour day" if God so desired it, showing the literal-literal view of YEC's measurement of Genesis's Yom's to be even
less important, or absolute than they make it out to be.
QuoteTo VAINLY attempt to tie GOD to ANY parameter, is to try to CONFINE Him. So any "duration" of a DAY that YOU or I might consider concerning Him, is nothing more than our attempt to CONFINE Him to some aspect of our own limitations. :thumbdown:
...This is becoming silly, and becoming silly
fast.
Of course we can't limit the infinite God into a finite box, but that isn't what we're discussing here! >_<
{MODERATOR EDIT}
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 09, 2010, 08:54:29 PM
There is no scripture that states or implies the earth is only 6000 years old.
The intepretation is based upon a strict assertion that creation all actually happened in a literal week. There are no scriptures that verify the truth of this timeline, it is religiously asserted the same way it is in this thread.
Yes and no.
There is much proof the universe is 6-10 thousand years old from a Biblical view. Just trace geneaology and add a few extra days. So that's proof.
So purely using an English translation the earth is 6-10000 years old.
But.... the days before Adam can also be translated as ages as for example Strong and Thayer show in their concordances.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 09, 2010, 11:56:45 PM
Bottom line on Willies posts everyone , as far as I am concerned, who are we to tell Willie to not use smilies and color?
None of that makes Willie right or wrong, if you disagree with Willie stick to the facts, pointing out that you do not like the way he formats his posts is not a factor that makes him less correct. That's just the facts.
I actually agree. The only problem is when he gets upset because someone doesn't answer his questions. Me personally, I just can't bring myself to sort through it all. So, I hope he doesn't get offended when I don't read it...or answer his questions.
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 09:28:39 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 09, 2010, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 09, 2010, 01:41:58 PM
I will throw this bit of info out there. Its been said that "sin entered in via Adam" and if that is the case, and Paul says it as well; but why is it that the FIRST time SIN is mentioned is in accordance with CAIN not Adam?
Good point. Perhaps because the "entering" is about the offspring of Adam.
In a way Cain entered the world via Adam (and Eve) because they decided to have children.
Actually GOD decided that they would have children...
Agreed.
But I hope you see that post of mine was not about who decided that Adam and Eve would have children...
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 11:40:45 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PM
Yes but it is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise it hides in the background that damages our souls.
The bunch which is preaching the "gospel of death" (ED) or the "gospel of torment" (ET), ...together has pronounced sentence upon me. :sigh:
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PMIt doesn't do willie any favours, if people are shaking their heads at him and he is wondering why, but yet nobody tells him why. If it is not addressed then division is inevitable as mr smith from the matrix often says.
More gossip... speaking unkindly to others of me, instead of "addressing" me, yourself... :rolleye:
Hmmm... "Mr smith from the matrix" is your point of reference, eh? :sigh:
When seeking to correct another, it is a much better idea to reference the WORD instead of using, ...the "matrix"...
...willieH :cloud9:
I think you have been addressed before by UR people , when you got banned from here, so this is not a ED conspiracy.
Also not sure if that post counts as gossip, for it can be seen by all, including you. This is not the manner I would have liked to address this, but this is how things have played out.
I do have a problem with your style and I thought why not be a good christian and be tolerant, but it seems that I'm not the only one who find your style, offensive. Do you count this as a message that your style needs to be improved upon? That there are three people here who find your style offensive?
Now we are the three that open our mouths, how many out there hidden in cyberspace, gossip behind your back and say bad things about you, this is my concern. If this is merely my problem then I guess there is not much of a problem but if, as I suspect your style offends a large amount of people, then I ask the question, doesn't this bother you?
As Christians we are to be tolerant towards each other but also to help one another.
Also I think you rely too much upon the word, the living word is one who we should rely upon first, then the scriptures.
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:13:00 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 09, 2010, 11:56:45 PM
Bottom line on Willies posts everyone , as far as I am concerned, who are we to tell Willie to not use smilies and color?
None of that makes Willie right or wrong, if you disagree with Willie stick to the facts, pointing out that you do not like the way he formats his posts is not a factor that makes him less correct. That's just the facts.
I actually agree. The only problem is when he gets upset because someone doesn't answer his questions. Me personally, I just can't bring myself to sort through it all. So, I hope he doesn't get offended when I don't read it...or answer his questions.
We are free to spend the time we want on anyone's post, whether they get offended or assert that they win, the problem is the other persons. Just keep that in mind when you make your choices of what to do.
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
It's pretty easy how he creates them he just gets a bit mad and stamps the caps lock key AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEN THROWS AN INSULT OR TWO, great work of art, to annoy and insult the body of Christ :thumbsup:
Poetic justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_justice) :laughing7:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 10:58:05 PMI myself was not too fond of this...
Weird. It was concise. No caps. No colors. No big fonts. No neon. And only one smilie. So......?
:bgdance:
EDIT: I am no longer going to discuss WillieH if I can help it.
Stay tuned for a better post that is on topic.
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 11:07:08 PMPlease dear brother... I have been a member here, posting as I do in excess of 7 years... Many answer me "properly"! What does color within text, have to do with comprehension?
Come on Willie. Do you really not understand that?
Many people have
problems reading text of this size. Even is the size doesn't change the wisdom or foolishness of the words.No that's not a dotted line. Just qoute the text and see :laughing7:
Yellow on white is hard to read for many people. Sometimes so hard all there concentration goes into reading it instead of understanding the message
Willie you are a musician and you like gospel songs. Correct?
Say a band has a song with some possibly good lyrics. But if the vocals and instumentals are awfully bad doesn't that distract you from hearing the (possible) wisdom contained in the lyrics?
I really think a few colors/bold/italics/underlined in a post can and often do improve readability. But there is a point of overdoing things and it become counter effective. A daily glass of red wine is good for the heart. But 20 glasses a day isn't 20x better.
Cheers :beach:
Let's please work on moving this back towards the OP. If there are a couple of quick comments to tie up any loose ends/complete any unfinished business, etc., OK, I understand and it could be productive. However, we're pretty far off-topic :bigGrin:. Thanks.
Quote from: shawn on September 09, 2010, 11:22:49 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 11:11:36 PM
Yes but it is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise it hides in the background that damages our souls. It doesn't do willie any favours, if people are shaking their heads at him and he is wondering why, but yet nobody tells him why. If it is not addressed then division is inevitable as mr smith from the matrix often says.
Agreed...pushing feelings down is not healthy. With that said, when we attempt to correct a brother we should ask ourselves why we do so. I'm not so sure my motives are pure as Willie rubs me the wrong way. That's not Willie's issue...it's mine. So, I should probably keep my comments to myself about Willie in the future.
That would mean groups of people start ignoring posts of other groups of people. That's not the goal of this forum.
Better would be if Willie used less colors and stuff to make his posts more readeble to others. And you use a few extra colors to make your key points stick out.
Of course that includes
all other 900 users. It's better to have a discussion group of 900 people than 10 sub groups of each 90 people.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I think the answer is no. I agree with what you wrote but it won't help in this discussion. I, and I think I can safely include Shawn, think that the kosmos/system is billions of years older than planet earth. For Willie that's obiously not the case because he estimated the age of the whole creation between about 6-10 thousand years.
So even if there is full agreement on the meaning of kosmos/kosmon there is no agreement on the time span involved.
I hope I summarized everybodies opinion correctly in this message.
I guess I was thinking "creation in total" vs. any particular (perhaps) separate and distinct "system" (of which there could be many - as Molly suggested, i.e., 'aions') could be 2 different things - if one would consider other possibilities than what we can otherwise get narrowly fixed upon. :dontknow: Likely some can consider it, some won't.
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
I'll double that! :thumbsup: :happy3:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 09, 2010, 11:56:45 PM
Bottom line on Willies posts everyone , as far as I am concerned, who are we to tell Willie to not use smilies and color?
None of that makes Willie right or wrong, if you disagree with Willie stick to the facts, pointing out that you do not like the way he formats his posts is not a factor that makes him less correct. That's just the facts.
Agreed. If, with I'm not, was someone that has great teaching (directly inspired by HS) I would do my best to enlight as many people as possible with it.
All people have their limitations. Personally I find the fontsize on this forum much to big. It's a waste of screen space. I'm just blessed with good eyesight. Others are not. That's why
I don't scale down all my postings to my ideal text size. It's just a shame many good points of many users go lost because of insignificant things like tiny fonts and/or funny colors.
Quote from: Lefein on September 10, 2010, 12:10:28 AM
"But the woman you gave me! But the serpent! This that other!"
Gird up thy loins thou man! Do you think I haven't looked at the beam in my own eye!?
I piously suggest you post in a way that people can read and understand, so that you will be an edifying, effective, and equipping part of the body of Christ! Not to condemn your "style" of posting.
As Gandalf would say to Bilbo: I am not trying to rob you! I'm trying to help you.
Hear hear! Lefein is the most crafty with words! :winkgrin:
Sorry Lefein, couldn't resist the open goal :bgdance:
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Quote from: willieH on September 09, 2010, 11:16:15 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 09, 2010, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 09, 2010, 10:38:52 PM
Regarding willieH's posts--
It took me a while to get used to them, but now I consider them a work of art. I can't imagine how he creates them any more than I can imagine how Rembrandt created the Night Watch.
God did not give me artistic talent, alas... :sigh: Nor the patience it requires.
But, thankfully, now I am coming to appreciate art more and more.
So to willieH--I appreciate and enjoy your posts, but even more the talent that it takes to create them. :thumbsup:
It's pretty easy how he creates them he just gets a bit mad and stamps the caps lock key AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THEN THROWS AN INSULT OR TWO, great work of art, to annoy and insult the body of Christ :thumbsup:
I have never been "mad" at you tank, and am not mad at you now... :laughing7:
That you are unable to recognize that I use these things as emphasis, only displays a failure to attend to detail.
Besides... you are to FORGIVE and BLESS those which you percieve as enemy to you (annoying and insulting)... so where were those, in this post, ...Mr. "body of Christ"?
I consider that you are often embedded in frustration... and forgive you for this childish tirade... :friendstu:
:Peace: Bro!
...willieH :cloud9:
I'm not sure if I believe you that you are not mad or bitter towards me for it is quite obvious in your posts, but I know that you like me, I think.
I know you use caps to emphasize, but most people use it sparingly or to use caps in the same manner as one speaks. In your posts you interject caps into words ALL OVER the PLACE which is distracting, for you sound similar to chitty bang bang, jumping and rolling all over the place, where your letter seems as if you are lacking in control over your emotions, if you understand.
I don't bless people in every post I tend to do what this scripture says
Matthew 6:6
You are correct that I am often frustrated and this what often occurs to people who have a personality like myself, it is the burden of having to many thoughts and feelings, but it is also a blessing. I could keep the frustrations to myself but I trust the people here that they will be loving and kind towards me as I reveal my frustrations in trust to the people here.
Thank you for saying that you forgive me, this gives me greater faith that you are not of my enemy for I do not trust you yet, as you also do not trust me, but maybe in time things will grow and change, which I perceive that growth has already taken place over the last month or so. But I do not believe in a false peace, so don't be to alarmed if I say something rude to you in future, but my trust is in the God of Abraham that he will keep the peace, even when we seemingly are at war with each other.
God bless
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I think the answer is no. I agree with what you wrote but it won't help in this discussion. I, and I think I can safely include Shawn, think that the kosmos/system is billions of years older than planet earth. For Willie that's obiously not the case because he estimated the age of the whole creation between about 6-10 thousand years.
So even if there is full agreement on the meaning of kosmos/kosmon there is no agreement on the time span involved.
I hope I summarized everybodies opinion correctly in this message.
I guess I was thinking "creation in total" vs. any particular (perhaps) separate and distinct "system" (of which there could be many - as Molly suggested, i.e., 'aions') could be 2 different things - if one would consider other possibilities than what we can otherwise get narrowly fixed upon. :dontknow: Likely some can consider it, some won't.
Lemme see if I understand you. So you say the 6000 years is a system and the (creation of the) cosmos is another system?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:35:30 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I think the answer is no. I agree with what you wrote but it won't help in this discussion. I, and I think I can safely include Shawn, think that the kosmos/system is billions of years older than planet earth. For Willie that's obiously not the case because he estimated the age of the whole creation between about 6-10 thousand years.
So even if there is full agreement on the meaning of kosmos/kosmon there is no agreement on the time span involved.
I hope I summarized everybodies opinion correctly in this message.
I guess I was thinking "creation in total" vs. any particular (perhaps) separate and distinct "system" (of which there could be many - as Molly suggested, i.e., 'aions') could be 2 different things - if one would consider other possibilities than what we can otherwise get narrowly fixed upon. :dontknow: Likely some can consider it, some won't.
Lemme see if I understand you. So you say the 6000 years is a system and the (creation of the) cosmos is another system?
Yes, for instance--the 6000 years could be a system of recreation if you ascribe to the gap theory. And, the 15billion years before that could be many systems, or one system.
This 2000 years of the 6000 year system is referred to as the 'latter days.'
Are you thinking that God only has 6000 years to devote to this project of his? That would make us barely a footnote. :laughing7:
Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world [kosmos]: but now once in the end of the world [aion] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.Sounds like aion is a subset of kosmos to me.
One last post. What I do like about Willie's posting style is that he quotes posts in little parts and replies to each quoted part, instead of just answering the whole post in one big quote. That makes it, for me, more readble.
Ok bedtime for me. I'll be back in the next yom.
Surely some will hope I never return because that proves their point about yom :winkgrin:
BTW James can you give me a verse that uses kosmon. I have to admit I never even heard of that word until you used it...
Now not tell me it was a typo :laughing7:
WillieH; I said I was finished...And I meant it.
*shakes the dust from his feet, and walks away*
<>---<>---<>
When it comes to Yom, it may be a good idea perhaps to compare it to...
"The day of our Lord" which may be an age? Are we in the day of our lord? 2000 years later?
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:13:00 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on September 09, 2010, 11:56:45 PM
Bottom line on Willies posts everyone , as far as I am concerned, who are we to tell Willie to not use smilies and color?
None of that makes Willie right or wrong, if you disagree with Willie stick to the facts, pointing out that you do not like the way he formats his posts is not a factor that makes him less correct. That's just the facts.
I actually agree. The only problem is when he gets upset because someone doesn't answer his questions. Me personally, I just can't bring myself to sort through it all. So, I hope he doesn't get offended when I don't read it...or answer his questions.
You falsely note that I have become "upset" with others.
I have not gotten "upset" with anyone... I have noted that IGNORANCE is the method of evasion which is employed by many to which I answer... I have displayed no dismay toward anyone...
If you choose to IGNORE what I say... that is your affair, it does not matter to me.
I compose posts here at Tentmaker, and leave the words to God to use or not use, as He decides...
Here is how I view yours or anyones ignorance of my writings, ...it is this simple:
It does not matter to me in the slightest that you read, answer or complain of my words... It certainly does NOT "upset" me... You flatter yourself in thinking that it does... :mnah:
My words are either pertinent to you, or they are not... God either uses them concerning you, or He does not...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Lefein on September 10, 2010, 01:52:29 AM
WillieH; I said I was finished...And I meant it.
*shakes the dust from his feet, and walks away*
<>---<>---<>
When it comes to Yom, it may be a good idea perhaps to compare it to...
"The day of our Lord" which may be an age? Are we in the day of our lord? 2000 years later?
Why are you asking me questions? I thought you said you were "finished"? :dontknow:
Does not matter if you are "finished"... I am not! Your post to me shall gain an answer from me, whether YOU read it or not... :nod:
I guess it remains to be seen whether you are "finished" or not... :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
What question? The Yom/Day of our lord thing was me getting back on topic and into the conversation stream with the rest of the fish.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Ok, but still do you believe man walked with the T-Rex? If not, then why? If so, then why?
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Ok, but still do you believe man walked with the T-Rex? If not, then why? If so, then why?
There is no evidence of bones of people that are older than 5000 years old. The oldest tree and city are also around 5000 years old. There are some reports of human bones in affrica that are around 10 thousand years old though.
This website might share some light on the dinosaur
www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)
Quote from: thinktank on September 10, 2010, 02:35:36 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Ok, but still do you believe man walked with the T-Rex? If not, then why? If so, then why?
There is no evidence of bones of people that are older than 5000 years old. The oldest tree and city are also around 5000 years old. There are some reports of human bones in affrica that are around 10 thousand years old though.
This website might share some light on the dinosaur
www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)
I would stay away from yec sites if you want correct historical information. The Chinese civilization alone is 7-8000 years old.
From the Chinese information center...
The first light of Chinese civilization revealed itself 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, as indicated by the ruins of the Daxi Culture in Sichuan and Hubei provinces, the Majiapang Culture in Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces, the Hemudu Culture in eastern Zhejiang and the Yangshou Culture along the middle reaches of the Yellow River and its main tributaries.
http://www.china.org.cn/e-gudai/index-1.htm
The oldest human bones found are 195,000 years old.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html
Possibly a silly question...but...
"Why" does man have to walk with dinosaurs exactly? Would it bear any difference if Adam didn't walk with a t-rex?
Afterall, Dinosaurs are a meta-word really...What we call "dinosaurs" are actually a group of very, very different sorts of animals.
From the sauropod, to the hadrosaurs, to the stegasaurs, the triceratops, and even the raptor is different from the tyrannosaur.
Quote from: Lefein on September 10, 2010, 03:18:07 AM
Possibly a silly question...but...
"Why" does man have to walk with dinosaurs exactly? Would it bear any difference if Adam didn't walk with a t-rex?
Afterall, Dinosaurs are a meta-word really...What we call "dinosaurs" are actually a group of very, very different sorts of animals.
From the sauropod, to the hadrosaurs, to the stegasaurs, the triceratops, and even the raptor is different from the tyrannosaur.
Lefein, what I am attempting to do is lead the logical progression of Genesis interpretation through what God has revealed to us through scientific discovery. Many Christians believe the interpretation of original sin, world age, animals not dying until "the fall" is correct. I'm showing them it can't be. Their interpretations are incorrect. The Bible is without error but our interpretations of the Bible are full of error.
If man brought sin into the world which caused death for the first time of animals...then how is this possible? Was man alive when dinosaurs were alive? No, and the evidence clearly shows that. Yet the dinosaurs were dead before man...unless you count birds. Crisis of faith? I clearly think not. But, in a stubborn attempt to hang onto old interpretations which are not correct...yec's attack the science (and poorly at that may I add). Some will even accuse the scientific world of a consipiracy to disgrace Christianity. It's my opinion that the YEC stance makes Christians look foolish and uneducated.
I do not believe "man's discoveries" are from man. I would think that UR guys could grasp this concept. God is in control of all. God allowed man to begin collecting massive amounts of knowledge in a very short period of time. I believe this is in fulfillment of scripture. With these discoveries God has even given us hints about correct interpretations of scriptures. It's there for us if we are willing to look. I challenge this board to do with Genesis what they did with ET. I challenge you to rethink your stances on every stance you have ever taken on original sin, age of earth etc.
Well glory to the Most High.
WillieH keep them posts coming, I for one never saw what ever body else saw. I just found the information enlightening to say the least. So a big thanks. :happy3:
Quote from: ShawnThe oldest human bones found are 195,000 years old.
What do you mean by 'human'?
We've been down this road before on these boards, Shawn. We've talked about gap theory, hidden archeology, suppressed science, all sorts of things related to this subject.
I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.
If homo sapiens sapiens has been around for 195,000 years, where are the great civilizations? where are the mozarts, the newtons, the shakespeares?
The best we can do in all that time is a few cave drawings and a couple of pyramids?
Why are we still moving around in glorified model-T's?
Really, the birthplace of modern civilization was Mesopotamia around and about the time that Adam would have lived.
So why hundreds of thousands of years of....silence?
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 01:43:48 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:35:30 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 01:01:35 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 09, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quick insert. (I should know better than to stick my nose in this). :laughing7:
We talked about the gap theory in Genesis a couple of weeks ago.
Would it be worth considering, that Greek Interlinear has 'kosmon', which is typically translated as 'world', translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'?
Also, the related word 'kosmos' also has these definitions, besides 'world';
kosmos - condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order 3. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage 4. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals [/color]
Anything there to possibly broaden the scope of interpretation?
I think the answer is no. I agree with what you wrote but it won't help in this discussion. I, and I think I can safely include Shawn, think that the kosmos/system is billions of years older than planet earth. For Willie that's obiously not the case because he estimated the age of the whole creation between about 6-10 thousand years.
So even if there is full agreement on the meaning of kosmos/kosmon there is no agreement on the time span involved.
I hope I summarized everybodies opinion correctly in this message.
I guess I was thinking "creation in total" vs. any particular (perhaps) separate and distinct "system" (of which there could be many - as Molly suggested, i.e., 'aions') could be 2 different things - if one would consider other possibilities than what we can otherwise get narrowly fixed upon. :dontknow: Likely some can consider it, some won't.
Lemme see if I understand you. So you say the 6000 years is a system and the (creation of the) cosmos is another system?
Yes, for instance--the 6000 years could be a system of recreation if you ascribe to the gap theory. And, the 15billion years before that could be many systems, or one system.
This 2000 years of the 6000 year system is referred to as the 'latter days.'
Are you thinking that God only has 6000 years to devote to this project of his? That would make us barely a footnote. :laughing7:
Hebrews 9:26
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world [kosmos]: but now once in the end of the world [aion] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Sounds like aion is a subset of kosmos to me.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM
BTW James can you give me a verse that uses kosmon. I have to admit I never even heard of that word until you used it...
Now not tell me it was a typo :laughing7:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world [kosmon] through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12
kosmon appears at least 46 times in the Bible
kosmon
G2889
n_ Acc Sg m
SYSTEM
world
"translated first as 'SYSTEM' -
then it's turned into/translated 'world'
Using kosmos=system and aion=age do these scriptures make more sense?
KOSMOS
...showed him all the kingdoms of the world [kosmos]...[mat 4:8]
Ye are the light of the world [kosmos]. [mat 5:14]
..the world [kosmos] hath hated them, because they are not of the world [kosmos], even as I am not of the world [kosmos]. John 17:4
John 17:18
As thou hast sent me into the world [kosmos], even so have I also sent them into the world [kosmos].
...for thou lovedst me before the foundation [katabole] of the world [kosmos]. John 17:24
..he will judge the world [kosmos] in righteousness...Acts 17:31
O righteous Father, the world [kosmos] hath not known thee...John 17:25
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world [kosmos], but the spirit which is of God; 1Cor 2:12
AION
..it shall not be forgiven him, either in this world [aion] or the world [aion] to come.[mat 12:32]
Ephesians 3:21
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end [aion aion]. Amen.
...which was kept secret since the world began [aionios chronos]. Rom 16:25
...which God ordained before the world [aion] to our glory. 1 Cor 2:7
...which none of the princes of this world [aion] knew...1 Cor 2:8
...that he might deliver us from this present evil world [aion],..Gal 1:4
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began [aionios chronos];
I think it's great! Translation, translation, translation!
So many words have been translated as world. For instance, I don't believe 'creation' is necessarily an accurate equivalent to 'world'.
I like your work here.
So if accurate, this one would read like this;
For by one man sin entered into the system...Rom. 5:12
To me, it sheds a more understandable and reconcilable light. So the question can be, what system, which system? There easily could have been more than one system, just as there are more than one aion.
Example; "Who gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world,
according to the will of God and our Father"
Check out where they got 'world'!!!
aiwnos
aiOnos
G165
n_ Gen Sg m
eon
then they turned it into world... :eyebrow:
:2c:
whoa--Do you think Satan was already in charge of the kosmos when Adam was created? That's why he showed up on the scene almost immediately to destroy Adam's God given dominion.
whoa...
We wrestle...against...the rulers of the darkness of this world [aion]...
--Eph 6
"rulers"
G2888
κοσμοκράτωρ
kosmokratōr
kos-mok-rat'-ore
From G2889 and G2902; a world ruler, an epithet of Satan: - ruler.
kosmokrator is created from kosmos and
G2902
κρατέω
krateō
krat-eh'-o
From G2904; to use strength, that is, seize or retain (literally or figuratively): - hold (by, fast), keep, lay hand (hold) on, obtain, retain, take (by).
In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light.
1 Thessalonians 5:5
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
--Luke 10
I was editing while you posted this.
Check out the scripture from Galatians above..."present evil AGE"...!
That could be, but IMO, it sure reinforces that he only has his period of time, whatever amount that is that God allows and uses him as a tool.
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 06:55:09 AM
I was editing while you posted this.
Check out the scripture from Galatians above..."present evil AGE"...!
Yes! We are born out of due time--premature birth.
It explains everything lol. :laughing7:
So--God is pulling a people out of this present evil age--to vibrate against the darkness of the present kosmos run by this group--
principalities, ... powers, ... the rulers of the darkness of this world [aion], ... spiritual wickedness in high places. [eph 6]
And, it all started with Adam.
:boyheart:
9For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world [kosmos], and to angels, and to men.
11Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
--1 Cor 4
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 06:52:09 AM
In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light.
1 Thessalonians 5:5
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
--Luke 10
Molly "In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light."
I never liked the way people give satan (the adversary) so much power just by their speak.
The adversary is ALLOWED to rule...Psa 139:12 Even the darkness hideth not from thee, But the night shineth as the day: The darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
Quote from: Lefein on September 10, 2010, 02:13:55 AM
What question? The Yom/Day of our lord thing was me getting back on topic and into the conversation stream with the rest of the fish.
The why was it included in your post to me? Next time, start a new post, confusion allieviated. :dontknow:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 06:40:00 AM
I think it's great! Translation, translation, translation!
So many words have been translated as world. For instance, I don't believe 'creation' is necessarily an accurate equivalent to 'world'.
I like your work here.
So if accurate, this one would read like this;
For by one man sin entered into the system...Rom. 5:12
To me, it sheds a more understandable and reconcilable light. So the question can be, what system, which system? There easily could have been more than one system, just as there are more than one aion.
Example; "Who gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world,
according to the will of God and our Father"
Check out where they got 'world'!!!
aiwnos
aiOnos
G165
n_ Gen Sg m
eon
then they turned it into world... :eyebrow:
:2c:
Yes, it's almost as if they are purposely trying to obscure the truth. :mblush:
There is a method to my madness here. I don't see how we can even begin to talk about dinosaurs and humans without first having some understanding of aions and kosmos.
Problem is, at the moment it's looking impossible to explain this to either scientists or Christians. :icon_king:
world without end [aion aion]--the aions are never going to end--but do we even know when they began?
Jackpot! If we (collective 'we') are not even talking about the correct terms, then....?
Should remind of us something - hades, gehenna, tartarus, forever, eternal, forever and ever, etc., etc., etc. :thumbsup:
I've read somewhere how many different words aion was translated into - I forget, but it was a very interesting mix :mshock:. Some of them were forever, eternal, NEVER!, world, age, etc...
This may be worth a glance;
http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/forever.htm
Quote Molly; Yes, it's almost as if they are purposely trying to obscure the truth.
Gary A writes;
The different forms of the word occur in the New Testament one hundred and ninety-nine times, if I am not mistaken, the noun one hundred and twenty-eight, and the adjective seventy-one times. Bruder's Concordance, latest edition, gives aión one hundred and twenty-six times, and aiónios seventy-two times in the New Testament, instead of the former ninety-four, and the latter sixty-six times, as Professor Stuart, following Knapp's Greek text, declares.
In our common translation the noun is rendered seventy-two times ever, twice eternal, thirty-six times world, seven times never, three times evermore, twice worlds, twice ages, once course, once world without end, and twice it is passed over without any word affixed as a translation of it. The adjective is rendered once ever, forty-two times eternal, three times world, twenty-five times everlasting, and once former ages.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Ok, but still do you believe man walked with the T-Rex? If not, then why? If so, then why?
Only in Jurassic Park :winkgrin:
If not then: Because they are dead besides perhaps a
few (downsized) species.
Quote from: thinktank on September 10, 2010, 02:35:36 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 10, 2010, 12:22:43 AM
So, again do you guys think man walked with dinosaurs? If so, what evidence do you have for your belief? If not, how do you explain the death of dinosaurs before man with a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Speaking with the words one of the most known YECs, Kent Hovind:
The dragons in the story of Arthur are the last last of the dinosaurs. Drawing on Egyptian pottery.
BTW I think crocodiles may be classified as dinosaurs.
Ok, but still do you believe man walked with the T-Rex? If not, then why? If so, then why?
There is no evidence of bones of people that are older than 5000 years old. The oldest tree and city are also around 5000 years old. There are some reports of human bones in affrica that are around 10 thousand years old though.
This website might share some light on the dinosaur
www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)
10,000 B.C. Semi-permanent agricultural settlements in Old World. -> Geneis 4:11
10,000–4,000 B.C. Development of settlements into cities and development of skills such as the wheel, pottery, and improved methods of cultivation in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. -> Genesis 4:17
5500–3000 B.C.
Predynastic Egyptian cultures develop (5500–3100 B.C.); begin using agriculture (c. 5000 B.C.). Earliest known civilization arises in Sumer (4500–4000 B.C.). Earliest recorded date in Egyptian calendar (4241 B.C.).
Genesis 4:22 Bronze age.
Just a rough outline. I once did a little work on comparing archeology to the Bible but it needs far more work to be accurate....
This is interesting. This guy mentions the gap theory.
THE MYSTERY OF THE AGES
By
Bertrand L. Comparet
It is amazing how much there is in the Bible, which is not even known to the most devout Christians. It is concealed from them by the many mistranslations in the commonly used King James Bible. Because of these mistranslations, many false doctrines have developed among people who faithfully believe what they have read, not knowing that what they read is sometimes incorrect.
One of these errors, which has misled many, is the mistranslation of the Greek word aion, meaning an age, as everlasting, eternal, etc. For example, we see many places where the King James Bible speaks of everlasting life and many others where it speaks of eternal life. Some fine, devout people have worked up elaborate doctrines about the supposed difference between everlasting life and eternal life.
Would it shock you to learn that the Bible makes no such distinction at all? The New Testament is where we find these references. Almost all of our English New Testaments are translated from ancient manuscripts, written in the Greek language. In Greek, aion, commonly called aeon in English, means an age, a period of time of long, but indefinite duration. The Greek word aionios commonly called aeonian, in English means, to the age, to the end of the age.
If you will look it up in a good concordance every reference to everlasting life, you will find that in every case the word translated everlasting, is this Greek word aionios, meaning to the end of the age. Now also look up every reference to eternal life. You will see that in every case but one, this also is the same Greek word aionios. The translators simply got tired of using the same English word and thought it made a better literary style to sometimes use the word everlasting and sometimes the word eternal. Where do you now find the elaborate distinction between the two kinds of life? Surely not in the Bible, only in the mistranslations.
The Bible deals with time in terms of aeons, or ages, let's find out more about them. The Bible tells us that the ages had a beginning, for it speaks of times before them. For example Hebrews 1:2 speaks of Yahshua, through whom Yahweh made the ages. Yes, I know that the King James Bible says made the worlds, but in the original Greek it says, made the ages. I Corinthians 2:7 speaks of a secret which Yahweh foreordained before the ages to our glory. II Timothy 1:9 speaks of the grace of Yahweh that was given us in Yahshua before the times of the ages.
However long an aeon or age may be, it also has an end. Matthew 24:3 tells of the disciples asking Yahshua, "Tell us, when shall these be; and what is the sign of Thy presence, and of the full end of the age?" In I Corinthians 10:11 Paul tells us the scriptures were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come.
The Bible speaks of ages in the plural, so there are several of them. How many? There must be at least six of them we are living in one. In the past, there must have been two others, for in Colossians 1:26 it speaks of the secret that has been hidden from the ages. There must be at least two more in the future. Ephesians 2:7 tells us that Yahweh has raised us up and seated us together in the heavenly places, "that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Yahshua".
Past ages have been ended by terrific cataclysms or other occurrences, which definitely mark the beginning of a new age. Genesis 1:1 tells of the beginning of one age, with the creation of the earth. In the next verse, it tells of the wreckage of it in some catastrophe. No, the King James Bible doesn't tell you this because it is mistranslated.
In the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 says that the earth became chaotic and empty, obviously as a result of some great cataclysm, Jeremiah 4:23-27 was a vision of this. In these verses Jeremiah said, "I beheld the earth, and lo! It was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo! They trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo! The fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down in the presence of Yahweh, and by His fierce anger. For thus hath Yahweh said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end".
In this first age lived the civilizations of which archaeologists now find some trace, many, many thousands of years older than Adam. The second age began with the restoration of order out of this chaos and the repopulation of the earth, from Genesis 1:3 onward. Probably Noah's flood in Genesis chapters 6-8, marks the end of the second age. The resurrection of Yahshua marks the end of the third age. No greater dividing point can be found in all of history.
We are now living in the fourth age, this will end in the overthrow of the existing satanic world order and the return of Yahshua to rule for the millennium. We say that Ephesians 2:7 spoke of ages still to come. So that proves there are not less than six ages referred to in the Bible.
The Bible also speaks of something longer than just an age. In several places, such as Revelation 1:18, Hebrews 13:21, and II Timothy 4:18, it speaks of the ages of the ages, usually translated forever. Even this is not really eternal or endless. Revelation 11:15 says that Yahshua shall reign for aeons of the aeons. Yet I Corinthians 15:24-28 says that there comes a time when Yahshua gives up the kingdom to Yahweh the Father. Hebrews 9:26 speaks of the end of the ages.
Are you beginning to wonder whether your life will finally end at the time when we run out of aeons? Have no fear of that! I Corinthians 15:22-26 tells us that Yahshua will reign until He has conquered all enemies, and that the last enemy to be abolished is death. From that time on, for those who are saved or redeemed by Yahshua, there is no death. It no longer matters whether there may be any reason to mark off a certain period of time as an age.
The life Yahshua then grants to His own will be truly endless. Hebrews 7:16 speaks of an indissoluble, or endless life. I Peter 1:4 says that by the resurrection of Yahshua, Yahweh has begotten us into an inheritance incorruptible, never decaying, which does not fade away. Life for the ages carries you up to the point where death is completely abolished and life does become eternal. Remember; don't try to find a distinction between eternal life and everlasting life. They are the same thing, merely being different translations of the very same word, with the very same meaning. Don't think of me as just an old Meany that goes around puncturing your pet doctrines; I'm only trying to bring you truth as accurately as I can get it.
When we do run out of ages, that doesn't mean the end of things, just the beginning of something on a much greater scale. We shall be living in that great kingdom of Yahweh of which Isaiah 9:7 says, "Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end". Something, which never comes to an end, is truly eternal. Notice this, it does not say merely that of His government there shall be no end, it says the increase of His government there shall be no end.
There is room for all of your hopes and aspirations in such a plan as that. By the time you have learned one phase of it so well that it is becoming a bit old, there will be new and greater developments open to you. Truly an eternity of ever expanding greatness, it will forever challenge your greatest abilities and spur you on to finer achievements.
For quite a while to come, we will have the ages. Make the most of them, for they are the school, the training period for the true eternity. It is the eventual period without end, when we will be in Yahweh's kingdom, doing His will and finding therein the highest possible happiness.
http://www.israelect.com/childrenofYahweh/Comparet/mystery.htm
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM
BTW James can you give me a verse that uses kosmon. I have to admit I never even heard of that word until you used it...
Now not tell me it was a typo :laughing7:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world [kosmon] through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12
kosmon appears at least 46 times in the Bible
kosmon
G2889
n_ Acc Sg m
SYSTEM
world
"translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'
G2889 is kosmos in my lexicons. :dontknow:
Good info Tony. :thumbsup:
Molly, great article. It was helpful. These parts really jump out at me;
The Bible speaks of ages in the plural....
Past ages have been ended by terrific cataclysms or other occurrences, which definitely mark the beginning of a new age. Genesis 1:1 tells of the beginning of one age, with the creation of the earth. In the next verse, it tells of the wreckage of it in some catastrophe. No, the King James Bible doesn't tell you this because it is mistranslated.
In the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 says that the earth became chaotic and empty, obviously as a result of some great cataclysm, Jeremiah 4:23-27 was a vision of this. In these verses Jeremiah said, "I beheld the earth, and lo! It was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo! They trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo! The fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down in the presence of Yahweh, and by His fierce anger. For thus hath Yahweh said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end".
In this first age lived the civilizations of which archaeologists now find some trace, many, many thousands of years older than Adam. The second age began with the restoration of order out of this chaos and the repopulation of the earth, from Genesis 1:3 onward. Probably Noah's flood in Genesis chapters 6-8, marks the end of the second age. The resurrection of Yahshua marks the end of the third age. No greater dividing point can be found in all of history.
The Bible also speaks of something longer than just an age. In several places, such as Revelation 1:18, Hebrews 13:21, and II Timothy 4:18, it speaks of the ages of the ages.... Hebrews 9:26 speaks of the end of the ages.
Are you beginning to wonder whether your life will finally end at the time when we run out of aeons? Have no fear of that! I Corinthians 15:22-26 tells us that Yahshua will reign until He has conquered all enemies, and that the last enemy to be abolished is death. From that time on, for those who are saved or redeemed by Yahshua, there is no death. It no longer matters whether there may be any reason to mark off a certain period of time as an age.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 08:56:49 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM
BTW James can you give me a verse that uses kosmon. I have to admit I never even heard of that word until you used it...
Now not tell me it was a typo :laughing7:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world [kosmon] through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12
kosmon appears at least 46 times in the Bible
kosmon
G2889
n_ Acc Sg m
SYSTEM
world
"translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'
G2889 is kosmos in my lexicons. :dontknow:
The above is taken directly from the Greek Interlinear...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom5.pdf
second page, Romans 5:12
-------------------------------
"46 occurrences" http://concordance.biblos.com/kosmon.htm
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 06:40:00 AM
I think it's great! Translation, translation, translation!
So many words have been translated as world. For instance, I don't believe 'creation' is necessarily an accurate equivalent to 'world'.
I like your work here.
So if accurate, this one would read like this;
For by one man sin entered into the system...Rom. 5:12
To me, it sheds a more understandable and reconcilable light. So the question can be, what system, which system? There easily could have been more than one system, just as there are more than one aion.
Example; "Who gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world,
according to the will of God and our Father"
Check out where they got 'world'!!!
aiwnos
aiOnos
G165
n_ Gen Sg m
eon
then they turned it into world... :eyebrow:
That's exactly why I wrote a few posts back I believe translators should translate.
World certainly fits in that verse.
But because aion is structurally translated as something that fits in that verse all ages are removed from the Bible.
By doing so Gods plan of the ages is 'editted out'.
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 09:01:00 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 08:56:49 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 01:44:09 AM
BTW James can you give me a verse that uses kosmon. I have to admit I never even heard of that word until you used it...
Now not tell me it was a typo :laughing7:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world [kosmon] through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12
kosmon appears at least 46 times in the Bible
kosmon
G2889
n_ Acc Sg m
SYSTEM
world
"translated first as 'SYSTEM' - then it's turned into/translated 'world'
G2889 is kosmos in my lexicons. :dontknow:
The above is taken directly from the Greek Interlinear...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom5.pdf
second page, Romans 5:12
-------------------------------
"46 occurrences" http://concordance.biblos.com/kosmon.htm
That's weird. I rechecked and it's really kosmos in the software I have. Same for several online Bibles. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=5&v=12&t=KJV#conc/12
So he has deduced 6 ages--that makes a lot of sense--and then 'eternity'--timelessness--God's 7th day rest.
Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
And, he deduces from the gap theory at least one age before Adam. That takes care of all problems with science in one fell swoop. Where's Shawn?
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 09:17:14 AM
So he has deduced 6 ages--that makes a lot of sense--and then 'eternity'--timelessness--God's 7th day rest.
Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
And, he deduces from the gap theory at least one age before Adam. That takes care of all problems with science in one fell swoop. Where's Shawn?
Yes it does make sense. Like I said, it was helpful info for me.
Molly, check out the link I gave Tony. Look at verse 13 where it's talking about the Law issues you'd mentioned. It also has "system" prior to changing it to the popular 'world'. Pretty interesting.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom5.pdf
Quote from: jabcat on September 10, 2010, 09:24:29 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 09:17:14 AM
So he has deduced 6 ages--that makes a lot of sense--and then 'eternity'--timelessness--God's 7th day rest.
Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
And, he deduces from the gap theory at least one age before Adam. That takes care of all problems with science in one fell swoop. Where's Shawn?
Yes it does make sense. Like I said, it was helpful info for me.
Molly, check out the link I gave Tony. Look at verse 13 where it's talking about the Law issues you'd mentioned. It also has "system" prior to changing it to the popular 'world'. Pretty interesting.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom5.pdf
Yes. System seems to be the preferred translation for kosmos there.
until for law sin was in system sin yet not is being imputed no of-being law
Until the law came, sin was in the system but not yet taken into account because there was no law.
That sounds like a totally evil system to me. [which would explain how you ended up with tohu and bohu--emptiness and desolation] In fact, it is describing anarchy. :mshock:
2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.[mystery of]
"iniquity"G458
ανομία
anomiaan-om-ee'-ah
From G459;
illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness: - iniquity, X transgress (-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.
G459
ανομος
anomosan'-om-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3551; lawless, that is, (negatively) not subject to (the Jewish) law; (by implication a Gentile), or (positively) wicked: -
without law, lawless, transgressor, unlawful, wicked.
So the question is--how to have the law and live? [since law makes you accountable for sin and the wages of sin is death]
Ans: Jesus.
Quote from: ArticleIn the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 says that the earth became chaotic and empty, obviously as a result of some great cataclysm, Jeremiah 4:23-27 was a vision of this. In these verses Jeremiah said, "I beheld the earth, and lo! It was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo! They trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo! The fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down in the presence of Yahweh, and by His fierce anger. For thus hath Yahweh said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end".
Is that the meteor impact that wiped out the dino's?
I think the article is missing at least one age.
Quote=ArticleAre you beginning to wonder whether your life will finally end at the time when we run out of aeons? Have no fear of that! I Corinthians 15:22-26 tells us that Yahshua will reign until He has conquered all enemies, and that the last enemy to be abolished is death. From that time on, for those who are saved or redeemed by Yahshua, there is no death. It no longer matters whether there may be any reason to mark off a certain period of time as an age.
After the 1000 year reign satan will be losed for a little while.
(Revelation 20:3) and cast him into the abyss, and fastened and sealed [it] over him,––that he might not deceive the nations any more, until the thousand years, should be ended: after these, must he be loosed for a short time.
Good points Tony. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another/different age. I thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection. Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.
And Molly, you just keep taking it deeper and deeper. :angelharp:
willieH: Hi Lefein... :cloud9:
As promised here is my answer to this post. :thumbsup:
My answers are in
blue...
Quote from: Lefein on September 10, 2010, 12:10:28 AM
{Moderator Edit}
QuoteQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Bible only does three things regarding the Genesis account of Creation:
1: State as fact - In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and void, and the Godhead was present over the waters, which where yet to be ordered into atmosphere - liquid ocean.
Sorry, but the "godhead" is not mentioned in Genesis 1... The word Elohim is used in Gen 1 -- Elohim, though a plural form, does not imply PLURALITY in being. No more than the word "YOU" as I address YOU... means that YOU are more than 1 being. You wear plural hats (son, grandson, husband, brother, friend, uncle, etc) but YOU remain ONE being.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM...Now you're just being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.
I am doing no such thing. I commented from my viewpoint... that it appears contrary to yours should be no surprise to you. :dontknow:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThere is only one God! And God does not change! Behold the following verses:
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
This is stating that YHVH God (the only God that IS God) dwelt in the MAN --
JESUS CHRIST --
1 Tim 2:6 ...completely.Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMJohn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The WORD is YHVH manifest in external terms.Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMJohn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Ones "WORD" is always with one... Is your "word" with you, Lefein? Is "your word", a different person than Lefein? Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMJohn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
No argument.Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Godhead was indeed present! At the beginning; at Genesis.
I was pointing to the referential term "Godhead" which is absent from the TEXT you referred TO... not the FULLNESS of YHVH... For YHVH (in His fullness) is always an UNCHANGING entity.
Also FYI --- the term "GODHEAD" strictly means DIVINITY... it does not imply a plurality nor a "committee" called God which is "comprised of 3 beings".Quote from: willieHQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe Earth in essence, was Crust and some form of chaotic vapourous covering, over which God was present having made it that way - preparing to order it.
Quote from: willieHThis is an ASSUMPTION... the WORD does not mention that either the "WATERS" or the Earth mentioned in Gen 1:1 -- were physical in nature. They were EMERGING from a SPIRIT... so in that process, their "beginning" was more likely SPIRITUAL, than PHYSICAL (though I, as you, cannot PROVE this to be so).
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMNot everything in the Bible has to be "spiritualised" for goodness sakes, wine can be wine, and water can be water. Context!
FIRST --- Please do not argue the THEOLOGICAL and NON-BIBLICAL requirement of "context" with me, you shall find further disappointment. I believe that the WORD of God IS a complete CONTEXT... and cannot be confined in any way by mans demand of "context".
SECOND --- The entire WORD of God is the WORD of His SPIRIT, so please refrain from necessitating your CARNAL applications to it...
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMJust because the acts of God carry a deep spiritual meaning, does not negate the fact that there is a physical aspect to his doings too!
No one is arguing this, except you. I noted (if you even bothered to read) that the PHYSICAL creation, emerged from the SPIRITUAL.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMHis miracles are not vapourous philosophy! They are acts of power! Made manifest in our physical realm, as well as the spiritual reality amidst it.
You wander aimlessly with this comment...
The Physical is a reflection of SPIRITUAL knowledge and TRUTH... The knowledge of GOOD and EVIL are projections in PHYSICAL terms of ETERNAL SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE. For goodness sake, it ain't that hard, brother Lefein.
Quote from: willieHWhen CHRIST speaks of the "drinking of the WATER of life"... neither the "water" nor the "drinking" of it, ...can be considered a PHYSICAL act, even though it's "doing" quenches the "thirst" (which isn't PHYSICAL either) of the SPIRIT within...
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThe context alludes to it being spiritual in this case. In the case of Genesis: It alludes to a physical act primarily - "Let light be!" does not mean only (providing that a spiritual meaning is there indeed, which I am sure there is) that some vapourous philosophical illumination came to be, it means quite literally "Light be!"
That you make such a statement which is devoid of Spiritual insight is kinda, well, ...sad. :sigh:
Placing your need for parameters in the Physical as PRIMARY... and then stating: "providing that a spiritual meaning is there indeed, which I am sure there is"...
Your "spiritual" uncertainty is showing, brother.
That GOD (in the beginning) is making a place in which He shall walk for a time with Adam & Eve, is in your mind primarily PHYSICAL and, ...the MAJESTIC emergence of the Creation as having SPIRITUAL meaning, at best, ...an "afterthought"... is pretty much why you and I do not get along, bro Lefein.
Quote from: willieHThe "deep" mentioned in this verse aludes to ABYSS... an ABYSS can be SPIRITUAL in nature as well as PHYSICAL. :dontknow:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMWhy not both...?
Why both? You would make man AND the Creation, primarily CARNAL, instead of a SPIRITUAL thing!! ...which is evidence of your present mindset.
Quote from: willieH"Tartaroo" as used by Peter [2 Pet 2:4] in its only appearance in the WORD, alludes to the deepest ABYSS of hades... Does that mean to you that they "dug to China" to bury those in "tartaroo", Lefein? :dontknow:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMFollow the context...
You did not quote the "context" you paraphrased it and added these comments to it:
QuoteQuote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM2: God brought order, and stability to the Earth, and its Waters, putting Life on it in the span of six periods of time; literal 24 hour day - or literally symbolic day measuring eons; as God said himself - A day to God is as a thousand years, which is "literally symbolic" language meaning a very, very long time to us, is a short time to God.
Wow! Could you use your own counsel, and simplify this a bit, Lefein? :laughing7:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMGet thee behind me Satan. Your laughter rooted from a wounded pride is not welcome, and neither is your abrasiveness.
Wounded pride? Please!
Right back atcha "satan"... You have no sense of humor, Lefein satan!
Lose the stiff neck and get over yourself.
I was referring to your rant about complexity, and your subsequent cryptic wordings which display hypocrisy.
Quote from: willieH"Literally symbolic"? Is that like, Long Shortness? or Empty Fullness? or Heavily Light? :laugh:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMTwice behind, your laughter is not welcome.
Again, try getting off your pedestal, and let us speak to one another, with our feet on the ground... Laughter is the JOY of the soul... you would do well to learn of it.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMLiterally Symbolic is a term that God himself gave to me! If you must know...
It means quite simply that God uses symbolic language to describe literal events, it is a phrase he gave me to indeed simplify, to name that concept.
Then why were your words in the form of GARBLE?
"Literal" and "Symbolic" are antonym to the other... For EXAMPLE:
In Mark 9:43-49 -- CHRIST instructs that one must "CUT OFF" and offending hand or foot... This is figurative or symbolic instruction for one to NOT put ones hand to SINFUL acts... or to enact the FEET to transport one to such an act...
If one takes this passage of Scripture LITERALLY... then one actually removes ones LITERAL HAND from ones LITERAL arm, or ones LITERAL foot from ones LITERAL leg...
Have YOU taken this SYMBOLIC passage, "LITERALLY" Lefein? Are you "one [or no] handed"? or "one [or no] footed" brother Lefein? :dunno:
:Yeahright: ...That's what I thought! :nod:
Everyone that believes in God and CHRIST takes this passage SYMBOLICALLY, ...and well they should, for it is SIN to maim and destroy the temple of GOD which TEMPLE ye ARE! -- 1 Cor 3:17
Quote from: willieHThe WORD says that a day (to God) is ...AS... a thousand years... it does NOT SAY, that it IS a thousand years.
It only describes that TIME resembles and assumes a meaningless position to our INFINITE God, than does TIME's position appear to us ...finites.
Actually, the language more implies [IMObservation]... that TIME is totally irrelevant to God. Not that a "day" is shorter for Him than for us.
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PMThen it only bolsters the fact that the six days could be however long God wanted them to be! It could be whole epochs and life ages of the universe in a single second of that "24-hour day" if God so desired it, showing the literal-literal view of YEC's measurement of Genesis's Yom's to be even less important, or absolute than they make it out to be.
Lefein... GOD surely can do whatever He desires, no one is arguing against this.
But you just JUMPED from what IS STATED in the Creation account... to SPECULATIONS of "this could be, that could be".... which has no foundation nor notation in the WORD as has been given us.
"If's, coulda's, woulda's & shoulda's" are nothing but VAIN IMAGINATIONS of men.
I believe that the observation of the ancient, such as DINOSAURS, actually took place within the 6K period of time, ...and it is very explanable, but most (including you) will not listen to the explanation. You are too busy being "theological" to sit still a moment and hear...
Time is a very DEEP and subjective thing which MOST have not bothered to investigate it at all...
Have you investigated it, Lefein? How much EXPERIENCE have you had with it Lefein? Are you aged? If not, then you already know little of it.
God more than just teaches of Himself in the WORD... LIFE is one of the things that JESUS CHRIST... IS -- John 14:6 -- and in the experience of LIFE which takes place in the manifestation of TIME, are things learned of Him, and REVELATION of mysteries such as TIME, that reveal Him as well as His WORD -- Prov 25:2 -- Rom 1:20 -- LIFE and nature teach of Him as well... how large a portion of THESE, have YOU supped upon, Lefein?
Well ...I have investigated TIME, and there is MUCH to say of it, that I'm bettin' you know NOTHING about...
5 seconds of TIME, is a SHORT period which is considered as nothing ...and passes almost unnoticed, and IMMEDIATELY in such as a 100 yard race or a football game, or in the watching of a movie, etc... but just try spending that same 5 second period of TIME with your hand on stove burner on high, and behold, HOW LONG 5 seconds can BE! A day passes almost before you even realize as you go to work, and sit at your computer, but try spending a DAY in the ICU after surgery... and find the true length a DAY can be...
That is only the surface, ...in this thread our scientist friend Shawn made a statement that is quite useful in explaining time's mysteries such as the DINOSAURS, I asked him, but he didn't seem to realize what he said, do you?
Quote from: willieHTo VAINLY attempt to tie GOD to ANY parameter, is to try to CONFINE Him. So any "duration" of a DAY that YOU or I might consider concerning Him, is nothing more than our attempt to CONFINE Him to some aspect of our own limitations. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Lefein on September 09, 2010, 04:06:11 PM...This is becoming silly, and becoming silly fast.
Of course we can't limit the infinite God into a finite box, but that isn't what we're discussing here! >_<
{MODERATOR EDIT}
Not sure what you actually wrote here, but I'm guessing it wasn't all that nice.
I stand by the above quote of mine you just quoted above. We cannot tie God down to anything. He "could have" just revealed to us all the knowledge of Good and Evil... Hey -- He is GOD, and is capable of ANYTHING... but HE DIDN'T did He?
Instead of your "coulda, woulda, shoulda's" ...He DIVINELY and PERFECTLY chose to make it a LIVING thing... utilizing LIVING beings to REVEAL it, ...beginning with the immersion of us all amidst it, by CONCLUDING us all IN UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- which sets each of us without our consent, into the "pool" of SIN... UNBELIEF being a prime qualification for the Lake of FIRE -- Rev 21:8 -- Do you even know WHAT the Lake of FIRE is, Lefein, or even WHEN it is? :dontknow:
Or do you just pull out your LITERAL tool and promptly digest the "discovery channel/christian religion" version of it... being that -- "its at the end of TIME"? Not even realizing what TIME actually IS... and that its FUNCTION is PERFECTLY ordered according to the DIVINITY of YHVH and HIS WORKINGS, not yours, not mine.
ALL that you experience is DIVINELY ordained Lefein... and each moment of your experience is a part of the PERFECT and COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, as known in COMPLETE DETAIL in the Heart of YHVH God... Which shall be TOTALLY revealed when ALL is said and done -- Luke 8:17
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: JabI thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection. Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.
Yes, transition.
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.It disappeared at ad 70.
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 10, 2010, 07:25:08 AMMolly "In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light."
I never liked the way people give satan (the adversary) so much power just by their speak.
The adversary is ALLOWED to rule...
But that doesn't lessen his power. Satan is even called a god.
(2 Corinthians 4:4) In whom, the god of this age, hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to the end they may not discern the radiance of the glad–message of the glory of the Christ––who is the image of God.
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: JabI thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection. Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.
Yes, transition.
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
It disappeared at ad 70.
The old temple, made with hands, was destroyed; the Levitical priesthood disappeared. They were "shadows" of good things to come. Christ is our high priest in heaven, Hebrews 8:1; the saints are the true temple, Ephesians 2:19-22; and the "circumcision," Paul said in Philippians 3:3.
In the new covenant, which is made with Israel, God promises that he will write his laws on our hearts and in our minds.
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:The "house of Israel" refers to the church, not the circumcision made with hands.
Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:Paul said Christ is "a minister of the circumcision," but he means the circumcision "made without hands." [Colossians 2:11]
Doug
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 12:36:47 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 10, 2010, 07:25:08 AMMolly "In this aion, Satan rules the darkness, but we are children of the light."
I never liked the way people give satan (the adversary) so much power just by their speak.
The adversary is ALLOWED to rule...
But that doesn't lessen his power. Satan is even called a god.
(2 Corinthians 4:4) In whom, the god of this age, hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, to the end they may not discern the radiance of the glad–message of the glory of the Christ––who is the image of God.
Yes that is true, but we are also called gods
Psa 82:6 I--I have said, `Gods ye are , And sons of the Most High--all of you,
I still contend that it is mans speak that allows the advesary power in this age.
For me there is a difference. Just feeling:
"Man are gods" --> Here gods is a type/species
"Satan is god of this age" --> Here god is about authority
:2c:
Quote from: MicahI still contend that it is mans speak that allows the advesary power in this age.
Interesting, Micah, if you could keep elaborating on that...
Quote from: Doug on September 10, 2010, 01:52:43 PM
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: JabI thought about when the temple was destroyed, for instance...I've thought of that as being the beginning of a new age, although it very well could have been a culmination of the transition that really started with either the crucifixion or the resurrection. Not sure...maybe that whole time period of 40+ years was the transition...it was all very cataclysmic, that's for sure.
Yes, transition.
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
It disappeared at ad 70.
The old temple, made with hands, was destroyed; the Levitical priesthood disappeared. They were "shadows" of good things to come. Christ is our high priest in heaven, Hebrews 8:1; the saints are the true temple, Ephesians 2:19-22; and the "circumcision," Paul said in Philippians 3:3.
In the new covenant, which is made with Israel, God promises that he will write his laws on our hearts and in our minds.
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
The "house of Israel" refers to the church, not the circumcision made with hands.
Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Paul said Christ is "a minister of the circumcision," but he means the circumcision "made without hands." [Colossians 2:11]
Doug
:thumbsup:
This idea of ages and one age preparing for and leading into the next changes how everythink looks.
Everything starts to make sense, and God's plan for salvation is so much bigger than most could grasp without the understanding of it.
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Death reigned--Death is the king of this kosmos [system] and many choose to worship him--
"reigned"
G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.
G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.
This kosmos--system--has death as its foundation of power.
G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.
And those that walk in it [this kosmos--this system] are walking in death--dead men walking.
Isaiah 59:7
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
OK I'll make it about science--They split the atom which could provide free energy to the whole world but what do they do with it? Incinerate two cities in ten seconds.
Science itself is part of this system, and scientists its high priests, therefore everything coming out of science is twisted and distorted towards perpetrating the system and serving death. It is not science in the pure sense that is incompatible with religion, it is science within a distorted system ruled by death which makes itself so.
5Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.
6Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.
7How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
--Isa 57
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 04:52:17 AM
Quote from: ShawnThe oldest human bones found are 195,000 years old.
What do you mean by 'human'?
We've been down this road before on these boards, Shawn. We've talked about gap theory, hidden archeology, suppressed science, all sorts of things related to this subject.
I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.
If homo sapiens sapiens has been around for 195,000 years, where are the great civilizations? where are the mozarts, the newtons, the shakespeares?
The best we can do in all that time is a few cave drawings and a couple of pyramids?
Why are we still moving around in glorified model-T's?
Really, the birthplace of modern civilization was Mesopotamia around and about the time that Adam would have lived.
So why hundreds of thousands of years of....silence?
Good question. Now we can take a stubborn stance and say science has nothing to offer those of faith. Or, we can actually look at the evidence, which I believe are clue given to us by God (not man). We know there were humans of a more primative form for hundreds of thousands of years. 200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth. But, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc. It was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities. All the while, humans were dying. Animals were dying around them, before them and after them in the fossil record. Hard to blend that with current interpretation by many with original sin. But, it's not because I believe Genesis is a nonliteral accounting for real spiritual truths.
I believe Adam was the first convenant man. Eve was the first covenant woman. If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case. I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal.
(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,––I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.
If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
QuoteIf Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.
Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)
Quote from: ShawnI believe Adam was the first convenant man. Eve was the first covenant woman. If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case. I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal.
I could agree with that. I think its a good place to start. But, maybe there was another previous covenant man. If there is a war going on in heaven that spans ages, wouldn't that be possible? What if we are just being shown a part of the picture, the one most relevant to us?
"In the beginning" [Gen 1:1] means 'firstfruits.'
H7225
ראשׁית
rê'shıyth
ray-sheeth'
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (
specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est),
first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
"The 'ĕlôhıym of the firstfruits created heaven and earth." [Gen 1:1, mollybible]
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Quote200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth.
Are you sure about that? Would you bet the farm on it?
QuoteBut, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc.
Why would that be? Any reasonable scientific explanation for it?
QuoteIt was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities.
Like what?
Quote from: wwIf there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
Adam needed a set apart woman like himself, plus Eve was effectively his clone.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. --Gen 2
The Barringer crater or what they call the Arizona crater.
It's about a mile in diameter, it's a pretty good size hole and it's a recent one. They think this one hit 49,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the power of a hundred and fifty atomic booms. That is how much power is in that.
'You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood.' (L.Ray Smith)
L.Ray Smith has a great amount of info on the subject you all are into should you want to look into it.
Quote from: thinktank on September 10, 2010, 10:38:05 PM
!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow.
Darwian evolution is extremely slow.(and false) Ever wondered what is means if the so called missing links are never found?
James I think this part of the thread needs to be merged with the science thread. :2c:
You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood. (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=9502.0)
Two things I agree with.
Quote from: thinktank on September 10, 2010, 10:38:05 PM
Again, this is man trying to reason out God's thinking.
I'm using scriptures to support my hypothesis, but yet you turn to the science gods and call it Gods thinking?
There is purpose even unto death.
Yes in todays covenant, for God reveals his love through death. But where is the love of God when God decided to create a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death?
In order for you to believe what you believe then you must ignore scientific findings. If you are comfortable with that then so be it.
I only ignore some scientific findings that change just about every year, swaying back and forth with no stability, how can I put my faith in scientific findings that waiver back and forth as the sea.
With that said, I truly believe the study of God's handiwork is significant in a fuller understanding of scripture. We are now able to be blown away by the breath taking complexity of a living cell, DNA etc. I see the hand of our loving Father all over it. In my sense of awe I find worship. For me, science has brought me closer to my maker
Me to, but not the theory of evolution over millions of years, shows that God subjected creation through millions of years of suffering? without hope? where is the prophecy that indicates that Adam will be created to put an end to death? The scriptures declare that it is the second Adam , the lord from heaven that puts an end to death, not the first Adam, for death was not at that time in force.
When a potter places a lump of clay on the potters wheel, it looks nothing like the vase he is creating. As he moves his hands along the surface it slowly takes shape and begins to look like a vase. It's not functional, it's not a complete vase but it's moving along. Then at the end, the clay has taken shape and looks and functions like a vase. It's now a vase. It can be used. It's the potter's handiwork...maybe even his masterpiece. In the same way, man was formed slowly through time on the potters wheel. Early man, was not in God's image. He wasn't complete...slowly taking shape overtime. If Adam was indeed a real man (which I am not sure he was) then he was the first man God considered complete....covenant man....in God's image
So at what point did man evolve enough to become worthy enough to be called Adam in his image.
!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow. So at what point did man change enough to be called Adam made in his image.
My point is that evolution is an unstable theory that cannot be reconcilled to the scriptures according to our current understanding. Perhaps our understanding of the scriptures is incorrect, but the same can be applied to the theory of evolution.
Let the truth of the creator of heaven and earth be shed upon this topic in his name.
First, don't debate me like you are debating Willie or this will end here. Second, I don't turn to "science gods" nor is the study of God's creation the "devils work". If you believe it is we have no room to debate. You turn to your own idea of scripture...you turn to your interpretations. While everyone wants to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit into correctly looking at each scripture...I'm not sure how that could be so considering there are so many interpretations.
Your secong point...is you again judging God. Whether God considered creation perfect with death or without death is not really the point. The fact is our all knowing God created the world before us. This world contains death, pain, despair, etc. This is part of God's plan. Therefore you judge God with comments like, "But where is the love of God when God decided to create a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death"? If the world before you is used for God's purpose and he is still holy, good and loving...why would that change before creation of man? Is God not sovereign?
Your third point...no you ignore the VAST bodies of scientific evidence to believe in a 6000 year old earth. YEC scientists are practicing pseudo science with points that are easily crushed by anyone with basic science knowledge. I can't see how any educated person who has any sort of background in the sciences could believe in such nonsense. It's groups like this that make Christians look like uneducated maroons.
Your fourth point about it being painful slow cracks me up a bit. Painfully slow to who? God? Thats kind of funny. Do you believe God is bound by time?
And let me be clear I am not a Neo-Darwinist. But, there are some evolutionary principles that have been demonstrated. I do not believe man started out as an amoeba. I believe man started out as man...just a primitive form of man.
.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 06:45:33 PM
(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,––I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.
If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
QuoteIf Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.
Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)
One of inferior intellect? And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.
Quote from: Molly on September 10, 2010, 07:27:21 PM
Quote from: ShawnI believe Adam was the first convenant man. Eve was the first covenant woman. If Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case. I do not believe the first convenant man was a neanderthal.
I could agree with that. I think its a good place to start. But, maybe there was another previous covenant man. If there is a war going on in heaven that spans ages, wouldn't that be possible? What if we are just being shown a part of the picture, the one most relevant to us?
"In the beginning" [Gen 1:1] means 'firstfruits.'
H7225
ראשׁית
rê'shıyth
ray-sheeth'
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
"The 'ĕlôhıym of the firstfruits created heaven and earth." [Gen 1:1, mollybible]
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Quote200,000 years ago anatomically homo sapiens sapiens first appear on earth.
Are you sure about that? Would you bet the farm on it?
QuoteBut, these humans were not noted to have had full congnitive capabilities, social structure etc.
Why would that be? Any reasonable scientific explanation for it?
QuoteIt was first evident 50,000 years ago that they had "modern" cognitive capabilities.
Like what?
Quote from: wwIf there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
Adam needed a set apart woman like himself, plus Eve was effectively his clone.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
--Gen 2
Would I bet the farm on it? Depends on how exact you are talking. But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.
They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings. I'm not sure what you want from your other question. But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller? I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 06:45:33 PM
(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,––I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.
If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
QuoteIf Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.
Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)
One of inferior intellect? And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.
I'm not stating what you do (not) believe. I just state when we read Adam it's often mankind. Like in God created man and woman --> many of each.
I know nothing about their intellect. But as I wrote before if Tubal-Cain invented bronze (bronze age) I think (not dogmaticly state) Adam and Eve where at stone age level.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 11, 2010, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 06:45:33 PM
(Genesis 2:18) And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,––I will make for him a helper, as his counterpart.
If there were primitive humans before Adam then why a woman should be created. She would already exit.
QuoteIf Adam and Eve were truly individuals rather than representations of the rebelliousness of man then this must be the case.
Half of all the verses that translate Adam should be mankind. (read the summary I posted a few posts back.)
One of inferior intellect? And again, I'm not sold on the Adam and Eve story being a literal accounting of the creation of man and woman.
I'm not stating what you do (not) believe. I just state when we read Adam it's often mankind. Like in God created man and woman --> many of each.
I know nothing about their intellect. But as I wrote before if Tubal-Cain invented bronze (bronze age) I think (not dogmaticly state) Adam and Eve where at stone age level.
Ok cool I can agree with that. But, that means I don't understand your original question. God created covenant mankind (men and women) in his image. Would God's image lie with someone not of God's image?
The Bible never talks about how plants, and lower animals came about. A myriad of things could be used there, from evolution, to kinds-adaptation.
But it says Man was made from the dust of the ground, Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens are not all that different if I recall correctly...recent things I've seen showed inter breeding was actually possible - and that we may indeed have their genetic structure in us today.
Only two "species" of Human have ever been found in the fossil record in any form of completeness (as far as I know): Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon.
Neanderthal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy
Cro-Magnon: Also known as the first "Modern Humans" Homo Sapiens.
It may be possible that these two indeed are not separate species, and not primitive at all really...Not biologically atleast, no more than the African tribesman is a primitive life form to the Japanese engineer.
But I guess what I am trying to get to, is that while animals are not specifically talked about in terms of how they where made, and variations amongst them enough to show evolution (theistic) - I don't believe it is the way evolution puts it...
Primitive/simple > complex. Ancient life looks far more complex, and in many ways far more beautiful, and interesting compared to our animals...
Like Elephants:
http://phsgirard.org/Biology/Evolution/ElephantEvolution.jpg
They're rather neat looking...but none of them I'd call "simple->complex" just artistically different.
Man I think would inevitably be the same. Complex from the beginning, but I need to do more study into man's "Emergence" specifically.
I'm looking into the ISA2 for insight right now. But I'll only say this - focus on what the ISA2 texts say concerning the soil - Dust, I believe/feel it will prove useful. I unfortunately don't have the energy to transcribe it here...if someone can do that for me, I'd be thankful.
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
Would I bet the farm on it? Depends on how exact you are talking. But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.
They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings. I'm not sure what you want from your other question. But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller? I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.
I think Adam was not that old. The first homids were just collectors.
(Genesis 2:8) And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east,––and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,––to till the ground wherefrom he had been taken.
Adam and Eve worked in the garden. They tilled the ground that's farming.
Farming started 10,000-8,500 BC (http://www.blurtit.com/q137840.html)
So my strong guess is that's their birth date.
(http://www.yourchildlearns.com/online-atlas/images/map-of-iraq.gif)
The article states farming started in Syria. It's believed Eden was in Iraq. See the rivers in on the above map. Not the exact location but still nice it happend near the promised land.
First, don't debate me like you are debating Willie or this will end here.
I don't understand? is it because I use the terms science gods and bring it to your face? do you prefer it if I were more subtle and said you prefer to follow what scientists say than what the word says? If so then I will try to be more subtle with you, but please bare with me.
Second, I don't turn to "science gods" nor is the study of God's creation the "devils work". If you believe it is we have no room to debate.
Science is not devils work, I don't agree with that type of religious thinking and I am opposed to it, for it breeds ignorance and hatred of the truth. But the scriptures when read correctly should bring great spiritual truths to even the most foolish of persons, given that they seek God with a true heart and welcome the truth, otherwise they are just modern day pharisses, knowing the scriptures but not knowing the lord of the scriptures.
You turn to your own idea of scripture...you turn to your interpretations. While everyone wants to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit into correctly looking at each scripture...I'm not sure how that could be so considering there are so many interpretations.
When it comes to the creation of the world there are not many interpretations. I can see how the gap theory might fit in, but evolution? I don't see any interpretation of the bible supporting evolution.
Your secong point...is you again judging God. Whether God considered creation perfect with death or without death is not really the point. The fact is our all knowing God created the world before us. This world contains death, pain, despair, etc. This is part of God's plan. Therefore you judge God with comments like, "But where is the love of God when God decided to create a sub human species and subject that species to suffering, pain and death"? If the world before you is used for God's purpose and he is still holy, good and loving...why would that change before creation of man? Is God not sovereign?
This is a general question I ask to put things in perspective. The scriptures declare that death came by Adam's transgression, by saying that death existed prior to this is adding to the scriptures, something that the scriptures says not to do. There are many things in life not contained in the scriptures, but is God the author of confusion? Why didn't God say there was death before Adam?
Your third point...no you ignore the VAST bodies of scientific evidence to believe in a 6000 year old earth. YEC scientists are practicing pseudo science with points that are easily crushed by anyone with basic science knowledge. I can't see how any educated person who has any sort of background in the sciences could believe in such nonsense. It's groups like this that make Christians look like uneducated maroons.
I have heard this saying before from evolutionists, that any fool with basic science can crush a YEC scholar. This is nothing more than vain babblings and boastings, one evolutionists saying leading another, the blind leading the blind. I have seen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the best arguments that the evolutionist comes up with is, there's lot's of evidence for our beliefs, the majority of our scientist believe it and typical vague answers, meanwhile the creationist speaks science, none of which is refuted.
Your fourth point about it being painful slow cracks me up a bit. Painfully slow to who? God? Thats kind of funny. Do you believe God is bound by time?
No I mean to mankind. Think, 6000 years to mankind is a painfully long time how much more is 6 million! years? That mankind has to suffer death and destruction for 6 million years, that's a painfully long time. How does this fit into scripture that man's appointed once to die then the judgment?
What kind of dumb human were those millions of years ago, we have learned more in the last 100 years than what they have in 6 million years.
And let me be clear I am not a Neo-Darwinist. But, there are some evolutionary principles that have been demonstrated. I do not believe man started out as an amoeba. I believe man started out as man...just a primitive form of man.
I think that maybe because your a doctor you tend to hang around academically educated minds a great deal and I perceive that the ignorance of those around you has bound your thinking to stop you from even considering that YEC is true. You refuse to even aknowledge the credibility of YEC, because of the lies that you hang around. Whether YEC is true or not is not the point. How can you see the truth of this matter if the lies of the scholars around you create a stronghold in your mind, that does not allow you even the opportunity to hear what YEC scientist's have got to say for themselves. As a Christian I encourage you to pray to the messiah and ask him for truth concering this matter, as whether studying YEC science is worth your time and to bring down those strongholds that bound your mind and spirit. For the lord came to set us free.
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 12:33:45 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 10, 2010, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 10, 2010, 10:38:05 PM
!000 years, a million years? but evolution occurs over millions of years, so that means change is painfully slow.
Darwian evolution is extremely slow.(and false) Ever wondered what is means if the so called missing links are never found?
James I think this part of the thread needs to be merged with the science thread. :2c:
Actually, it's kind of hard for me to tell where to cut in. 80-90% of this thread could be tied into the science one, but I'll watch it and see if there are any definite trends/separating points I can see...Thanks.
Can't you move per post? Or split, move, and merg again
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 11, 2010, 12:41:11 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
Would I bet the farm on it? Depends on how exact you are talking. But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.
They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings. I'm not sure what you want from your other question. But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller? I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.
I think Adam was not that old. The first homids were just collectors.
(Genesis 2:8) And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east,––and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,––to till the ground wherefrom he had been taken.
Adam and Eve worked in the garden. They tilled the ground that's farming.
Farming started 10,000-8,500 BC (http://www.blurtit.com/q137840.html)
So my strong guess is that's their birth date.
I agree Tony. I also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural. I personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God
created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (
I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)
How many types of prior creation, I don't know. Maybe only one, which came to the cataclysmic end ("
became without form and void"), but then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve. I'm still not saying none of Genesis is symbolic or allegorical, or that we can narrow time down to the absolute day. However, I'm personally going to lean to the scriptures, with the idea there may be many things in there we don't as yet know or understand. When reading some things though, including your excellent link to bibletruths.com, I'm reminded of God using the simple things, and laughing at and confounding those of this world who think themselves to be wise. So I have caution, and encourage
much caution about swallowing just
anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they
may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith. :2c:
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 01:09:07 AMI agree Tony.
My :HeartThrob: leaps with joy :laughing7:
QuoteI also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural.
OED does not by definition mean a belief in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists. That's a fact. Just look at the many breeds of dogs. Let them mix and they become (almost) one breed again.
QuoteI personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)
I've not decided on the gap theory. I wonder if that desolate and void refers to the comet impact (some say a chunk of wormwood) that wiped out the dinos. The dustcloud would cause a nuclear winter and the sunlight will be blocked out.
Quotebut then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve.
Darwin teaches gradual change. That would mean zillion of (deformed) intermediate lifeforms.
Number found: 0
Evidence points more to sudden appearance of complete lifeforms.
QuoteSo I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith. :2c:
I would say study. But imo science agrees with the Biblical timeline of the last 10000 years. I think also the time before that; but that harder to see because it about translation of words and gaps.
YECs are partly right imo. Earth
starting from Adam is 6,000-10,000 years old. Or civilasations started at that point. But the opion on civilisation varies a bit. Some say it starts with argiculture. Other say art. Yet others with writing.
Shawn let's try to find a common language here so we know what we are talking about. Do you really think these people are 'scientists'? They are guessing, making stuff up, making arbitrary claims, building on that more arbitrary claims. They have no idea if these bones they are finding have any relationship at all to the man at the mall. This is worse than religion because they are pretending to be something they are not. They are just telling pretty stories to get their grant money, may their names be forgotten by posterity.
I'm still looking for the 50000 bc version of Shakespeare.
Overview of homo sapiens from wikipedia
Human evolution, or anthropogenesis, is the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominids, great apes and placental mammals. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]
The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
Archaic Homo sapiens
Archaic Homo sapiens is a loosely defined term used to describe a number of varieties of Homo, as opposed to anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), in the period beginning 500,000 years ago. The term is typically taken to include Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis and sometimes Homo antecessor.[1]
Modern humans are believed to have evolved from archaic Homo sapiens, who in turn evolved from Homo erectus. Varieties of archaic Homo sapiens (also "Archaics" for short[dubious – discuss]) are included under the binomial name "Homo sapiens" because their brain size is very similar to that of modern humans. Archaic Homo sapiens had a brain size averaging 1200 to 1400 cubic centimeters, which overlaps with the range of modern humans. Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent brow ridges and the lack of a prominent chin.[1][2]
Anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago gradually marginalize the "archaic" varieties. Non-modern varieties of Homo are certain to have survived until after 30,000 years ago, and perhaps until as recent as 10,000 years ago. Which of these, if any, are included under the term "archaic Homo sapiens" is a matter of definition and varies among authors.
The category archaic Homo sapiens is disputed.[1] There is no single agreed upon definition of archaic Homo sapiens. According to one definition, Homo sapiens is a single species comprising several subspecies that include the archaics and modern humans. Under this definition, modern humans are referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens and Archaics are also designated with the prefix "Homo sapiens". For example, the Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis. Other taxonomists prefer not to consider archaics and modern humans as a single species but as several different species. In this case the standard taxonomy is used, ie Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo neanderthalensis[1].
The dividing lines that separate modern humans from archaic Homo sapiens and archaics from Homo erectus are blurry. The earliest known fossils of anatomically modern humans such as the Omo remains from 195kya, Homo sapiens idaltu from 160kya, and Qafzeh remains from 90kya are recognizably modern humans. However, these early modern humans do exhibit a mix of some archaic traits, such as moderate, but not prominent, brow ridges.
The brain size of Archaic Homo sapiens expanded significantly from 900 cubic centimeters in erectus to 1300 cubic centimeters. Since the emergence of archaics, brain size has remained stable up until the present.
Origin of language
Main article: Origin of language
Robin Dunbar has argued that Archaic Homo sapiens were the first to use language. Based on his analysis of the relationship between brain size and hominid group size, he concluded that because Archaic Homo sapiens had large brains, they must have lived in groups of over 120 individuals. Dunbar argues that it was not possible for Hominids to live in such large groups without using language, otherwise there could be no group cohesion and the group would disintegrate. By comparison, chimpanzees live in smaller groups of up to 50 individuals.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens
Tubal-Cain was born in 3313BC (http://www.abiblestudy.com/part1.html)
Bronze ages started 3300BC in the near East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age)
KJVGen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.
Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different. They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.' Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.
Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era.
About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt's Nile Valley and the Indus Valleys. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in West Asia, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
So until now I/we have
Mitochondrial Eve / start of farming = Garden of Eden=creation of man. 6000-10000 BC
Bronze age / Tubal-Cain 3300 BC
First city build 3rd millenium BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon)
Enoch was born 3779BC. Enoch means "build a city"
Any idea's for other anchor points?
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 02:06:36 AM
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.
Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different. They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.' Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.
[
:laugh: :hihat:
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 01:09:07 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 11, 2010, 12:41:11 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
Would I bet the farm on it? Depends on how exact you are talking. But, I do believe man to be 100,000-300,000 years old.
They know about the cognitive abilities of man by looking at his surrounding tools, creations, art, and belongings. I'm not sure what you want from your other question. But scientific explanation for lesser cognitive capabilities becoming fuller? I would assume brighter men and women of the species went on the outbreed the lesser intelligent.
I think Adam was not that old. The first homids were just collectors.
(Genesis 2:8) And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east,––and put there, the man whom he had formed.
(Genesis 3:23) So Yahweh God put him forth from the garden of Eden,––to till the ground wherefrom he had been taken.
Adam and Eve worked in the garden. They tilled the ground that's farming.
Farming started 10,000-8,500 BC (http://www.blurtit.com/q137840.html)
So my strong guess is that's their birth date.
I agree Tony. I also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural. I personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)
How many types of prior creation, I don't know. Maybe only one, which came to the cataclysmic end ("became without form and void"), but then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve. I'm still not saying none of Genesis is symbolic or allegorical, or that we can narrow time down to the absolute day. However, I'm personally going to lean to the scriptures, with the idea there may be many things in there we don't as yet know or understand. When reading some things though, including your excellent link to bibletruths.com, I'm reminded of God using the simple things, and laughing at and confounding those of this world who think themselves to be wise. So I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith. :2c:
There is a huge difference between swallowing every theory and looking at the actual evidence yourself and drawing a conclusion. Microevolution certainly happened. It's what has confused the whole situation. There is virtually no support for macroevolution and it's actually laughable counterpart Neo-evolution (complexity built through random mutation).
So, if you are going to look at science to help you with some of your Biblical interpretation you ought to be well trained in the sciences. Or, I will agree with you...you could get caught up in the ramblings of men. Wow...sounds alot like Biblical interpretation by the mainstream church.
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence. 6000 year old earth :grin: When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website? No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.
And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator. Isn't that what you basically called me? This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities. I didn't think I would find it here. But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc. It gets old.
So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis. Me? I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me. I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration. I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence. While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people. But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.
And yes there is other ways to look at Genesis. This thread inspired me to write up an article on original sin, the scientific evidence and what it means to traditional understanding. Yes, that kinda thing tends to scare some Christians.
And boastings...it's not boasting. Its fact. There is no evidence to support YEC ramblings. You may start a thread if you wish and we can discuss it further. I would like to see the new evidence because the old points are indeed easily debated away. They make no sense. And again Im not an evolutionist.
I got this gem recently from a yec site...
Note: I believe that the science dating of material, to see how old something is, is correct! But what science does not understand is: God can create all that he needs to produce his creation. Though what science tests may say it's billions of years old, God did not have to wait a billion years for it to form so he could use it for His creation. In other words: 6,000 years ago God created material that normally takes billions of years to form. This explains both of the evidence for an old and young earth. But the young will always be denied, because to admit to it is to admit to God.
What I see is this stretching, and twisting by yecs to get around the science. That was some serious gymnastics. I know it's scarey...science has been demonized by the church for as long as I can remember. The study of God's handiwork in the right hands is not an evil thing. It's a good thing to seek out the secrets of God.
Also this one...
OECs agree with science that the earth is old because of how far the stars are away from our planet, and how long it takes for light to travel that far. I can see were someone can be confused on this. But actually it very simple. When God created, he created the light before he created the object that produced the light.
Wow.
And this is the belief that supports that notion...
Thou shalt not make any engraved images... Replacing God's word with science puts science "before" God. Which in turn makes science better than God which also makes it replace God. And because it would make people turn away from God, science itself becomes God. Notice how science is put before God in OEC belief.
Nope I place the Bible ahead of all but I do place the evidence above the interpretations of men. If I didn't why would I be here? We question a 1500 year tradition of hellfire teaching in light of new evidence. Gasp! It's new to most people because we now have the internet...and easier access to the translations.
Here is more thinking from yecs.
Science often claims that evolution is not a religion. But evolutionists all to often welcome theistic evolution as a alternative to what they will accept as far as God is concerned.. Which actually mixes God and science, but you have to concede to their claimed fact that evolution is true, and old earth ideas. So what are evolutionists doing accepting those who will not totally commit to evolution? It is because they know that their theory will eventually make you doubt God. They know that you will come to a fork in the road about what you believe, and you have to choose which path. And because you can "see" more convincing evidence from their view of origins, they know that sight is more convincing to man than faith.
First God created the laws of science. Science is the study of God's handiwork. How can you seperate the two? I don't subscribe to unsupported scientific theory much like I don't subscribe to interpretation of scripture without support.
His last statement. No, I think more would begin to doubt God when they are taught beliefs that do not line up with the evidence. If yecs state the earth is 6000 years old, and there is clear evidence of civilizations long before...then that could cause serious doubts in the believer. I guess you can hang onto interpretations despite evidence to the contrary and try to demonize those who don't.
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.
I admit that I need to update my knowledge on scientific findings, but that will come in time I hope but there is so much out there it is impossible to research all of it, especially for the average folk out there. So when a person does not have the time to have a degree in evolution science, then he must either accept what the scholars have done at their word or he can look to the scriptures and find truth from there. If one cannot find the truth of creation from the scriptures, then why are we wasting our time with this phony book calling it Gods word, when in reality it is half of Gods word. I believe the word is the inspired word of God so why are you disgruntled at me for looking to the scriptures for the truth?
6000 year old earth grin When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website? No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.
I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.
And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator. Isn't that what you basically called me? This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities. I didn't think I would find it here. But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc. It gets old.
It does get old, but welcome to Christianity my friend :thumbsup:
In my view you are my christian brother, as long as you hold onto the saviour, if not then I hope that I will treat you well within reason, but if you mess with me, let's dance :bgdance:.
So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis. Me? I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me. I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration. I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence.
Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?
While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people.
I don't dispute that, but it is ineivatable that in your education you will spend a great deal of time with unbelivers, who operate at the academic level who care not for the things of God. Do you agree with this?
Do you honestly think that academia is filled with spirit filled people?
The whole system is geared towards filling the brain with knowledge and sometimes that knowledge leads to confusion and cuts off the heart from entering. I don't know where you were educated but what I have heard is that the system is designed to limit creativity and intution as much as possible and give precedence to filling the mind with facts, whether it is intentional or not the system is based on a greek way of learning.
But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.
Similar to people who insist the earth is flat you mean?
But the scripture can prove the earth is round. To me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 12 thousand years old it still is a young earth. But if the earth is indeed millions of years old, then I do not see that it has to have creation upon it until the creation of Adam that occured 6 to 12 thousand years ago. But where is the pattern in scripture is a day means a million years :dontknow:
And yes there is other ways to look at Genesis. This thread inspired me to write up an article on original sin, the scientific evidence and what it means to traditional understanding. Yes, that kinda thing tends to scare some Christians.
And boastings...it's not boasting. Its fact. There is no evidence to support YEC ramblings. You may start a thread if you wish and we can discuss it further. I would like to see the new evidence because the old points are indeed easily debated away. They make no sense. And again Im not an evolutionist.
I keep trying to catch up on reading everything I've missed on this thread, then I go do something else. When I get back it has surged ahead. Back around pages 6-7 I wanted to post this...
Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world (cosmos.)" The world is this outer realm our physical bodies are in, the orderly arrangement of things in it, specially the values and governments of carnal men and the effect all this has on our minds, even if we are spiritual men.
John 18:36 (Concordant Literal Translation)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence."
Now it seems a little out of place. I'll keep reading and try to get back to y'all.
James
This topic is now, Creation - Science/Faith AND Genesis, MERGED
This thread is getting confusing ==but I'm wondering, are there some things we could all agree on?
For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man, the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?
If we could agree on that, then does it really matter what games science wishes to play with what existed before this time--because whatever it was it didn't look, act, think, or behave like us?
That second point is important because anyone can say modern man existed 250,000 years ago we just can't tell. Or, here we have this skull that looks sort of like modern man but with hefty brow ridges and a higher forehead and bigger brain capacity but we are going to call it modern man. This is just game playing and doesn't belong in science.
So--Could someone please address these two points?
IF you want to claim that modern man existed earlier than Adam--could you prove it? In particular, I'd like to see his version of Shakespeare or the Bible. Then, I might accept it.
Otherwise--let's try to nail down at least this one fact--Adam was a man set apart, and none before compares to him. That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 05:58:12 AM
Adam was a man set apart, and none before compares to him. That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.
Amen from me - created by God.
I personally believe there was some sort of prior creation, but again, amen to the above - created by God. And God said...
For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man, the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?
you think Adam wore Levis? :mshock: :grin:
Quote from: thinktank on September 11, 2010, 06:07:23 AM
For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man, the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?
you think Adam wore Levis? :mshock: :grin:
No, he wore animal skins. :happygrin:
or nothing at all :mblush:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 06:11:18 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 11, 2010, 06:07:23 AM
you think Adam wore Levis? :mshock: :grin:
No, he wore animal skins. :happygrin:
You mean he wasn't a vegan? :prankster:
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 06:03:42 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 05:58:12 AM
Adam was a man set apart, and none before compares to him. That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.
Amen from me - created by God.
I personally believe there was some sort of prior creation, but again, amen to the above - created by God. And God said...
We don't even have to agree he was created by God.
The believer will tend to agree on that.
The atheistic scientist can just say--well, this is strange, this guy appears out of nowhere and starts building cities--we'll call him Human. :happygrin:
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 06:15:03 AM
or nothing at all :mblush:
Is this what happened to you today at the mall :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 05:58:12 AM
This thread is getting confusing ==but I'm wondering, are there some things we could all agree on?
For instance could we agree that Adam appears in science 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as modern man, the guy we see at the mall, and given the scientific label as the beginning of the Human Era?
If we could agree on that, then does it really matter what games science wishes to play with what existed before this time--because whatever it was it didn't look, act, think, or behave like us?
That second point is important because anyone can say modern man existed 250,000 years ago we just can't tell. Or, here we have this skull that looks sort of like modern man but with hefty brow ridges and a higher forehead and bigger brain capacity but we are going to call it modern man. This is just game playing and doesn't belong in science.
So--Could someone please address these two points?
IF you want to claim that modern man existed earlier than Adam--could you prove it? In particular, I'd like to see his version of Shakespeare or the Bible. Then, I might accept it.
Otherwise--let's try to nail down at least this one fact--Adam was a man set apart, and none before compares to him. That is something that I think that both the Bible and science, however grudgingly, actually agree on.
I thought I addressed those points earlier. Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs. It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago. Would I "bet the farm on it"? No, because I'm not an archeologist. I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure.
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.
I admit that I need to update my knowledge on scientific findings, but that will come in time I hope but there is so much out there it is impossible to research all of it, especially for the average folk out there. So when a person does not have the time to have a degree in evolution science, then he must either accept what the scholars have done at their word or he can look to the scriptures and find truth from there. If one cannot find the truth of creation from the scriptures, then why are we wasting our time with this phony book calling it Gods word, when in reality it is half of Gods word. I believe the word is the inspired word of God so why are you disgruntled at me for looking to the scriptures for the truth?
That I can respect. I do not expect everyone to be a science expert. I will say this however. If you are not well versed in the sciences it's best to stay out of debate that will involve science. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then you should know why you believe it and be able to defend it...if you decide to debate oecs.
6000 year old earth grin When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website? No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.
I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.
Cool. But, I thought when you trace back Bible lineage it comes out to 6000 years right? How can you compromise on what you believe to be Biblical truth?
And yes, I will take offense to anyone claiming that I am an idolator. Isn't that what you basically called me? This is why I have stayed away from these types of communities. I didn't think I would find it here. But, there have been some people here who do indeed like to puff their chest and claim someone else is of satan, a weak Christian, an idolator etc. It gets old.
It does get old, but welcome to Christianity my friend
In my view you are my christian brother, as long as you hold onto the saviour, if not then I hope that I will treat you well within reason, but if you mess with me, let's dance .
So, you can continue to believe what you wish and stubbornly hang onto your interpretations of Genesis. Me? I won't bury my head in the sand and ignore the facts before me. I will look at the clues, I will take new evidence into consideration. I am willing to rework previous thoughts I have had on scripture in light of new evidence.
Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?
Absolutely.
While you might want to demonize those of academia...there are many of us who are Christ loving people.
I don't dispute that, but it is ineivatable that in your education you will spend a great deal of time with unbelivers, who operate at the academic level who care not for the things of God. Do you agree with this?
Do you honestly think that academia is filled with spirit filled people?
The whole system is geared towards filling the brain with knowledge and sometimes that knowledge leads to confusion and cuts off the heart from entering. I don't know where you were educated but what I have heard is that the system is designed to limit creativity and intution as much as possible and give precedence to filling the mind with facts, whether it is intentional or not the system is based on a greek way of learning.
I think that there are many Christ lovers in academia...yes. But, I graduated from a Christian college and had Christian science teachers. These men no doubt loved the Lord as I do. But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.
Similar to people who insist the earth is flat you mean?
But the scripture can prove the earth is round. To me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 12 thousand years old it still is a young earth. But if the earth is indeed millions of years old, then I do not see that it has to have creation upon it until the creation of Adam that occured 6 to 12 thousand years ago. But where is the pattern in scripture is a day means a million years
Not sure of the point here. You have to ignore geological, carbon dating, fossil records etc to believe the earth is that young. I'm just not willing to do so. YECs haven't been able to show me how these are incorrect. If they have a valid point I will certainly listen. I read their websites. Instead, often times they make up these scenerios that might have happened to get around the science. I do believe you can interpret the Bible outside of young earth and it still be very much in line with scripture. What we can agree on is the fact that there are MANY things the evolutionists are wrong about and things they say that are just anti-Biblical no matter how you slice it.
Quote from: ShawnI thought I addressed those points earlier. Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs. It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago. Would I "bet the farm on it"? No, because I'm not an archeologist. I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure.
Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?
You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].
Or what?
Can you prove it?
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 06:30:53 AM
Quote from: ShawnI thought I addressed those points earlier. Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs. It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago. Would I "bet the farm on it"? No, because I'm not an archeologist. I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure.
Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?
You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].
Or what?
Can you prove it?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Not as smart? Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons. What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence. We know his anatomy is essentially the same. The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 06:30:53 AM
Quote from: ShawnI thought I addressed those points earlier. Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs. It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago. Would I "bet the farm on it"? No, because I'm not an archeologist. I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure.
Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?
You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].
Or what?
Can you prove it?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Not as smart? Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons. What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence. We know his anatomy is essentially the same. The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.
I mentioned not as smart because you made a comment about that earlier.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that humans are getting smarter with the passage of time. So I would expect that, on the average, Adam and I would be the same intelligence. But, I sure wouldn't put up with him using stone age tools for 40,000 years.
You say he had tools 50,000 years--so did Neanderthal, and so do birds.
But the man at the mall has a black and decker and Adam's sons built the pyramids.
So this 50,000 year old--are you willing to grant that you do not know what he is except to admit he's not Adam? We don't even know if he had language. As far as anatomy is concerned--if I saw him at the mall, I would probably cross the street--right? He doesn't look exactly like us.
:cloud9: I've shared this before, but for what it's worth, I asked Him in the beginning of my walk about the dino thing. What He gave me at the time out of studying Genesis was that the natural creation was 13,000, going into 14,000 of years old.
I asked Him how I could teach this, with no witness, and a week later my uncle came by and said how he had seen this program on TV where some scientists had discovered that the carbon dating rate of deterioration they use to measure things by, was not at a constant rate as they thought, but after so many thousands of years it changed the speed. So by their renewed calculations, the earth was 13-14 thousand years old. There was my witness, for me anyway.....I praised Him for a swift reply and went on to the next 100 questions :winkgrin: :laughing7:
:cloud9: I also want to say that the peace of this board will be maintained if it requires the locking of a thread, ect., until all parties have calmed down and counted to 10, or to 100, or to 1000, or to...... :winkgrin:
So please maintain respect for the owner of this board and his wishes for no food fights, no personal attacks, ect. Please refer to board rules if you are unsure of anything, or PM a mod. And lastly, please maintain respect for each other even if you differ on styles of writing, opinions, ect. Thank you.....Card :girlheart:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 02:06:36 AM
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.
Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different. They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.' Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.
Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era.
About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt's Nile Valley and the Indus Valleys. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in West Asia, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
I think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago. It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates. With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period. If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong. You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates. For me the dates don't even remotely matter.
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on September 11, 2010, 04:54:40 AM
There is evidence that maybe you should post your posts,of great information I am sure, some place else.
I, me, personally dont give a wit about the scientific and evolutional theorys of men, the earth, its age, and the world population, IF it came about as you suggest.
I believe there is a thread Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc. that may enjoy your information freely.
I believe in God and have faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour, and ALL things were made by and in Him.
Col 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
Col 1:17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.
Thats were I am at. ***Also consider the first post. Peace and Love Through Jesus.
Is this directed at me? Because this is a science and faith post. Some people do wanted to be able to give an educated response to the attacks of our faith by some of the atheistic science community. If you are not concerned then don't read the post. It really is that simple.
I can't imagine how anyone could be confused. This thread is only parts of 3 threads disected, autopsied, and sewn together into 1. :laughing7:
This post from micah was toward the end of the Genesis thread he'd started. There were too many :offtopic:. Posts were then split to here. :wacko2:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 06:45:21 AM
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 06:30:53 AM
Quote from: ShawnI thought I addressed those points earlier. Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs. It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago. Would I "bet the farm on it"? No, because I'm not an archeologist. I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure.
Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?
You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].
Or what?
Can you prove it?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Not as smart? Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons. What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence. We know his anatomy is essentially the same. The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.
I mentioned not as smart because you made a comment about that earlier.
There is no evidence or reason to believe that humans are getting smarter with the passage of time. So I would expect that, on the average, Adam and I would be the same intelligence. But, I sure wouldn't put up with him using stone age tools for 40,000 years.
You say he had tools 50,000 years--so did Neanderthal, and so do birds.
But the man at the mall has a black and decker and Adam's sons built the pyramids.
So this 50,000 year old--are you willing to grant that you do not know what he is except to admit he's not Adam? We don't even know if he had language. As far as anatomy is concerned--if I saw him at the mall, I would probably cross the street--right? He doesn't look exactly like us.
I will have to call you on that. Our knowledge has certainly increased. And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing. Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline? What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 11, 2010, 01:39:57 AM
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 01:09:07 AMI agree Tony.
My :HeartThrob: leaps with joy :laughing7:
QuoteI also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural.
OED does not by definition mean a belief in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists. That's a fact. Just look at the many breeds of dogs. Let them mix and they become (almost) one breed again.
QuoteI personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)
I've not decided on the gap theory. I wonder if that desolate and void refers to the comet impact (some say a chunk of wormwood) that wiped out the dinos. The dustcloud would cause a nuclear winter and the sunlight will be blocked out.
Quotebut then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve.
Darwin teaches gradual change. That would mean zillion of (deformed) intermediate lifeforms.
Number found: 0
Evidence points more to sudden appearance of complete lifeforms.
QuoteSo I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith. :2c:
I would say study. But imo science agrees with the Biblical timeline of the last 10000 years. I think also the time before that; but that harder to see because it about translation of words and gaps.
YECs are partly right imo. Earth starting from Adam is 6,000-10,000 years old. Or civilasations started at that point. But the opion on civilisation varies a bit. Some say it starts with argiculture. Other say art. Yet others with writing.
I'm ok with accepting covenant civilization starting 6-10,000 years ago. I have zero issue with that.
Ok thanks, I will cease.
Quote from: ShawnI think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago. It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates. With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period. If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong. You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates. For me the dates don't even remotely matter.
Ok, so now we can say with Kepler that Adam was created 6000 years ago. Or with a margin of error, and with science, as much as 10,000 years ago. That's a nice narrow window when you are looking at 15 billion years total, right?
And, before that--we just don't know from a scientific standpoint, or from the Bible. All we know is that before that, there is no evidence of the man at the mall existing as we know him today.
Let's look at something else, then.
Was the man of Genesis 1, within the integrity of that chapter, also a covenant man?
What is the covenant with the Genesis 1 man?
Do you think he was Adam of Genesis 2? Do they have the same covenant? Or is it possible he was created before Adam? Or what?
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 07:01:26 AM
Quote from: ShawnI think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago. It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates. With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period. If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong. You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates. For me the dates don't even remotely matter.
Ok, so now we can say with Kepler that Adam was created 6000 years ago. Or with a margin of error, and with science, as much as 10,000 years ago. That's a nice narrow window when you are looking at 15 billion years total, right?
And, before that--we just don't know from a scientific standpoint, or from the Bible. All we know is that before that, there is no evidence of the man at the mall existing as we know him today.
Let's look at something else, then.
Was the man of Genesis 1, within the integrity of that chapter, also a covenant man?
What is the covenant with the Genesis 1 man?
Do you think he was Adam of Genesis 2? Do they have the same covenant? Or is it possible he was created before Adam? Or what?
Not sure...would like to hear your views on it.
Quote from: ShawnI will have to call you on that. Our knowledge has certainly increased. And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing. Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline? What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?
When I first started looking at this, I saw where Adam was dated [by two scientists in the 17th century] to 6000 years ago using the Bible.
When I saw that this corresponded with the birth of civilization in the same part of the world, it blew my socks off.
Before scientists start lying their heads off to get grants, the great scientists spent most of their time studying the Bible--90 percent of the writings of Isaac Newton were on the Bible.
There is no reason why science and the Bible should disagree--unless the scientists are lying.
They are very desperate to keep their evolution thing going and very glib about the facts. Unless and until I am shown a 50000 year old city with all the trappings, I will never believe that modern man is that old.
The first man in the Bible to build a city is Cain, the second man from Adam. Education has nothing to do with it. Who taught Cain to build cities? Where did he get his degree in architecture? But, science would agree, yep, there are those cities being built right around the same time.
Quick note - I've done quite a bit of IQ testing through the years. I truly wonder if man has actually gotten smarter, i.e., increased intelligence capabilities, or has he just obtained more knowledge with the intelligence quotient he's always had (was created with)...IMO, they can be 2 different things. :scratchhead:
Quote from: jabcat on September 11, 2010, 07:13:38 AM
Quick note - I've done quite a bit of IQ testing through the years. I truly wonder if man has actually gotten smarter, i.e., increased intelligence capabilities, or has he just obtained more knowledge with the intelligence quotient he's always had (was created with)...IMO, they can be 2 different things. :scratchhead:
IQ is supposed to measure capacity [doesn't mean it does] but we are talking here about capacity not knowledge. And, I maintain that Adam had the same intelligence as the man in the mall.
Neanderthal, for instance, did not.
Yes, capacity is a more accurate word than capability. Sometimes the perfect word, uh, can't be found. :laughhand:
Anyway, that's what I was getting at too. I suspect the IQ (capacity) was the same - actually, if in a pinch, I'd probably say higher - than now. We only use what, less than 10% of our brain? What's the other 90% for? Where did the pyramids come from? What was Adam capable of that we are not? IMO, he was no dummy. He may have had to learn some things, and his off-spring through time, but I believe the capacity was already there - and then some. It was part of creation. :2c:
Genesis 1 man at work-- :coffee2:
Gobekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?
Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
By Andrew Curry
Photographs by Berthold Steinhilber
Smithsonian magazine, November 2008
Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?c=y
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 04:04:17 AM
I got this gem recently from a yec site...
In other words: 6,000 years ago God created material that normally takes billions of years to form. This explains both of the evidence for an old and young earth. But the young will always be denied, because to admit to it is to admit to God.
Of course God has skills to do such things.
The questions is such a thing can be called twisting/manipularting the truth and if that is against Fathers nature.
QuoteAlso this one...
Thou shalt not make any engraved images... Replacing God's word with science puts science "before" God. Which in turn makes science better than God which also makes it replace God. And because it would make people turn away from God, science itself becomes God. Notice how science is put before God in OEC belief.
Nature laws are made by God. Scientists are just trying to figure out Gods laws of nature....
Maybe Jesus never existed because earth is only 50 years old. God just created history along with the earth..... :sigh:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: ShawnI will have to call you on that. Our knowledge has certainly increased. And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing. Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline? What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?
When I first started looking at this, I saw where Adam was dated [by two scientists in the 17th century] to 6000 years ago using the Bible.
When I saw that this corresponded with the birth of civilization in the same part of the world, it blew my socks off.
Before scientists start lying their heads off to get grants, the great scientists spent most of their time studying the Bible--90 percent of the writings of Isaac Newton were on the Bible.
There is no reason why science and the Bible should disagree--unless the scientists are lying.
They are very desperate to keep their evolution thing going and very glib about the facts. Unless and until I am shown a 50000 year old city with all the trappings, I will never believe that modern man is that old.
The first man in the Bible to build a city is Cain, the second man from Adam. Education has nothing to do with it. Who taught Cain to build cities? Where did he get his degree in architecture? But, science would agree, yep, there are those cities being built right around the same time.
I can buy that and understand your view.
With that said, there is indeed a fine line when looking at these things. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. That is my foundation. Science is flawed inherently because we start from a perspective of ignorance and it observed by flawed creatures. Interpretation of the Bible is often flawed as well because again flawed creatures are looking at scripture. With that said, we can look around us and know that scientists do know some things. We certainly have the basics down. I don't think it takes a great scientific mind to look at the evidence and realize that the earth is older than 10,000 years. But, it gets much trickier about Adam. I can entirely buy your take. But, with this take it still flies in the face of traditional views of original sin. What is your take on that portion? What about death before Adam?
Molly, anything to do with different 'systems'? That's where my thoughts gravitate to...I too will be interested in your thoughts on it.
Quote from: ShawnWhat about death before Adam?
I've never thought about that question before you brought it up. But I have long thought that Genesis 1 man was different than our Adam of Genesis 2, not in any qualitative sense, but in his relationship to God. Along with that is the thought that Genesis 1 man happened earlier in time than Adam who we meet in Genesis 2. But, of course, I understand that is not a particularly popular notion so I don't bring it up much.
Psalm 8:4
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? What is
man, that thou art mindful of him?
H582
אנושׁ
'ĕnôshen-oshe'
From H605;
properly a mortal (and thus differeing from the more dignified H120); hence a man in general (singly or collectively). It is often unexpressed in the English Version, especially when used in apposition with another word: - another, X [blood-] thirsty, certain, chap [-man], divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the Engl. version, especially when used in apposition with another word. Compare H376.
H605
אנשׁ
'ânash
aw-nash'
A primitive root; to be frail, feeble, or (figuratively) melancholy: -
desperate (-ly wicked), incurable, sick, woeful.and the son of man, that thou visitest him?son of man=bên 'âdâm
I can't say why the psalmist uses two different words for man there, but he says God is mindful of one and visiting with the other [which denotes a closer relationship]. And, of course, we see God visiting with the sons of Adam all through the Old Testament.
To make a long story short and open the discussion, what if a catastrophe has happened between Gen 1.1 and Gen 1.2 [gap] and God now begins putting things back together in Gen 1 of our book. He does all his handiwork in Gen 1, but never once is death mentioned. The Gen 1 man is a vegetarian, so he doesn't kill to eat. Why would that be unless there is no death? Neither are the animals killing to eat. They are all vegetarians. There also doesn't seem to be any law given, unless you consider 'have babies, be happy' a law.
There are other ways to look at this, of course, but this is one. There could also be a gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 because of the strange transition that occurs there.
Let me say that it is my opinion that God unopposed would not create anything imperfect unless that was part of the plan. This is my way of avoiding the free will discussion, for one. And, also, acknowledging that I consider death, on the face of it, an imperfection.
But, what if we are not being shown everything, but just the aions that begin with modern man? What if Adam had stayed in the garden and done what he was told? This is just a thought exercise. If there are already men outside the garden, they might live forever in sin that was not imputed because there was no law--that is, in anarchy. Likewise, if Adam really is the first man, it starts and ends with him. There are no babies until they leave the garden. I think God's plan and Satan's plan were different in this regard--but Satan wanted Adam dead, among other things, of that I have no doubt. God, on the other hand, is creating immortal beings that are like him--his righteous family.
There are some who are not going to like any of this--that's ok, I'm just asking the questions. You can show me the inconsistencies. But, our Adam of Gen 2 did hold the power of life and death for all men, however briefly. And, the fact that he chose death kicks the whole thing up to the next level culminating in the Lord Jesus. God is showing us our inherent and potential power as man, which needs to be respected, even in this current feeble body.
1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
Seems to me, all of the scriptures reveal a direct creation of God. In the beginning there was chaos- tohu and bohu, formless and void. Whatever became what Adam represents(if you do not believe He was an individual historic man), it happened because 1)God spoke, 2) because God breathed.
By faith we know that the worlds(aions) were created by the rhema/word of God(Heb 11:3). The Word(Jesus) was the firstborn of all creation, before all things(John 1;Col. 1), He is the radiance of the Father's glory and exact representation of the Fathers image, through whom He(Father) created the ages(aions)(Heb 1:1-3).
Nothing that came into being came into being without Him, so if "formless and void" represents the murky paleolithic ages that were the processes of God up until Adam, those ages were also created through Him. The question remains, WHY?
If Adam was not an individual historic man, why record lineage to Messiah (Son of man-uihos anthropos), why Paul's direct references to Adam as "one"(ex. through the offence of one sin abounded to many). If the apostle treats Adam as a historic man, perhaps we should be instructed by his words.......
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man (אדם 'âdâm ), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
(Num 23:19)
We are chaos(without the form/image of Christ and void of His Spirit) until God, who is by the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep(the spirit of man), 1)speaks (let there be light....faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God), and 2)breathes into us the breath of life (if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of His). The first man Adam became a living soul the second man Christ became life giving spirit.
When Paul says this first man(Adam) was a figure of "the one to come"(Jesus), he wasn't denying Adams historic existence. God has used historic persons and nations and cities as figures from the very beginning.
All these things happen by the speaking and breathing of God.
Jesus is the Word (expressed thought, speech) of God.
He is the breath of God(life-giving spirit). "My words are spirit and my words are life".
The oracles of God(scriptures) are the speech of God, but only when the breath is breathed into them. Without the breath they are tohu and bohu, formless and void (not revealing God or edifying man)- the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. No one can be educated into the consciousness God(not to say we should not be educated- we defintely should). Only by grace through faith- which is a gift that comes by "hearing the word" (Today if you hear His Voice), that word being the sword of the Spirit-quickened and active.....
Only living words can separate light from dark, divide the heavens above from the heavens below, and reveal solid ground for fruit-bearing of every kind.- Let there be Light.
And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome/comprehend/encompass it. The natural man does not receive the things of God because it is foolishness to him. Thats why the body is without form and void(unrevealed). Its just too carnal.
BY THIS shall the world know you are my disciples(Body revealed)- by your love for one another.
And all those who had gathered together were as one soul and the word of the Lord grew and multiplied and great grace was upon them all and they shared everything so that no one among them had any need and the Lord added to the church daily such as were appointed to deliverance... They weren't formless and void, the image of Christ was MANIFEST in them. IF I BE LIFTED UP I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO ME.
Scientists sometimes merge theory and hypothesis with fact and evidence that can be interpreted several ways. Their absolutes are few and they are changing all the time. I believe the Word has no beef with science.... but the Word is true, absolutely true....and all the probabilities and possibilities have arisen out of His speaking.
Peace, over and out. :hijacked:
:cloud9: Can't remember which Kingdom minister it is right now, but at least one of them says Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 man are different, so it's not a foreign concept to all out there......
And for my two cents, I think we're given the same capacity or else God would be a respector of persons, obviously.
Also, who taught Cain to build cities, IMO, was Satan. This sounds strange to modern city-dwelling man, but think about it for a second. Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority, whereas the other pattern it could be argued, requires only God's authority over them, as in His covenant with the one man/head of family, as a priest, which WAS the pattern when there was no temple, also.
Restoring His Kingdom in us, is in a very real sense, bringing "anarchy" to the "other" kingdom, if only by our non-compliance with their values or lack thereof. Blessings....
Quote from: shawn on September 11, 2010, 06:25:58 AM
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.
That I can respect. I do not expect everyone to be a science expert. I will say this however. If you are not well versed in the sciences it's best to stay out of debate that will involve science. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then you should know why you believe it and be able to defend it...if you decide to debate oecs.
I think I have excercised good wisdom so far, so I will continue to speak if you don't mind, especially as it pertains to the scriptures, as you have yet to show how evolution can be compatible with the scriptures.
6000 year old earth grin When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website? No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.
I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.
Cool. But, I thought when you trace back Bible lineage it comes out to 6000 years right? How can you compromise on what you believe to be Biblical truth?
It can come to 12 too 13 thousand years old as I explained on another thread. If one day is as a thousand years and God creates for 6 days, then each day would be equivalent to 1000 years, so 6000 years of creating and then 1000 years of rest 7000 years. Then we have the beginning of human history and Adam living in the garden of eden, and his sons which is roughly 6000 years ago. So 7 + 6 = 13 thousand years. Which means the earth and the universe can be roughly 13 thousand years old. A star that shines billions of miles away takes a million light years to get to us, even though it might have been created only 13 thousand years ago.
Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?
Absolutely.
thank you
I think that there are many Christ lovers in academia...yes. But, I graduated from a Christian college and had Christian science teachers. These men no doubt loved the Lord as I do. But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.
Not sure of the point here. You have to ignore geological, carbon dating, fossil records etc to believe the earth is that young. I'm just not willing to do so. YECs haven't been able to show me how these are incorrect. If they have a valid point I will certainly listen. I read their websites. Instead, often times they make up these scenerios that might have happened to get around the science. I do believe you can interpret the Bible outside of young earth and it still be very much in line with scripture. What we can agree on is the fact that there are MANY things the evolutionists are wrong about and things they say that are just anti-Biblical no matter how you slice it.
It is also insanity to blindly accept evolution as true, especially when scripture says otherwise, so don't be too angry at creationists who do not accept evolution as true, they have their reasons, just as you have. Also there are not many creation scientists in the world compared to evolutionists, so they would have less findings, also a lot of creationists come from christians colleges etc and are not flexible when it comes to scriptural interpretation, so they tend to start from their scriptural interpretation, then find the science to fit around that. I think that's feasible but if their interpretation is incorrect, then it means their science will be flawed.
Quote from: Cardinal on September 11, 2010, 06:51:56 PM
:cloud9: Can't remember which Kingdom minister it is right now, but at least one of them says Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 man are different, so it's not a foreign concept to all out there......
And for my two cents, I think we're given the same capacity or else God would be a respector of persons, obviously.
Also, who taught Cain to build cities, IMO, was Satan. This sounds strange to modern city-dwelling man, but think about it for a second. Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority, whereas the other pattern it could be argued, requires only God's authority over them, as in His covenant with the one man/head of family, as a priest, which WAS the pattern when there was no temple, also.
Restoring His Kingdom in us, is in a very real sense, bringing "anarchy" to the "other" kingdom, if only by our non-compliance with their values or lack thereof. Blessings....
I agree with that. God's people in the Old Testament were shepherds and farmers.
Should it surprise us that at the end of this evil age, it is the cities that are growing in size and number?
Urbanization: A Majority in CitiesThe world is undergoing the largest wave of urban growth in history. In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world's population will be living in towns and cities. By 2030 this number will swell to almost 5 billion, with urban growth concentrated in Africa and Asia. While mega-cities have captured much public attention, most of the new growth will occur in smaller towns and cities, which have fewer resources to respond to the magnitude of the change. http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm
Yuck I hate cities, they are not a good place for righteousness, darkness tends to dominate them, that's another reason why the world is getting darker, to many cities. Some people say population control is the answer, but I don't like that, it's a bit "global conspiracy". The answer would be for people to pray for more land and for God to water the deserts, as his promise is that if the inhabitants turn away from unrightoeusness then the lord will heal the land.
Aint nothing out of step or out of sync. The population in cities, towns, and countrys is just where its supposed to be. my :2c:
Also, who taught Cain to build cities? Its the nature of the BEAST.
But it is interesting aint no other building being done intil Gen 6:14 `Make for thyself an ark and Gen 8:20 And Noah buildeth an altar to Jehovah
"Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority"
But didnt men of God build cities as well?
Quote from: thinktank on September 11, 2010, 08:10:48 PM
Yuck I hate cities, they are not a good place for righteousness, darkness tends to dominate them, that's another reason why the world is getting darker, to many cities. Some people say population control is the answer, but I don't like that, it's a bit "global conspiracy". The answer would be for people to pray for more land and for God to water the deserts, as his promise is that if the inhabitants turn away from unrightoeusness then the lord will heal the land.
I agree, since I moved from a big City of 2 millions+ pop tu a small rural village, I've been in a peace I never knew before. I find that it was harder to concentrate in the city, so much buzzing...
Now I'm at peace growing my veggies and buying my meat from a local famer and a brother in Christ.(I like to think he blessed his cows before killing them) :laughing7:
:cloud9: @ Micah....God built A city, a city made without hands. Jerusalem below being the type and shadow. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on September 11, 2010, 08:42:40 PM
:cloud9: @ Micah....God built A city, a city made without hands. Jerusalem below being the type and shadow. Blessings....
heavenly jerusalem, mount zion, Gods holy mountain that will descend upon the earth as witnessed in Johns book. This will be the only city upon the earth not built my mankind.
Do you think God will provide smoking rooms ? Even as resurected saints I think that some smokers will still want to smoke :laughing7:
willieH: Hi Molly... :banana:
Great comment:
Quote from: Molly on September 11, 2010, 01:45:13 AM
Shawn let's try to find a common language here so we know what we are talking about. Do you really think these people are 'scientists'? They are guessing, making stuff up, making arbitrary claims, building on that more arbitrary claims. They have no idea if these bones they are finding have any relationship at all to the man at the mall. This is worse than religion because they are pretending to be something they are not. They are just telling pretty stories to get their grant money, may their names be forgotten by posterity.
Excellent! :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: reFORMer on September 11, 2010, 05:15:50 AM
I keep trying to catch up on reading everything I've missed on this thread, then I go do something else. When I get back it has surged ahead. Back around pages 6-7 I wanted to post this...
Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world (cosmos.)" The world is this outer realm our physical bodies are in, the orderly arrangement of things in it, specially the values and governments of carnal men and the effect all this has on our minds, even if we are spiritual men.
John 18:36 (Concordant Literal Translation)
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews. Yet now is My kingdom not hence."
Now it seems a little out of place. I'll keep reading and try to get back to y'all.
James
:giveheart: At last, ...a SPIRITUAL post from an "inward" man! :happyclap:
Be careful though brother... the "outwards" will certainly give you a ration for it!
Don't apologize for your input James... It is a welcome addition to this "discussion"... and quite timely I might add! :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
Lefein, I'm glad you actually read the post and responded. I would hate for him to be offended when I didn't answer. Sounds like you and I see creation in many ways eye to eye.
In the beginning God created the heavens, and the earth.
This verse contains, according to my understanding - all the billions of years of the construction of our universe. The heavens, is not just our "atmosphere" but the whole vast realm of space and beyond full of stars, nebulae, and phenomenon. No days are mentioned in this verse, not even any mention of time itself.
lefein
When you look at that verse it must be a declaration of what happened, for after we have verses that go into detail where the firnament of the heavens etc are created. It states that after these things are created the first day passes. So if time were not important then why does God state that it took a day? Why the confusion?. Time is part of the scriptures and it's important to not allow scientific findings to undermine the scriptures. :2c:
QuoteWhen you look at that verse it must be a declaration of what happened, for after we have verses that go into detail where the firnament of the heavens etc are created. It states that after these things are created the first day passes.
Where is your proof? (for lack of a better phrase); that Gen 1:1 had to be included with the first day account of creating light? As a 24 hour period?
And even if Gen 1:1 is some how meshed with the first day - then why can't it look like this?
(http://i324.photobucket.com/albums/k326/Lefein-7/CreationWeek.png)
QuoteSo if time were not important then why does God state that it took a day?
Artistic rendering - and the colourful manner of writing that is often used in eastern writing. Have you read all the things written on the main portion of this site concerning how much of what is used to support Ultimate Reconciliation that talk about the colourful eastern hyperbole?
QuoteWhy the confusion?.
Because the interpretation is wrong. The YEC are so busy looking at the garment of the written word, that they are missing the Spirit of Truth who is wearing it.
The word Cat, means the feline animal of varying shapes, sizes, species, and meows. If we get too caught up in the semantics of the word Cat, with one party trying to limit it to mean only Lion, while they other party tries to limit it to mean only tea-cup sized maine coon...They both miss the whole point of the word Cat, which is just a garment-covering used to present the concept of a feline entity.
Day is likewise, in this case.
QuoteTime is part of the scriptures and it's important to not allow scientific findings to undermine the scriptures.
It is infinitely more important not to allow private interpretation to undermine The Spirit of Truth, for the sake of garment based argument.
Quote from: Lefein on September 12, 2010, 01:03:32 AM
The key point is, that it doesn't matter how old the Universe is, or our planet; if the universe, and our planet are indeed Old, it does not disprove God in the least, because The Heavens, and The Earth where created already - prior to the six days verses that detail ordering a primitive, uninhabitable earth into a livable one.
Exodus 20:11 says in six days, all things in heaven and earth are created.
All things would include the distant galaxies, as well as all the lava flows on earth. It includes sediments, layers of salt and gypsum, pebbles, fossils, great dinosaurs, rift valleys, great and small faults in the earth's crust, mountains, glaciers, oceans, coral reefs, beaches, lakes, rivers and streams, and the fish in them. And clouds, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, day and night, seasons, all are created by God.
All things includes supernovas, the craters on the moon, meteorites, sand dunes, ripples in the desert sand, sunsets, and rainbows, and the imprint of raindrops on the ground, and snowflakes. The sound of thunder, or of a waterfall, and the song of a bird, frost on the ground after a cold night, ice on a pond, or a lake, all of these are included in the six days. The newborn baby is a creation of God too, isn't it? And scripture says we are ourselves the creations of God:
Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.All of God's work of creation is included in the six days; that's what it says. We look forward to entering the future "rest" which is pictured by the sabbath day. [Hebrews 4:10-11]
Doug
Artistic rendering - and the colourful manner of writing that is often used in eastern writing. Have you read all the things written on the main portion of this site concerning how much of what is used to support Ultimate Reconciliation that talk about the colourful eastern hyperbole?
I would'nt call Genesis colourful, with it's genealogy and all, I don't think it's wise to be poetic when dealing with the creation of the world. I would call the book of Job colourful or the psalms I'd call lamentations "greyish" :laughing7:
Where is your proof, for lack of a better phrase; that Gen 1:1 had to be included with the first day account of creating light?
And even if Gen 1:1 is some how meshed with the first day - then why can't it look like this?[/color]
I can see this point better for now it makes sense as opposed to ignoring the other scriptures which says they were created in a day, but in answer I'll say this.
How can the heavens and earth be created if the substance of light has yet to be created?
The substance of light can be found everywhere, so without this substance, how can the universe or heaven and earth be created?
Secondly, if Genesis 1:1 states God created a heaven and an earth, why does God decide to create them again in the following chapters?
Thirdly (Not sure what you belive concerning this) the scriptures declare that God did not create the earth in vain but created it to be inhabited
So where in scripture is any type of animal, creature, man or angel created and placed in this pre Adamic world?
Fourth if there is no animal, angel or human then how can there be a rebellion that took place called the darkness on the face of the deep?
Fifth if there is no rebellion that took place, then why does a perfect God create a inperfect world that he then must create or recreate again, because his first earth ran out of gasoline or some kind of breakdown :dontknow: ?
sixth if God is incapable of creating a perfect world before rebellion, then how can we trust him and his word?
Quotecan see this point better for now it makes sense as opposed to ignoring the other scriptures which says they were created in a day, but in answer I'll say this.
First, I'm not ignoring the word "Day" I'm dividing the Spirit of Truth, from the garment. Day, Ium, Yom, does not have to mean the 24-hour solar cycle of Terra.
QuoteHow can the heavens and earth be created if the substance of light has yet to be created?
The original Hebrew says: Iei aur u'iei aur
literally: He shall become light, and he is becoming light.
It is possible that the Earth became lit, that light passed through the "waters" which had yet to be ordered into the liquid ocean, and atmopshere.
QuoteThe substance of light can be found everywhere, so without this substance, how can the universe or heaven and earth be created?
Because Light is a part of The Heavens (Spacial phenomenon, the laws of physics, etc; waves/particles/energy, light is energy etc), if you want to get technical. Light is not a simple substance, like an element. Light is a highly multi-faceted electromagnetic wavelength comprising of both things visible to the human eye, and invisible.
QuoteSecondly, if Genesis 1:1 states God created a heaven and an earth, why does God decide to create them again in the following chapters?
He doesn't. It is no more a new creation of Earth, that it is a new creation of Man when the Bible goes from Genesis 1:26 to Genesis 2:4 The Adam scriptures.
QuoteThirdly (Not sure what you belive concerning this) the scriptures declare that God did not create the earth in vain but created it to be inhabited
And he did exactly that, after his own pace, time, and manner.
QuoteSo where in scripture is any type of animal, creature, man or angel created and placed in this pre Adamic world?
...What do you mean by this? Does God have to automatically have every kind of living creature live alongside Adam in order for God to be real?
QuoteFourth if there is no animal, angel or human then how can there be a rebellion that took place called the darkness on the face of the deep?
First: When in the Genesis account does it say the angels where created?
Second: Where is the account of the rebellion in the face of the deep?
QuoteFifth if there is no rebellion that took place, then why does a perfect God create a inperfect world that he then must create or recreate again, because his first earth ran out of gasoline or some kind of breakdown ?
We've veered off topic here.
Quotesixth if God is incapable of creating a perfect world before rebellion, then how can we trust him and his word?
Our idea of perfection doesn't necessarily have to mean "instant". Are we not perfect already, yet going through sanctification?
Why does the Earth and Heaven have to be created Ex'Nihilo nigh instantaniously in order to be perfect?
Is not God himself the one who determines what is perfect or not? Or is it our private interpretations?
First, I'm not ignoring the word "Day" I'm dividing the Spirit of Truth, from the garment. Day, Ium, Yom, does not have to mean the 24-hour solar cycle of Terra.
Not saying you did. I personally think day means a thousand years.
The original Hebrew says: Iei aur u'iei aur
literally: He shall become light, and he is becoming light.
God is light he allways existed. The substance of light was yet to be created until the first day.
It is possible that the Earth became lit, that light passed through the "waters" which had yet to be ordered into the liquid ocean, and atmopshere.
Quote
The substance of light can be found everywhere, so without this substance, how can the universe or heaven and earth be created?
Because Light is a part of The Heavens (Spacial phenomenon, the laws of physics, etc; waves/particles/energy, light is energy etc), if you want to get technical. Light is not a simple substance, like an element. Light is a highly multi-faceted electromagnetic wavelength comprising of both things visible to the human eye, and invisible.
thank you, there, your original question is answered by yourself. If light is part of the heavens how could God create the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 if he did not yet declare
let there be light in Genesis 1:3
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening [1] and the morning were the first day.
So this chapter says God creates light and he divides the light from the darkness and this process took him the first day.
Now that God has light he can now begin creating in the following verses.
He doesn't. It is no more a new creation of Earth, that it is a new creation of Man when the Bible goes from Genesis 1:26 to Genesis 2:4 The Adam scriptures.
Not sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me then that God did not create a earth in Genesis 1:1 and that is was a general statement rather than a actual creation event?
...What do you mean by this? Does God have to automatically have every kind of living creature live alongside Adam in order for God to be real?
To be real to us revealed through his scriptures, there simply is no verse saying that God created a pre adamic race and if Adam is truly his first creation, then it means that no creature existed before Adam that died and rebelled against Yahuwa
First: When in the Genesis account does it say the angels where created?
Here
Genesis 1
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, [5] and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
and Genesis 2
2Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Second: Where is the account of the rebellion in the face of the deep?
No where, this is what the gap theory states.
We've veered off topic here.
It's difficultt to know what you belive, so I addressed this.
Our idea of perfection doesn't necessarily have to mean "instant". Are we not perfect already, yet going through sanctification?
The time aspect is not my aim, but rather the idea that God created an inperfect world in Genesis 1:1 which then needed to be created again in subsequent verses. There is no logical reason why God would create a world and then ceate it again, isnt that what you are saying?
Typically those people say that a rebellion took place which destroyed the earth and so God needed to create again, but you don't seem to have that view, so I ask why would God create the earth in Genesis 1:1 and then create it again if that which he created in Genesis 1:1 was already perfect?
Why does the Earth and Heaven have to be created Ex'Nihilo nigh instantaniously in order to be perfect?
Is not God himself the one who determines what is perfect or not? Or is it our private interpretations?
IT's declared in the scripture what perfection is, it is also built into our dna that we know what good and evil is and more importantly the holy spirit teaches us what perfection is.
QuoteGod is light he allways existed. The substance of light was yet to be created until the first day.
Let there be light - "Let the electromagnetic wave-lengths pass through the vapourous cloud that surrounds this primitive ball of molten crust below"
QuoteThe substance of light can be found everywhere, so without this substance, how can the universe or heaven and earth be created?
In the beginning God created the Heavens (space, phenomenae, etc), and the Earth (Primitive Earth)...Universe.
six days = artistic ordering the uninhabitable ball of molten crust that is the primitive earth into a livable habitat - Life is created as well.
Quotethank you, there, your original question is answered by yourself. If light is part of the heavens how could God create the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 if he did not yet declare
let there be light in Genesis 1:3
If God is light, and has always existed why does he have to declare "Let there be light" to begin with at all?
But I'm beginning to lose track of where the discussion is going I think...
QuoteNot sure what you mean, are you agreeing with me then that God did not create a earth in Genesis 1:1 and that is was a general statement rather than a actual creation event?
Genesis 1:26 is a general statement.
Genesis 2:4 is the detailed "zoom in"
It doesn't detract from Genesis 1:26, just because there is a zoom in from Genesis 2:4
Genesis 1:1 is similar, but different. Genesis 1:1 is the creation of the foundations of Earth, and the Heavens with which it travels.
Genesis's account of the six days, is a "zoom in" of sorts, but not of Genesis 1:1. It is an artistically rendered account of the Primitive Earth becoming through the handiwork of God - Habitable Terra.
According to my understanding anyway.
QuoteTo be real to us revealed through his scriptures, there simply is no verse saying that God created a pre adamic race and if Adam is truly his first creation, then it means that no creature existed before Adam that died and rebelled against Yahuwa
The Bible is a garment through which The Spirit of Truth reveals himself...But it is not The Spirit of Truth Himself.
I never said there was any pre-Adam race either. Adam is not his first creation. The Universe is, unless he made the angels first.
QuoteGenesis 1
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, [5] and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
and Genesis 2
2Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Orion's belt, Leo, Scorpio, Pices, and the sun are angels?
QuoteNo where, this is what the gap theory states.
Not the theory I ascribe to.
QuoteIt's difficultt to know what you belive, so I addressed this.
It is better to keep it that way perhaps. Prevents assumptions about me. :)
QuoteThe time aspect is not my aim, but rather the idea that God created an inperfect world in Genesis 1:1 which then needed to be created again in subsequent verses. There is no logical reason why God would create a world and then ceate it again, isnt that what you are saying?
I never said he created an imperfect earth and had to create it again.
I said, and only said that God created the foundations of Earth in Gen 1:1, and then finished it in the following account.
QuoteTypically those people say that a rebellion took place which destroyed the earth and so God needed to create again, but you don't seem to have that view, so I ask why would God create the earth in Genesis 1:1 and then create it again if that which he created in Genesis 1:1 was already perfect?
Because God does not change, and God seems to work through processes. Like Sanctification of the already perfect ("saved") saint. Its a process, (s)he's already perfect in the eyes of God, but is still going through the process of becoming what God wants her/him to look like.
QuoteIT's declared in the scripture what perfection is, it is also built into our dna that we know what good and evil is and more importantly the holy spirit teaches us what perfection is.
The scriptures only ever say, as far as I know - that perfection is what God says is perfect.
Interesting note, though off to the side, God only said creation was "Good", but he never said "Perfect".
:cloud9: Why couldn't the light that God is, be dramatically different from the light He created in the Genesis account? Everything in this realm is a type and shadow of something greater, and even incomprehensible from our present state of being, IMO. The revelation we receive is still not EXPERIENCING that which we are being shown, unless He elects to let us do so. Blessings....
Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting[AIDIOS] chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
When did this happen? We're not really told anything much about this, it's just referenced briefly.
Another translation:
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal[AIDIOS] chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
Another reference--Peter knew about this event
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[TARTURUS] and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
--2 Peter 2:4
Tarturus is defined by e-sword as the deepest abyss of hades.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
--Gen 1
[the face] "of the deep"
H8415
תּהם תּהום
tehôm tehôm
teh-home', teh-home'
(Usually feminine) from H1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply): - deep (place), depth.
And we see this same happening in Revelation to Satan
1And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit[ABYSS] and a great chain in his hand.
2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
--Rev 20
The angels left their own habitation and did what?
Is it related to this passage?
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
--Gen 6
The Nephilim would have been wiped out by the flood, but we see the problem might continue after the flood. The same word--nephilim-- is used in post-flood passages.
Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
"giants"
H5303
נפל נפיל
nephıyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
H5307
נפל
nâphal
naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.
Does Jesus reference this same problem when he talks about how it will be in the last days [of the age]?
Matthew 24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
question:
If God covered the earth with water in the flood, wiping out all living, couldn't he have done it before [gap]? If he is creating a new heaven and new earth in Revelation, couldn't he have done that before?
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.
--Rev 21
"new"
G2537
καινός
kainos
kahee-nos'
Of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while G3501 is properly so with respect to age): - new.
I'm going to take a look at the book of Enoch which apparently is still canon in the eastern church.
I just want to put this here before I lose it. Notice the language that he uses.
7 And when I shall extinguish thee, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof black; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make black over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.
12 By the swords of the mighty will I cause thy multitude to fall; the terrible of the nations are they all; and they shall spoil the pride of Egypt, and all the multitude thereof shall be destroyed.
13 I will destroy also all the beasts thereof from beside many waters; neither shall the foot of man trouble them any more, nor the hoofs of beasts trouble them.
14 Then will I make their waters to settle, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord GOD.
15 When I shall make the land of Egypt desolate and waste, a land destitute of that whereof it was full, when I shall smite all them that dwell therein, then shall they know that I am the LORD.
--Eze 32
:cloud9: Good post Molly, and good question. This is a very interesting topic we have never covered in depth before, and could answer a lot of questions. I hope to have time to dig deeper in it myself for some answers.
And: to chime in with what Jabcat said, will ALL the parties affected negatively by this thread, please take a step back before further sanctions are warranted?
We are brethren and try to maintain a Tentmaker FAMILY attitude about one another on here, which IMO is what makes Tentmaker special from the other boards where food fights and insults are the "norm". I would not stay on such a board personally, which is one of the reasons why I am here.
I think most of us in our lives all had a disgruntled father, uncle, brother, mother, sister, aunt, ect. around the Thanksgiving table, but at least in MY experience we were told to overlook them and kill them with kindness, BECAUSE THEY WERE FAMILY.
We did NOT (well, most of us anyway :winkgrin: ), carve them up instead of the turkey, and bury them in the backyard. Nuff said? :girlheart:
Genesis opens wondrously, first announcing a creation, then showing it marred, and then a restoration. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." As for God, His work is perfect. If He created, His work must have been good. And yet the next thing is a darkened, chaotic world... for "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In some way, not revealed, God's work had been destroyed. Contrast this statement of a chaotic condition with the following from Isa 45:18: "For thus says the Lord Who created the heavens, God Himself Who formed the earth and made it, Who established it and created it NOT A WORTHLESS WASTE; He formed it to be inhabited." Is this a contradiction between Isaiah and Moses? That question can best be answered by a careful study of the first two verses of Genesis.
The first contents itself with a simple statement of a consummated act: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Not a word about the method, manner, means or procedure of creation, and nothing of its result. The second verse carries a tremendous suggestion of collapse in its touching picture of the Spirit of God brooding over the watery face of the formless void! Let us see what a careful word-study of this second verse will yield.
In the King James Version the text begins: "And the earth was..." This word (and) in the Hebrew text is also translated "but," or "moreover." Thus in the Septuagint version of the Scripture the text begins: "But the earth had become..." and this is the sense of the Vulgate as well. The second word to be noted is the one translated in the English Bible "was." The Hebrew language lacks a word for "became," so the word "was" is always used to carry out the sense of "became." It is so used in describing Lot's wife, who "became a pillar of salt." She was not a pillar of salt to begin with, but the became such by her disobedience. This phrase then literally reads, "But the earth had become... tohu v'bohu!" This Phrase, "tohu v'bohu," is translated in the American revision "waste and void." In the King James Version it reads, "without form and void," but the sense of this phrase is even stronger than that. The Septuagint says, "But the earth had become unfurnished and empty," the Vulgate says "dreary and empty," and the Aramaic makest the strongest and clearest statement of all: "And the earth had become ruined and uninhabited!" Hebrew scholars have said that this is the clearest statement of all, as the term "tohu v'bohu" literally means "desolation succeeding previous life."
The prophet Jeremiah tells us what happened to that pre-historic world, what happened to the cities, how great areas of the world convulsed, the earth rolled over, and the tops rolled over the bottom as the mountains trembled and the hills removed. "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger" Jer. 4:23-26. Ask any geological engineer what coal beds are, how they were formed, and you will understand clearly the mighty convolutions described by the inspired prophet. A brother told of his visit down in deep mines in the Eastern part of the U.S., over a mile beneath the earth's surface. He looked at ferns petrified in the solid coal, forty feet long, and over them are mountains of dirt and rock and stone; and they have been folded over, and the compression of the astronomical impact of the influence that came, by whole areas of the earth heaving and rolling, buried those ferms to make this coal and this coal era.
The second verse of Genesis, then, literally should read, "But the earth had become desolate, ruined and unfurnished, covered with water and shrouded with darkness. And the Spirit of God brooded over the face of the waters." Let us clearly keep in mind that all this is prior to the six days of creation. Isaiah says that God created the earth not a waste and Moses states that the earth nevertheless had become a waste. God, then, in the six days, restores that earth, not originally made dark by Him, yet now in darkness; and on this ruined earth His work proceeds UNTIL HIS IMAGE IS SEEN, and He can rest there. — Eby, ECHOES FROM EDEN, Part XIX
wow Eby believes in the gap. Thank you, Beloved Servant.
..he created it [the earth] not in vain...[Isa 45:18]
"in vain"
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
...he formed it to be inhabited.. [Isa 45:18]
inhabited is the opposite of
H922
בּהוּ
bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
So something caused this to happen--
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form,[TOHU] and void;[BOHU]
That makes a lot of sense to me.
I beheld, and, lo, there was no man [ADAM]..
--Jer 4
...and there was not a man[ADAM] to till the ground.
--Gen 2:5
At your service, Molly!
We're family!
I think it has something to do with the fallen angels[the watchers] and maybe their offspring the Nephilim ['the fallen ones'], but I doubt Eby is going to go there. :laughing7:
"Nephilim" (נְפִילִים) probably derives from the Hebrew root npl (נָפַל), "to fall" which also includes "to cause to fall" and "to kill, to ruin". The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon gives the meaning as "giants"[1] Robert Baker Girdlestone[2] argued the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem. Adam Clarke took it as passive, "fallen", "apostates". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", equivalent grammatically to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e. overseer), asir, "one who is bound", (i.e. prisoner) etc.[3][4]
--wikipedia.com "nephilim"
...and there was not a man[ADAM] to till the ground.
--Gen 2:5
This reminds me of a revelation I received. I think I'll post it on the other thread.
But on topic, Adam was already created in Genesis 1, after the earth was created and the animals etc.
Genesis says God said let there be light. How can the earth be created in Genesis 1:1 and angels etc if light has yet to be created?
How can there be an earth with life upon it if the lord has yet to create a sun, moon and stars?
Also molly, you say that the angels left their habitation and are reserved in chains of darkness, didn't these angels get punished for taking women in the days of Noah?
If there was a rebellious company of angels during the pre gap, then why are these angels reserved in chains of darkness? Satan has not been chained neither did his angels, so I ask the question why are the angels in Noah's day chained in darkness? It must be because they broke the laws of YAH, but Satan somehow manages to wriggle his way through Gods laws and avoid this prison, at least for the time being.
So what I'm saying is that the angels in prison are those who rebelled in Noahs day and not those who supposedly rebelled during the pre gap.
I'm not entirely opposed to the pre gap, but these are some of the issues I have with it.
T. Russell wrote: "The incomprehensible darkened and utterly deluded mind of the evolutionist believes that out of the warm slime along the shore of some primordial sea, spontaneously and without cause or guidance, protoplasm arranged itself and evolved into a microbe, or maggot, which squirmed and twisted and reproduced its own species, and then finding use for a tail, developed one. Later on, one of its still more intelligent offspring concluded that oars, or fins, would be useful, and developed them. Another, later on, got chased by a hungry brother and, jumping clear of the water, got the idea that the fins further developed would be wings, and liked the new style, so that he stayed out of the water, and then decided that legs and toes would be a convenience and developed them. Others of the family followed other 'notions,' of which they seemingly had an inexhaustible supply, as evidenced by the great variety of animals we see about us. However, in due time one of these descendants of the first maggot which had reached the monkey degree of development, got a noble idea before his mind – he said to himself, I will discard my tail, and cease using my hands as feet, and will shed my coat of hair, and will develop a nose and a forehead and a brain with moral and reflective organs. I will wear tailor-made clothing and a high silk hat, and call myself Charles Darwin, LL.D., and write a record of my evolution!" The fact is, however, that the probability of life originating from accident or by spontaneous generation is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing plant.
:laughing7:
Quote from: TTAlso molly, you say that the angels left their habitation and are reserved in chains of darkness, didn't these angels get punished for taking women in the days of Noah?
If there was a rebellious company of angels during the pre gap, then why are these angels reserved in chains of darkness? Satan has not been chained neither did his angels, so I ask the question why are the angels in Noah's day chained in darkness? It must be because they broke the laws of YAH, but Satan somehow manages to wriggle h
is way through Gods laws and avoid this prison, at least for the time being.
It's a long story, TT. [which I haven't figured out, yet] :happygrin:
I've also been listening to Michael Heiser recently, which helps.
The fallen angels of Gen 6 left their estate [assigned as watchers] and had children with human women; the offspring are called the nephilim [mighty men of old].
If they did anything to cause the gap, or if Satan did anything, that is not revealed to me yet. But, it has their MO. They do not want God to succeed in making man a divine being with dominion over the earth.
Yes, I think these watchers are the ones that are chained in tarturus--they will not get out until judgment day. The lake of fire is 'reserved' for them.
The Nephilim were killed in the flood, [and their interaction with humans might have caused the flood in the first place], but appear again after the flood. I'm not sure how that happens. Heiser says the Nephilim are immortal and remain on earth as demon spirits. Are there more fallen angels continuing to pollute the human bloodline after the flood? Maybe. I don't know yet. But remember when they sent spies into the promised land, and the ones who came back with a bad report said, 'Are you kidding me? They are GIANTS. We don't have a chance'. Heiser says those were Nephilim. He also says that the reason Joshua was told to kill every man woman and child was because these were Nephilim. Remember in Sodom they were being intimate with strange flesh? And, then they tried to seduce the angels who came to get Lot? Those were Nephilim. Heiser says the Nephilim are the seed of the Nachash referenced in Gen 3. They are the enemies of man and God.
This is the spiritual warfare that is going on behind the scenes.
The Nephilim were killed in the flood, [and their interaction with humans might have caused the flood in the first place], but appear again after the flood. I'm not sure how that happens. Heiser says the Nephilim are immortal and remain on earth as demon spirits. Are there more fallen angels continuing to pollute the human bloodline after the flood? Maybe. I don't know yet. But remember when they sent spies into the promised land, and the ones who came back with a bad report said, 'Are you kidding me? They are GIANTS. We don't have a chance'. Heiser says those were Nephilim. He also says that the reason Joshua was told to kill every man woman and child was because these were Nephilim. Remember in Sodom they were being intimate with strange flesh? And, then they tried to seduce the angels who came to get Lot? Those were Nephilim. Heiser says the Nephilim are the seed of the Nachash referenced in Gen 3. They are the enemies of man and God.
Molly
I thought the Nephilim was the term used for the sons of god. For the giants were the offspring of Nephilim called Annukin, that built huge cities and towers that went up to heaven. These annukins also had offspring and the giants surived Noahs flood, for king David's army must battle with these giants and many of his army fought valiantly against these mighty giants one of whom had 6 toes and earned their honour in the holy bible as a memorial for eternity.
TT
That's basically right. Here's the Gen 6 scripture--
4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
--Gen 6
The sons of God are the 'fallen angels' or the 'gods.' The giants are the nephilim. They are the offspring of the
'sons of God' who are the fallen angels or gods [of the divine council].
Whether Nephilim gives birth to Nephilim--maybe--it makes sense. But you need the 'god' to start it.
So later when we see giants after the flood, they are nephilim because that is the word in Hebrew.
"giants"
H5303
נפל נפיל
nephıyl nephil;
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
H5307
נפל
nâphal
naw-fal'
A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.
"mighty men" is gibborim.
Goliath=9ft9in tall.
A possible connection with fallen-ness may exist in the fallen warriors of Ezekiel 32:27, where a change to the Massoretic Text reading gibborim nophelim (גִּבֹּורִים נֹפְלִים "fallen mighty ones") would produce the reading gibborim nephilim.[5][6]. As the text stands "And they shall not lie with the fallen mighty of the uncircumcised, which are gone down (yaradu יָרְדֽוּ) to the grave with their weapons of war:", but this could become the gibborim nepilim of the uncircumcised.[7] In Genesis 6:4 they are described as "ancient warriors, the men of renown". In Numbers 13:32-33 they are a race of giants native to Canaan. (The idea that there were giants in Canaan when the Israelites arrived is found elsewhere, for example in Amos 2:9, where Yahweh reminds the prophet that he "destroyed the Amorites before you, whose height was as the height of cedar trees").[8] The two are tied together by Genesis 6:4, "the nephilim were on the earth in those days (before the Flood), and also after," and most later compositions and translations, including the Septuagint, therefore understand the nephilim to be giants.[9]
The nature of the nephilim is complicated by the ambiguity[citation needed] of Genesis 6:4, "the sons of God joined with the daughters of humankind, who bore them children - they were the ancient warriors, the men of renown." Richard Hess in The Anchor Bible Dictionary takes it as read that the nephilim are the offspring,[10] as does P. W. Coxon in Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible[11]
--Wikipedia, Nephilim
Could they be false gods, inferior creations, idols, images and/or imaginations?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on September 13, 2010, 02:08:53 AM
Could they be false gods, inferior creations, idols, images and/or imaginations?
I suppose so. Certainly men worshipped them as if they were real. Heiser says that God got so fed up with men listening to them and worshipping them, that finally, at the time of the tower of Babel, he scattered men and placed the fallen angels over all the nations except Israel, which God kept for himself. But, Israel too went whoring after other gods, as we know, except for the remnant.
Heiser says that we are to replace these sons of God, when we co-inherit the nations with Jesus, as rulers over the nations. That makes sense to explain why they are battling spiritually against us. But, for now, they are assigned nations and rule over them. It also explains how Satan could offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. They are currently his to offer. This is what Paul means when he says we will judge angels--it is these 'sons of God' that we will judge.
The book of Enoch [which is supposedly older than the book of Daniel] says that these angels are the ones that taught men knowledge, science, architecture, metal work [for war and jewelry], astronomical cycles, sorcery, witchcraft, astrology, all those things we are not supposed to do.
Heiser says Psalm 82 describes Yahweh meeting with them in the divine council and rebuking them for their treatment of men, and threatening them with a bad ending.
Psalm 82
1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
:cloud9: Interesting thoughts, Molly....I thought of Daniel's angel saying how the prince of Persia withstood him for 21 days......
Quote from: Cardinal on September 13, 2010, 05:04:37 AM
:cloud9: Interesting thoughts, Molly....I thought of Daniel's angel saying how the prince of Persia withstood him for 21 days......
Yes, exactly. The heavenly messenger to Daniel was delayed while fighting with the 'prince' of Persia. That is one of the 'gods' placed over Persia according to Heiser. This is probably the same word as 'archon' in the Greek in Ephesians 6 I'm thinking.
"prince" [of Persia]
H8269
שׂר
śarsar
From H8323;
a head person (of any rank or class): - captain (that had rule),
chief(captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ([-task-]) master, prince (-ipal), ruler, steward.
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against arche, exousia, ho kosmokrator ho skotos toutou aion, pneumatikos poneria en epouranios [Eph 6]
"principalities"G746
αρχή
archē
ar-khay'
From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete)
chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate),
magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
5Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
6His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.
7And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.
8Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.
9Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.
10And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.
11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.
12Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
14Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
--Daniel 10
Quote from: thinktank on September 12, 2010, 11:32:00 PMI thought the Nephilim was the term used for the sons of god. For the giants were the offspring of Nephilim called Annukin, that built huge cities and towers that went up to heaven. These annukins also had offspring and the giants surived Noahs flood,
And many othere because the flood was local.
Quotefor king David's army must battle with these giants and many of his army fought valiantly against these mighty giants one of whom had 6 toes
Even today there are people with 6 toes per foot.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 13, 2010, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 12, 2010, 11:32:00 PMI thought the Nephilim was the term used for the sons of god. For the giants were the offspring of Nephilim called Annukin, that built huge cities and towers that went up to heaven. These annukins also had offspring and the giants surived Noahs flood,
And many othere because the flood was local.
How can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground.
Quotefor king David's army must battle with these giants and many of his army fought valiantly against these mighty giants one of whom had 6 toes
Even today there are people with 6 toes per foot.
5 toes are enough, their a pain, I wish God created something a bit stronger.
Where in the Bible is everyone getting all of this lore (for lack of a better word) on the Nephilim?
Quote from: Lefein on September 14, 2010, 12:12:48 AM
Where in the Bible is everyone getting all of this lore (for lack of a better word) on the Nephilim?
Because of the giants, why would a son of god, that some say are men, produce might men of renown so big that compared to normal men we are as grasshoppers in their sight?
How many christians do you know that sleep with a pagan woman and give birth to big foot?
Quote from: thinktank on September 13, 2010, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 13, 2010, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 12, 2010, 11:32:00 PMI thought the Nephilim was the term used for the sons of god. For the giants were the offspring of Nephilim called Annukin, that built huge cities and towers that went up to heaven. These annukins also had offspring and the giants surived Noahs flood,
And many othere because the flood was local.
How can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground..
Sea? Covering the whole earth takes 3.5x more wather than is on the planet.
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 14, 2010, 12:32:19 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 13, 2010, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 13, 2010, 11:33:01 PM
Quote from: thinktank on September 12, 2010, 11:32:00 PMI thought the Nephilim was the term used for the sons of god. For the giants were the offspring of Nephilim called Annukin, that built huge cities and towers that went up to heaven. These annukins also had offspring and the giants surived Noahs flood,
And many othere because the flood was local.
How can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground..
Sea? Covering the whole earth takes 3.5x more wather than is on the planet.
You got the polar ice caps, that's a ton of water right there and also various temperature changes can change the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Remember the dove that Noah sent out could not find dry land? How far do doves fly out? or was it a pigeon.
Doesn't take a fallen angel to breed 9 feet humans, Goliath was feared even among his nation, he came from a big strong men family...so what?
This smells like more imagination from flesh-oriented minds.
You know what, maybe the current tallest man (8+ feet) is a nephilim?
Oh and I guess Zdeno Chara(hockey) has a nephilim grand grand father, he sure is ugly like a fallen angel.
QuoteHow can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground..
Just wow!
So God decided to destroy life on earth by the flood and kept Noah, his family and animals of each species live through the ark but...Ah these clever giants survived the flood by mounting on a montain and standing on their 6 toes!
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 14, 2010, 12:43:40 AM
Doesn't take a fallen angel to breed 9 feet humans, Goliath was feared even among his nation, he came from a big strong men family...so what?
This smells like more imagination from flesh-oriented minds.
You know what, maybe the current tallest man (8+ feet) is a nephilim?
Oh and I guess Zdeno Chara(hockey) has a nephilim grand grand father, he sure is ugly like a fallen angel.
QuoteHow can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground..
Just wow!
So God decided to destroy life on earth by the flood and kept Noah, his family and animals of each species live through the ark but...Ah these clever giants survived the flood by mounting on a montain and standing on their 6 toes!
I have heard stranger stories Q, most of which are in the bible :laughing7:
You'd be suprised the lengths and breadth's people do too survive.
Numbers
The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men [3] of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deutronomy
20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; [6] 21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:
We know there are giants in the bible, it's a matter of connecting the dots, is the source because of the sons of god which mated with women.
Now we also know that angels are kept in chains of darkness, for they left their habitation. So it is a possobility that these angels were the sons of god who left heaven and took wifes in rebellion to the father and so God punished them with a prison sentence.
Quote from: thinktank on September 14, 2010, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: Quaesitor on September 14, 2010, 12:43:40 AM
Doesn't take a fallen angel to breed 9 feet humans, Goliath was feared even among his nation, he came from a big strong men family...so what?
This smells like more imagination from flesh-oriented minds.
You know what, maybe the current tallest man (8+ feet) is a nephilim?
Oh and I guess Zdeno Chara(hockey) has a nephilim grand grand father, he sure is ugly like a fallen angel.
QuoteHow can it be a local flood? The rains poured down and the sea opened up like a geyser, I would have thought these giants survived because they were so tall, tall enough to not drown, especially if they were on high ground..
Just wow!
So God decided to destroy life on earth by the flood and kept Noah, his family and animals of each species live through the ark but...Ah these clever giants survived the flood by mounting on a montain and standing on their 6 toes!
I have heard stranger stories Q, most of which are in the bible :laughing7:
You'd be suprised the lengths and breadth's people do too survive.
Numbers
The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men [3] of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deutronomy
20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; [6] 21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:
We know there are giants in the bible, it's a matter of connecting the dots, is the source because of the sons of god which mated with women.
Now we also know that angels are kept in chains of darkness, for they left their habitation. So it is a possobility that these angels were the sons of god who left heaven and took wifes in rebellion to the father and so God punished them with a prison sentence.
But these stories ARE in the Bible the connecting of dots isn't.
These sons of God could be aliens from another world who also appear to have built the pyramids and destroyed the Mayans...oh yeah that's Stargate.
Jesus make it quite clear that angels can't mate.
QuoteNumbers
The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men [3] of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
So these men were thousands of feet tall, since they were like grasshoppers in their sight.
Quote from: thinktank on September 14, 2010, 12:20:13 AMHow many christians do you know that sleep with a pagan woman and give birth to big foot?
:cloud9: So THAT'S where Bigfoot came from.... :rolllol:
Seriously, and this is a serious note, demons can rape women. No kidding. I know some who have experienced it. How they went about producing children from it (in the past) I don't know. Blessings....
Quote from: shawn on September 07, 2010, 03:55:21 PM
TOPIC SPLIT FROM "I'M FINALLY CONVINCED..."
Quote from: WhiteWings on September 06, 2010, 11:33:20 PM
Quote from: shawn on September 06, 2010, 10:55:44 PMI believe there is no other doctrine that has done more harm to the Christian faith.
Certainly for the people that are Christians.
But if I have to decide science did more harm to Christianity. Or more correctly the reponse of church to science. Earth is flat. All planets circle around earth. Planets move in perfect circles because God won't creating imperfect ellipces etc.
It's often said education drives out religion. I think that's true. But why? I think mainly because of church doctrine. More many people Bible=Church.
But in reality Bible != Church
And that sick ET stuff is part of it
As I wrote before:
UR= Mercy/grace
ED= Justice
ET= Sick/vengence
:2c:
I'm not sure why the study of how God's physical laws work would do harm to Christianity. The study of science has brought me new found awe of God. With that said, I do see what you are saying at work. I suppose it's kinda like when people watch illusionists. When the illusion happens...people are in awe...can't believe it. When they learn how it's done...its like oh. Understanding how God makes the universe roll seems to take some of that shock and awe away from many individuals. And the hostility that many scientists have towards God has led to science becoming a religion all in its own.
I am scientifically trained...I like empirical evidence. But, I am also a man of faith...I need no evidence. Blending the two has been a challenge. But, I have found peace in studying what we know and having faith in that which can not ever be measured or studied.
bump - topic unlocked and "cleaned up" - we'll see how it goes.
Quote from: Cardinal on September 14, 2010, 01:36:47 AM
Quote from: thinktank on September 14, 2010, 12:20:13 AMHow many christians do you know that sleep with a pagan woman and give birth to big foot?
:cloud9: So THAT'S where Bigfoot came from.... :rolllol:
Seriously, and this is a serious note, demons can rape women. No kidding. I know some who have experienced it. How they went about producing children from it (in the past) I don't know. Blessings....
Then demons must be very similar to (wo)men because the woman won't even get pregnant if the genetic makeup differs. But as always there are exceptions....
(http://www.brooklynartscouncil.org/files/images/5_CatBird.jpg)
QuoteCovering the whole earth takes 3.5x more wather than is on the planet.
That's because the earth is expanding. If my computer worked, I could show you. :happygrin:
Regarding the conversation about about the 'fallen angels' or rebellious 'gods' of the divine council--I realized that they are called princes by Daniel and the New Testament calls Satan the prince of this world--but, look here, who are these:
1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.Was Jesus killed by the princes of this world? If you think that, name them. I don't think anyone would call the high priest or Pilate princes. Otherwise, this is saying that the death of Jesus was controlled or presided over by these same supernatural beings--which makes a lot of sense to me--because who did Jesus say the Pharisees were working for?
As to the rest, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might; put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil, because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities(arche), with the authorities(exousia), with the world-rulers(kosmokrator) of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places; because of this take ye up the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to resist in the day of the evil, and all things having done--to stand.
(Eph 6:10-13)
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
(2Co 10:3-5)
Quote from: Molly on October 05, 2010, 10:37:50 AM
QuoteCovering the whole earth takes 3.5x more wather than is on the planet.
That's because the earth is expanding. If my computer worked, I could show you. :happygrin:
Regarding the conversation about about the 'fallen angels' or rebellious 'gods' of the divine council--I realized that they are called princes by Daniel and the New Testament calls Satan the prince of this world--but, look here, who are these:
1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Was Jesus killed by the princes of this world? If you think that, name them. I don't think anyone would call the high priest or Pilate princes. Otherwise, this is saying that the death of Jesus was controlled or presided over by these same supernatural beings--which makes a lot of sense to me--because who did Jesus say the Pharisees were working for?
Exactly, there is a higher power than man. Just like in the movies when the good guy beats up the bad guy but finds out that he actually woks for somone higher in the chain of command, then the good guy finds the bad guy and that bad guy also has his own boss, he the boss, worships his own god, whatever that may be , drugs, money, guns, sorcery, whatever he/she thinks makes them powerful. :2c:
Quote from: thinktank on October 05, 2010, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Molly on October 05, 2010, 10:37:50 AM
QuoteCovering the whole earth takes 3.5x more wather than is on the planet.
That's because the earth is expanding. If my computer worked, I could show you. :happygrin:
Regarding the conversation about about the 'fallen angels' or rebellious 'gods' of the divine council--I realized that they are called princes by Daniel and the New Testament calls Satan the prince of this world--but, look here, who are these:
1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Was Jesus killed by the princes of this world? If you think that, name them. I don't think anyone would call the high priest or Pilate princes. Otherwise, this is saying that the death of Jesus was controlled or presided over by these same supernatural beings--which makes a lot of sense to me--because who did Jesus say the Pharisees were working for?
Exactly, there is a higher power than man. Just like in the movies when the good guy beats up the bad guy but finds out that he actually woks for somone higher in the chain of command, then the good guy finds the bad guy and that bad guy also has his own boss, he the boss, worships his own god, whatever that may be , drugs, money, guns, sorcery, whatever he/she thinks makes them powerful. :2c:
God says to Abraham, I will make of you a great nation. Well, what nation might that be? Israel would say it's them, American Christians might say, it's them.
But God himself tells us who that nation is going to be--it will be a nation of priests and kings, the group which he keeps totally for himself, his inheritance.
Exodus 15:17
Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O LORD, which thy hands have established.
:cloud9: Paul said it was not the idol, but the SPIRIT behind the idol. I knew a man who was shown black clouds over the cities of the US once, by the Lord. He asked the Lord what they were, and the Lord told him they were the spiritual rulers over those cities.
I believe there are princes or rulers of darkness that are involved in the affairs of men, to the extent the Lord, and His prayer warriors, or lack of prayer warriors, allow them to be.
If He opened your spiritual eyes right now, you would be astonished at how many of them are everywhere. The baby crying in church, being pinched by a demon; hidden in the books on your shelf you didn't know had bad topics in them. All they look for are vessels they can rule thru or in, and most of the time, they find them. My :2c: Blessings....
Is this video funny or heart wrenching?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4K9-cQSDa8
:sigh: Heart wrenching and IMO a form of child abuse..... :thumbdown:
Amen, Card.
The point being, is that people just don't realize where these princes rule and how sly they are.
This kind will not come out except by fasting and prayer.
It is common for six fingers and six toes to accompany the genetic condition producing giantism.
It has recently been discovered that two to five meters beneath the surface there are deposits of a special kind of mineral, sellite, sealite, or celite, having only "heard" it pronounced I don't know the spelling. This stuff is estimated to hold thirty-three times the water in all of earth's oceans.
Some of this sons of God mating with human women weaves in and out of other stories about early mankind: "Serpent's Seed" doctrine; the asexually reproducing Adam having offspring before it was put in a trance and the "curved chamber" was removed and built up into a womb-man; a creation prior to the week in Genesis one, some of which were approved and ascended, others went with the head of that creation, Lucifer who became Satan. Those who were in between, in order to become judged, were incarnated as the people of this creation. (Sounds like something I would do: not love God enough, not hate the devil enough.)
Quite a bit more could be written about these topics; but, even though I lean to accepting certain things, I don't know that any it is of much importance for our walk with God. Some of this panders to people's sense of self importance and an identity we should be getting from God within. With reincarnation, for instance, I get no respect and nobody really cares for me here so it feels good to imagine I was once worshipped as a god. (I guess some of us could just remember what it was like to be a teenager instead.)
I do believe there are things like incubus and succubus which I had some experiences with when I was young and ignorant. This is far more common than it seems. Many are ashamed to admit it and don't wan't to sound crazy.
I said on another thread that Nathan talked about something.
Unholy union
The giants
Sons of God took women. Out of this unholy union where the sons of Adam .i.e the sons of god, r**e the women probably of cains camp, who lived in a different location, and it is likely that the sons of Adam went over to their camp and saw how beautyfull the women were and so lusted and conceived sin in their hearts, which led them to do a terrible evil causing an unholy curse and this curse causes a mutation which means the woman gave birth to giants.
In the law of old testament it says that the man who takes a woman and causes her to have children must by law financially support that women and be responsible for that child. As his punishment he must work with the sweat of his brow in order to feed his children. Now since the original abusive act in Genesis took place, then a huge financial burden would be placed on the fathers because their offspring would be giagantic and require huge amounts of feeding, a big financial burden a fitting penalty for the barbaric evil. In those days a man could not just run away and avoid child support as they do today.
Note I'm not saing that giagantism today is related to that past evil in any shape or form, other than perhaps they share some of the same genetic material that may have passed down to subsequent generations and thus lies dormant in the human population.
When I look at it, to me the above makes sense and means that fallen angels cannot mate with woman to produce offspring and can only posess human beings and alter their reality but cannot father human offspring. For that which is of the flesh is flesh and that is of the spirit is spirit.
There is still no consensus on whether or not the Sons of God where the Sethites, or Angels.
The Book of Enoch, while hardly canon, still provides a glimpse at accepted Hebrew thought on the matter, so the possibility of Angels who can take indeed take physical form - physical enough that the men of Sodom wanted to rape them...cannot be so easily swept away in favour of this plausible, but ..different.. theory.
We don't know a great deal about Angels themselves, infact, we only know of them through the lense of how we see them from their office, or their task at hand - Messenger, Warrior, Guardian, Keeper, etc.
We hardly know anything of their actual natures, aside from the fact that they are primarily supernatural, or spiritual.
We should remember though that spirit vs. flesh isn't like...idea vs. matter...It is Supernatural, vs. Natural. Supernatural is still "Natural" it is just enhanced, superified.
So, the Nephilim could be indeed, the offspring of the Supernatural Servants of God, and the Natural children of Man, or they could be Sethites and Cainites... :p
But perhaps it is not really important to know, in the long run.
...Thinking about Supernatural and Natural though, I think I should do some thinking on that, might be fun! ^^
I'll share what I find after some thought! :D
:cloud9: The spiritual definitely can affect the physical, and perhaps after that last episode if that is indeed what took place, perhaps God refused to let them mate with women after that?
Ever heard of a man with green blood that doesn't register any human characteristics? I have, and from a nurse relative. Ever heard of a man with no blood at death by gunshot? I have, again from a close associate. The common denominator? Demons. So if they can affect blood, and cause sickness, what else might they have been able to do? :mshock: My :2c: Blessings....
I don't think fallen angels would have that capacity, God has to allow them to do anything: see Job for more details.
But in the case of the Nephilim, it actually doesn't say anything regarding condemnation, nor condonement of the act, it merely mentions The Sons of God taking wives of the daughters of men, and bearing children.
These children where mighty men who where of old; men of renown (KJV), mortals of the name (Original Hebrew).
But there is no mention of the Sons of God, or their act, being directly referred to as rape, or even evil...atleast in this verse that I know of.
The word Nephilim itself (according to ISA's Hebrew text) means "Ones distinguished", or distinguished ones.
They are not even called devils, or fallen angels, or anything even similar - They are called The Sons of God, that says something about their nature.
I'd say, if the Sons of God where Angels indeed, that the Nephilim were in the eyes of men, what the Greeks would have called their gods...Noble, mighty, powerful humans, beautiful and perilous - having Angelic features.
Quoteit actually doesn't say anything regarding condemnation
Peter and Jude comment on that.
6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. --Jude 1
2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
But this could easily refer to the War in Heaven, not the union of Angel and Man.
The Greek says;
Aggelous te tous me teresantas ten heauton archen alla apolipontas to idion oiketerion eis krisin megales hemeras desmois aidiois hupo zophon tetereken.
Literal Translation:
Messengers besides the no ones-keeping[keeping] the of-selves[of-themselves] original[Sovereignty] but from-lacking[leaving] the own home-place[habitation] into judging of-great day to-bonds un-perceived[imperceptible] under gloom has-kept[he-has-kept]
The term estate is translated from arches, which means Sovereignty. They left their sovereignty, and habitation - rebelling...Hence they sinned.
The same would go for 2 Peter 2:4
These same angels having been sent to Tartarus.
Quote from: Lefein on October 08, 2010, 03:41:13 AM
But this could easily refer to the war in Heaven, not the union of Angel and Man.
Yes, but--
You have the war in heaven--what caused the war?
And they are cast out of heaven--to where? It says he's cast out into the earth.
It says their crime is that they left their first estate--what does that mean? That's a willful disobedience--different from being thrown out--they left of their own free will.
Also, when does this war in heaven happen?
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.--Rev 12
What puzzle me is why did God call fallen angels sons?
Where else does God call fallen angels his sons. Sons mean a close relationship and that's why Im edging towards the idea that the sons of God are the sons of seth who comitted a gruesome abominable act, and caused an evil curse in the blood. For the giants are very human like, except for being large and having 6 fingers.
When, or what caused that war I don't know.
Chronologically, it would have had to have been before Mankind even had daughters to begin with - Satan and his angels fell together, he pulled a third of them out of Heaven with him...at least according to Tradition, and most scholarly knowledge.
That means that these angels would not have been called Sons of God after their rebellion, they would have been called what they where - fallen. That also means, that the Sons of God could not have caused the War in Heaven by their actions, it doesn't fit chronologically.
We can't assume from scriptures, or theory that the union of Angels and Men (if indeed it was Angels), caused the War in Heaven, and we can't really even assume that these Angels are the ones who were chained in Tartarus - back in Genesis it isn't even called a sin what they did, it is stated in an oddly cold fashion...and in another way, it is almost stated nobly!
"And their children were men of renown!"
QuoteWhere else does God call fallen angels his sons. Sons mean a close relationship and that's why Im edging towards the idea that the sons of God are the sons of seth who comitted a gruesome abominable act, and caused an evil curse in the blood. For the giants are very human like, except for being large and having 6 fingers.
But it isn't mentioned as being sinful, let alone abominable. Not that I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong.
Remember, the children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, and neither are the fathers responsible for the sins of their children.
The Blood Curse, I am curious about this, would you provide some scriptures to point me to this teaching? I've never seen anything on it before...Then again I tend to shy away from the Nephilim...too much "UFO talk"...
...Speaking of the whole Angels and Men thing...I wrote a short story on the event...I might share it...lol >_>
Of course, I wrote it pre-UR.
Quote from: thinktank on October 08, 2010, 03:49:07 AM
What puzzle me is why did God call fallen angels sons?
Where else does God call fallen angels his sons. Sons mean a close relationship and that's why Im edging towards the idea that the sons of God are the sons of seth who comitted a gruesome abominable act, and caused an evil curse in the blood. For the giants are very human like, except for being large and having 6 fingers.
they are called sons of God in Genesis 6, and I think the same group are called sons of God in Job. I think they are the elohyim, 'gods.' I realize the New Testament calls them 'angels.' David calls them 'gods' in Psalm 82.
The problem with their being sons of Seth--why do you get giants who are mighty men?
1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. --Psalm 82
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Quote from: LefeinWhen, or what caused that war I don't know.
Chronologically, it would have had to have been before Mankind even had daughters to begin with - Satan and his angels fell together, he pulled a third of them out of Heaven with him...at least according to Tradition, and most scholarly knowledge.
Remember though in Job, Satan is still going between heaven and earth. He's part of the council of gods--the congregation of the mighty-- that come before God.
6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." --Job 1
6Now there was a day when
the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
--Job 1
Angels=sons of God
And, remember Jesus tells the disciples he saw Satan fall from heaven. Is he just making a random statement or is the context important?
My computer is broken. It jumps all over the place while I'm typing. Also, I can't show you the Hebrew.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Yes, but neither does that contradict that it is a spiritual war between heavenly beings and rulers of wickedness in high places.
Do you think the Satanists are just pretending?
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 03:46:04 AM
Quote from: Lefein on October 08, 2010, 03:41:13 AM
But this could easily refer to the war in Heaven, not the union of Angel and Man.
Yes, but--
You have the war in heaven--what caused the war?
And they are cast out of heaven--to where? It says he's cast out into the earth.
It says their crime is that they left their first estate--what does that mean? That's a willful disobedience--different from being thrown out--they left of their own free will.
Also, when does this war in heaven happen?
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
--Rev 12
The war in rev 12 is about Jesus Christ. Before ths war in heaven took place Satan was free to go to and fro and in addition approach the throne of God. He did this on a regular basis in order to condemn the saints of their sins. Read the book of Job.
But after Jesus was born, we now have an advocate with the father so Satan is no longer allowed into heaven, hence the war takes place, michael casts him out and bans him from entering the heaven of God or the heaven of heavens.
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord,
even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. (A new power given to man)18 And he said unto them,
I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
Notice here that after the war takes place and Satan is cast upon the earth, these verses proclaim the following
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven,
Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
So when did salvation and the kingdom of Christ come upon the earth? and when did we have the blood to overcome?
The time that Jesus Christ came to the earth.
So the war in heaven has nothing to do with the events of Genesis giants. Because Satan could freely enter Gods throne during Jobs time, which was a long time period after Genesis.
The tail that drew the third and cast them to the earth, could be the devil destroying a third of Gods angels, rather than recruiting them, for it does not sound like a recruitment, casting down to the earth, rather it sounds more like the devil smashed them down, but this last sentence is just something I thought of, but I belive the rest I said lines up perfectly with scripture.
The War in Heaven doesn't mean that the "Watchers" (as the angels who mated with humans tend to be called), were the cause.
As for the sons of God gathering - it says "and Satan came also among them";
You might say something along this way.
"And Congress gathered themselves before the President, and Rush Limbaugh came also among them."
Rush Limbaugh...thankfully...isn't a member of Congress, is he? :thumbsup:
I like that TT--except what caused the war?
Clearly Satan and his angels are in rebellion. This war is just the final victory in heaven.
I would suggest the rebellion is already ongoing when Satan appears in the garden in Genesis 3 and goes for Adam's jugular.
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:18:35 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Yes, but neither does that contradict that it is a spiritual war between heavenly beings and rulers of wickedness in high places.
Do you think the Satanists are just pretending?
he's still prince of the air, remember where comest thou? Asked God to Satan.
To and fro the earth, so he can still fly about in the sky, perhaps even go to outer space called heavens in scripture, but cannot enter Gods heavenly throne or mount sion heavenly Jerusalem the future home of the saints.
Think of this--
If what TT and Beloved Servant say is right about the timing of the war coincident with the kingdom--
then, the war was won in heaven for us.
Are we the host who will win it on earth?
Quote from: LefeinRush Limbaugh...thankfully...isn't a member of Congress, is he?
No LOL! He's a radio talk show host.
Quote from: thinktank on October 08, 2010, 04:28:08 AM
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:18:35 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Yes, but neither does that contradict that it is a spiritual war between heavenly beings and rulers of wickedness in high places.
Do you think the Satanists are just pretending?
he's still prince of the air, remember where comest thou? Asked God to Satan.
To and fro the earth, so he can still fly about in the sky, perhaps even go to outer space called heavens in scripture, but cannot enter Gods heavenly throne or mount sion heavenly Jerusalem the future home of the saints.
Yes, but my point is the Satanists aren't pretending any more than we are pretending. They are tapping into an evil power that is real.
Disclaimer: Many here disagree with me. Maybe everyone LOL.
QuoteNo LOL! He's a radio talk show host.
Of course, I knew that. :p
But you kinda get my point with the illustration?
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:25:04 AM
I like that TT--except what caused the war?
Clearly Satan and his angels are in rebellion. This war is just the final victory in heaven.
I would suggest the rebellion is already ongoing when Satan appears in the garden in Genesis 3 and goes for Adam's jugular.
You mean when did Satan rebel?
That's a tough question. I mean it appears the serpent just appears in the garden.
What if this right there is the rebellion, that lucifer turns into the serpent and at that point decides that he want's to be as God and therefore promotes this also to Eve.
It is very possible that this is when the iniquity entered his heart, for there is no other place I know of where he could have rebelled.
I am not sure though where do the devils angels fit into this, for in rev 12 the dragon fought with his angels, so we know he had his own angels but I am not sure if these angels being the same as the third that he cast upon the earth with his tail.
Quote from: Lefein on October 08, 2010, 04:40:09 AM
QuoteNo LOL! He's a radio talk show host.
Of course, I knew that. :p
But you kinda get my point with the illustration?
Not really. I think Job shows us that Satan is one of the 'sons of God'--Hebrew elohiym--also known as angels.
Although, Heiser says it is used here as a title--like the word 'prosecutor'--
QuoteWhat if this right there is the rebellion, that lucifer turns into the serpent and at that point decides that he want's to be as God and therefore promotes this also to Eve.
It is very possible that this is when the iniquity entered his heart, for there is no other place I know of where he could have rebelled.
Could be, yes.
Or, if you believe in the gap theory--could be in the gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: thinktank on October 08, 2010, 04:28:08 AM
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:18:35 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Yes, but neither does that contradict that it is a spiritual war between heavenly beings and rulers of wickedness in high places.
Do you think the Satanists are just pretending?
he's still prince of the air, remember where comest thou? Asked God to Satan.
To and fro the earth, so he can still fly about in the sky, perhaps even go to outer space called heavens in scripture, but cannot enter Gods heavenly throne or mount sion heavenly Jerusalem the future home of the saints.
Yes, but my point is the Satanists aren't pretending any more than we are pretending. They are tapping into an evil power that is real.
Disclaimer: Many here disagree with me. Maybe everyone LOL.
I don't know what others are saying but I'm not saying that Satan does not have power, simply that he has lost power, he still has the power to tempt, just as Jesus was tempted and can cause false miracles through false christs, deceitful workers, witches, warlocks, etc. But Jesus said we have power over all the power of the enemy so whatever devices, spells and sorcery people invent, they do not harm the people of Jesus.
I heard a witch say that they try to attack christians but they have angels protecting them.
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:18:35 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
Yes, but neither does that contradict that it is a spiritual war between heavenly beings and rulers of wickedness in high places.
Do you think the Satanists are just pretending?
Oh no, Molly, it's obvious that not everyone is naive to whom they serve.
A lot of Gen 6 is fleshed out in the Book of Enoch on the Nephilim, which I think the book of Jude is quoting, and maybe Peter, too. So--Enoch is kind of a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't see why we can't read it if our Bible quotes it.
...and yes, people tap in that power all day, everyday.
It's all around us and usually a first response.
Outside of the Sabbath there is no peace.
It's all war.
Quote from: Lefein on October 08, 2010, 04:23:05 AM
The War in Heaven doesn't mean that the "Watchers" (as the angels who mated with humans tend to be called), were the cause.
As for the sons of God gathering - it says "and Satan came also among them";
You might say something along this way.
"And Congress gathered themselves before the President, and Rush Limbaugh came also among them."
Rush Limbaugh...thankfully...isn't a member of Congress, is he? :thumbsup:
Yeah the sons of god could be the holy angels of God and Satan decides to ruin the party.
devil (vanity)
Well well what a lovely gathering how are you Gabriel, still eating manna, hello God, hope that throne is comfy, i'll be there soon.
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
It shows the power of the devil in the old testment
Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
so it shows that the devil can even mix with the holy angels during BC and not be phased. But now the power of Christ and his blood overcomes him, halleliwyah.
Quote from: Molly on October 08, 2010, 04:59:28 AM
A lot of Gen 6 is fleshed out in the Book of Enoch on the Nephilim, which I think the book of Jude is quoting, and maybe Peter, too. So--Enoch is kind of a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't see why we can't read it if our Bible quotes it.
The book of enoch could be what started the ET myth, you sure you want to read it?
It says the angels that took the women were cast into a fiery furnace, but the bible says that angels are chained in darkness awaiting judgment. To me that's a contradiction.
If one group of angels is tortured for eternity for their crimes but the group of angels in the bible, who's sin is leaving their original habitation gets a prison sentence, I don't see that as justice on many angles.
I haven't read the book for a while but does the book of enoch mention anything about God taking him to heaven?
The Wickedness of Mankind
6And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Notice that the sons of God ( capital G) took for themselves (selfishness) all they chose. So the daughters of men(cains daughters, those who do not have a relationship with the lord, vagabonds) are regarded as inferior having no rights. So we see here that no only do the sons of God think themselves better, but also take the daughters of men by force.
Notice that God is grieved and says
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
So if the sons of God are in fact fallen angels or Gods angels who decided to rebell at that particular point, then why does God punish man for the sins of the angels?
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
So the fallen angels do a great evil but man gets the punishment and the blame, doesn't sound like justice. It's not justice either that the entire human race gets punished for the sins of the line of Seth, but often in the bible humanity is judged together, such as Noah's flood, but man doesn't get punished for the sins of the devil or fallen angels. In this verse God decides to destroy man and also repents that he made man, or regrets making man. There is nothing about the angels here, why doesn't God repent for making the angels, the very ones that supposedly brought this wickedness to mankind.
But if these sons of God are in fact of the line of Seth, then not only can they be accounted as Sons of God but also they are the ones that are accountable bringing God's punishment of a smaller lifespan and then also complete destruction.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days;
Dinosaurs :mshock:
and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
why are there two sets of giants? One set is called mighty men, but the first set are simply called giants. We know that the second set are called mighty men, but the first set are simply called giants in the earth, and in archaelogy records we have bones of giant prehistoric mammals or lizards. This could be the verse that explains dinosaurs.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect [1] in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Violence filling the earth, man eating dinosaurs and giant violent men, the stuff of legends. There doesn't seem to be any record of giant lizards in the 7 days of creation, what if the sin of man caused a mutation in the lizard animals causing them to supersize just like the giants :mshock:
Perhaps the sons of God being seth used their powers for evil. Remember that Noah a rightoeus man had the power to curse his son to be slaves for generations. The power of the tongue in an anointed man can move mountains, what if these old men of God used their power to create giant lizards :mshock: either that or their evil deeds, perhaps bestiality (passing a curse onto the animals)caused these giant lizards :mshock:
Didn't God say to Adam ye are gods and back then the power of blessings and cursing was far more impactful. Wow the power that God has given man, maybe that's why people think that the fallen angels caused the mutation, they have forgotten the awesome power that God has given mankind, that we are made in his image :mshock:
Also mans power is what does the witchcraft, why do the demons need man to do these things, if they the demons already have the power, maybe because they need mans words, their tongue to send the curse.
praise the lord for goodness and mercy in Jesus name.
Joh 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
I think the women of tentmaker are safe from naughty angels. :mblush:
Paul
:cloud9: I don't agree with the witch's statement, TT. Demons attack Christians; some Christians just know of the power they have thru Christ, some don't.
There was a story related by Lester Sumrall, I think it was, about a mad witchdoctor who sent a demon to kill him in some mostly pagan area of the world. The demon had succeeded with some of the missionaries. Another was Norval Hayes, who said Satan came into his room one night.
And for a 3rd, but lesser known witness :laughing7:, so have I. Seems they take particular offense at both witnessing and casting them out of people's homes and bodies. Who knew? :winkgrin: Blessings....
Although there may be some truth to it (or not), some folks have woven an entire cosmology out of a couple strands of scripture and some accompanying slivers from writings that may be no more than myth. I think the whole thing deserves about as much attention as it was given in the word(not much). Perhaps the Norse and Greek mythology of the Titans comes from historic echoes of these beings. I do think the whole Nephilim /Rephaim controversy would make a great background for a novel of speculative fiction about the time from Seth and leading up to the flood story.
As a note of interest,I did some projections and using some very reasonable numbers (50 progeny each over 200 childbearing years out of a lifespan of 600 to 900 years for the sons of Adam through Methusaleh. Then 5 children each for their succeeding generations) their could have EASILY been 1 to 2 billion people on the earth by the time of the flood. I chose these numbers considering that my father was one of ten children born over 17 years and I factored in high percentages of attrition due to the violence of the age.
Thinktank;
According to the Interlinear Scriptural Analyzer, the word "Nphlim" means "distinguished ones", the word Giant came from the Septuagint, where the Greeks had translated that word into "gigantes". The word "Giant" brings with it the baggage of massive, brutish, troll-like people; Goliath.
If Goliath was a Nephilim, it is important to consider that genetics still plays its role, as Tolkien would have put it, he would have been the "son of lesser men his noble blood line mingled with common folk".
I would probably look at it like this; Nephilim = Mighty (perhaps even large in stature) handsome men, princes of their age. But like all princes, some were powerful, beautiful, and fair - while others abuse their angelic breeding and where evil.
Just like normal men, some are nice, some are Hitlers - but even Hitler is a distinguished man, violent, and brutal - but not your typical blood stained, club wielding giant.
I'd attribute the destruction of the human race and their wickedness not to the Nephilim, but to the very nature of men themselves.
They lived to be at least 700 years old, usually 900 is the mentioned number, and according to YEC renderings of what the earth would have been like at the time - they would have been extremely healthy what with the greater amounts of oxygen in the air, and other environmental factors being taken into account. In essence - lawless, wicked men, living up to 900 long years in pristine health and longevity, and one key thing we forget - Intelligence!
It took only from 1930 to 1940, ten years approximately for Hitler to put his Final Solution into gruesome effect.
Could you imagine the greed, and horror that a 600 year old tyrant having had more than 530 years to perfect, and practice his wicked trade - still healthy, and still terribly intelligent, increasingly so, and still retaining all of his cruel memories at the prime of his long life, with 300 years or more left to live it? There isn't a word to describe how vile it could have gotten on the Earth...What a man seven times worse than Stalin, with Herculean longevity, intelligence, and health could have done in the span of only 100 years is unimaginable, let alone half a millennium.
I could see why God would have been keen on flooding the Earth with billions of these sort running about.
They had already developed metal working and building cities - I almost wonder if sometimes they were not culturally advanced almost as much as we are in some areas. We went from the static fraught tube radio to the ipod in about 100 years these people lived on average individually to be 900.
Quote from: Lefein on October 08, 2010, 07:29:13 PM
Thinktank;
According to the Interlinear Scriptural Analyzer, the word "Nphlim" means "distinguished ones", the word Giant came from the Septuagint, where the Greeks had translated that word into "gigantes". The word "Giant" brings with it the baggage of massive, brutish, troll-like people; Goliath.
If Goliath was a Nephilim, it is important to consider that genetics still plays its role, as Tolkien would have put it, he would have been the "son of lesser men his noble blood line mingled with common folk".
I would probably look at it like this; Nephilim = Mighty (perhaps even large in stature) handsome men, princes of their age. But like all princes, some were powerful, beautiful, and fair - while others abuse their angelic breeding and where evil.
Just like normal men, some are nice, some are Hitlers - but even Hitler is a distinguished man, violent, and brutal - but not your typical blood stained, club wielding giant.
I'd attribute the destruction of the human race and their wickedness not to the Nephilim, but to the very nature of men themselves.
They lived to be at least 700 years old, usually 900 is the mentioned number, and according to YEC renderings of what the earth would have been like at the time - they would have been extremely healthy what with the greater amounts of oxygen in the air, and other environmental factors being taken into account. In essence - lawless, wicked men, living up to 900 long years in pristine health and longevity, and one key thing we forget - Intelligence!
It took only from 1930 to 1940, ten years approximately for Hitler to put his Final Solution into gruesome effect.
Could you imagine the greed, and horror that a 600 year old tyrant having had more than 530 years to perfect, and practice his wicked trade - still healthy, and still terribly intelligent, increasingly so, and still retaining all of his cruel memories at the prime of his long life, with 300 years or more left to live it? There isn't a word to describe how vile it could have gotten on the Earth...What a man seven times worse than Stalin, with Herculean longevity, intelligence, and health could have done in the span of only 100 years is unimaginable, let alone half a millennium.
I could see why God would have been keen on flooding the Earth with billions of these sort running about.
They had already developed metal working and building cities - I almost wonder if sometimes they were not culturally advanced almost as much as we are in some areas. We went from the static fraught tube radio to the ipod in about 100 years these people lived on average individually to be 900.
dictionary
gi·ant (jnt)
n.
1.
a. A person or thing of great size.
b. A person or thing of extraordinary power, significance, or importance: a giant in the field of physics; automotive industry giants.
a = look this person or structure is tall, no other attributes required
b= This person has achieved success or greatness.
Now according to the bible first there were giants, then after that mighty men, men of renown.
So the word giants does not mean that they were succesful or even that they were men, the scripture simplt states that there were giants in those days. A person or thing of great size, we know in history that there were giant dinousaurs that we have bones of, some of which are perfectly reserved, even though they are supposedly millions of years old.
According to the Interlinear Scriptural Analyzer, the word "Nphlim" means "distinguished ones", the word Giant came from the Septuagint, where the Greeks had translated that word into "gigantes".
Distinguished ones? If you were 9 feet tall in your familly, would you be a distinguished one?
The word "Giant" brings with it the baggage of massive, brutish, troll-like people; Goliath.
'baggage'? Where does this baggage come from? wordly conditioning? so that when you think of giant your brain automatically belives that this means giant men, because throughout your life you have been programmed as a child to associate giant with a big tall man. But according to the dictionary a giant can mean a big tall thing as well as a big tall man.
Now concerning the other verse which says that they are mighty men and men of renown. We cannot call these dinosuars because God calls them men, so why are these called mighty men? because men do this
1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth;
for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
The vanity of man assumes a big man is a mighty man, and therefore assigns these men the position of being soldiers. IF you had to choose an army of soldiers would you choose the 6ft tall soldier or the 9 ft tall giant. Most would choose the 9 ft soldier as their stature is inclined for them to be strong and feared.
With these giants born and rape hapening, this would be the beginning of earthly warfare and rivarly as the scripture says the earth was filled with violence. The fathers of the daughters of men would probably looked for revenge on the sons of God and would have mounted warfare on them. The sons of God would have recruited their sons the giants, to help defend them from Cainanites.
As further proof that these sons of God are not angels but men, the fact is that this event only happened once in scripture is significant, for fallen angels exist today and some demons may attack humans through their souls, but they do not father children.
Also a warning that according to some sources whether this be true or not but I would not be suprised if there be some sort of variation on this story, that fallen angels will reappear on the earth in future and claim to be our gods or creators, they can use this story to deceive mankind. Similar to what hitler believed in that the assyrian race were the master race the sons of God, while the rest are like the sons of cain and are not as worthy. This could be how the antichrist gets people to worship him by claiming to be of Godly lineage and using false wonders to deceive people.
Perhaps they say that daughters of men are evolved neathandrals most of humanity, and that the sons of God are the master race of Godly descent. To be forewarned is to be prepared against deception. :2c:
Original Hebrew:
e'nphlim eiu b'artz b'imim e'em u'gm achri-kn ashr ibau bmo e'aleim al-bnuth e'adm u'ildu l'em eme e'gbrim ashr m'oulm anshi e'shm.
Literal Translation:
the'ones-distinguished they-became in'the'earth in'the'days the'those and'moreover after so which they-are-coming sons-of the'Elohim to daughers-of the'human and'they-gave-birth for'them they the'masterful-men who from'eon mortals-of the'name.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 08, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
:cloud9: I don't agree with the witch's statement, TT. Demons attack Christians; some Christians just know of the power they have thru Christ, some don't.
There was a story related by Lester Sumrall, I think it was, about a mad witchdoctor who sent a demon to kill him in some mostly pagan area of the world. The demon had succeeded with some of the missionaries. Another was Norval Hayes, who said Satan came into his room one night.
And for a 3rd, but lesser known witness :laughing7:, so have I. Seems they take particular offense at both witnessing and casting them out of people's homes and bodies. Who knew? :winkgrin: Blessings....
:cloud9: Interesting that you when you say you witness a demon attacking Lestor that a witchdoctor sent the demon :grin: isn't that what I'm saying?
If you look throughout the bible there are references to sorcorery, witchcraft, women using napkins or something, warlocks etc. If demons don't need these people then why do they influence these people to do these crazy lotions and potions in hidden places of the earth. There are billions of demons but only a few people are attacked as such using sorcorery, the rest of the demons can only wisper lies to people and entice them to sin so that they may feed off their lusts. These kinds of things witchcraft, sorcorery have been hidden from the masses and even the christian community for hundreds of years, since the witch burnings (A lot of paranoia back then though rather than holy spirit revelation), but now today with holy spirit revelation and the absolute flood of witchraft on the media, tv, internet and hollywood movies, where even daytime pop videos now glorify the devil and occult symbols, board games such as ouji boards are sold as kids toys, halloween is more popular than ever, these activites are bringing it back to attention, only those filled with the revelation of the holy spirit can discern these activities, the sleeping population, just see it as harmless fantasy, but people like those you mentioned are not just lied too, they are spiritually attacked by occult forces. The people in south affrica are probably the most keenly aware of the power of witchcraft, many testimonies from there about deliverance from black magic in Jesus name.
14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
--Heb 1
We see here that angels ['sons of God'] are ministering spirits who have a job--to serve those who will inherit salvation.
So if they are in rebellion, they would do the opposite, that is, leave the spirit world [their first estate?], and seek to hurt, dominate, obstruct, and destroy us.
Why do I still get the feeling that these angels merely...fell in love?
Quote from: Lefein on October 09, 2010, 02:15:34 AM
Why do I still get the feeling that these angels merely...fell in love?
Because you're a romantic. :laughing7:
But, seriously, what these angels were doing was very bad--hence the necessity for God to destroy the world by flood, and again, destroy sodom and gomorrah where they were going after 'strange flesh' [remember how they tried to attack the angels who came to save Lot?]
That is, if you believe this is what was going on.
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 02:23:25 AM
Quote from: Lefein on October 09, 2010, 02:15:34 AM
Why do I still get the feeling that these angels merely...fell in love?
Because you're a romantic. :laughing7:
But, seriously, what these angels were doing was very bad--hence the necessity for God to destroy the world by flood, and again, destroy sodom and gomorrah where they were going after 'strange flesh' [remember how they tried to attack the angels who came to save Lot?]
That is, if you believe this is what was going on.
Going after strange flesh, to me that means the men went after anything but their wives. Lot even offered daughters to to the men to do as they please, but they refused, they wanted the men, having woman was not perverse enough it seems.
And if they were fallen angels in Sodom where are the giants? and why did they refuse lots daughters? More likely they were doing as Romans says men and women burning in lust towards each other and abandoning natural affection for that which is seemingly.
Also I believe that these wicked evil men went after animals, strange flesh.
There's nothing here about fallen angels. Only that these men wanted these 2 angels who they belived were men, even lot thought they were men, otherwise if he thought they were powerful angelic beings why was he affraid that these angels could not defend themselves, since when did an angel of God need a man to defend them, it is usually the other way round.
Also the reason molly why God destroyed Sodom was because the cries of the rightoeus went up to heaven and God himself decided to come to earth to see for himself whether what they said were true. This is when Abraham pleaded that God spare the city if he could find 10 righteous persons.
In revelation we also have the saints to cry for vengeance and God destroys mystery babylon.
TT, my computer with the Greek Bible is in the shop, but I think that word for strange is heteros. Here's a defintion I found for it
another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different
If the men of sodom are going after male angels, one would think that would be the same flesh--homo--but here it's called strange flesh--heteros--which I take to mean a different kind of flesh.
Like our word heterosexual comes from this word--male and female are not the same.
Yes, the meaning would also fit animals.
PS the giants are still around when Joshua enters the promised land.
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 04:00:49 AM
TT, my computer with the Greek Bible is in the shop, but I think that word for strange is heteros. Here's a defintion I found for it
another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different
If the men of sodom are going after male angels, one would think that would be the same flesh--homo--but here it's called strange flesh--heteros--which I take to mean a different kind of flesh.
Like our word heterosexual comes from this word--male and female are not the same.
Yes, the meaning would also fit animals.
PS the giants are still around when Joshua enters the promised land.
Sodom did many sins, not just sodomy. I don't see why God would destroy Sodom because of unholy angels, perhaps they influenced yes, but to interact with flesh with sodom and do the sexual sins I don't see that in scripture.
Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jeremiah 23:14
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
ezekiel
9 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the cities around sound an awful lot like Las Vegas...
Well, ok. I just think there are some really interesting things going on here. The men of sodom really lusted after those angels, meaning to me that this was not something foreign to them. If I saw an angel for the first time, I don't think it is unbridled lust that would enter my mind first. I also would consider an angel 'strange flesh' to a human.
Here, the translator puts the angels and sodom in the same sentence, to show they are related.
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [strange flesh], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
--Jude 1
Here, the translator says the angels left their 'princehood' giving reference to the princes mentioned in Daniel, and the princes of this age named in 1 Cor 2:6 and 1 Cor 2:8.
6 And he reserved under darkness angels, that kept not their princehood, but forsook their house, into the doom of the great God, into everlasting bonds. [Soothly angels that kept not his princehood, but forsook his house, he reserved into the doom of great God, in everlasting bonds under darkness.]
The saints are being raised up to to take the place of the fallen princes when Jesus returns to rule the world with his saints in the next age.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
The angels seem to have appeared as normal men, before unleashing their might and blinding the city.
Quote from: Lefein on October 09, 2010, 06:31:48 AM
The angels seem to have appeared as normal men, before unleashing their might and blinding the city.
Then why were the men of sodom acting in such an extreme about them that Lot was barring the door and offering up his daughters? Surely, there were plenty of other normal men about in the city who could satisfy them.
But we know they didn't look normal because of how Abraham treated them.
1And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, 3And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
--Gen 18
Perhaps they where very, very cute... >_> To Sodomites.
And obviously, if I can put it a little bit crudely...
"Fresh meat"
I think it much more likely they were used to fallen angels among them, and they thought these were more of the same.
But--did you notice--Abraham recognized one of these 'men,' the one who stayed behind with him while the other two went on to sodom for Lot.
Lot likewise does not see them as 'normal men.'
1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
--Gen 19
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 06:55:15 AM
I think it much more likely they were used to fallen angels among them, and they thought these were more of the same.
But--did you notice--Abraham recognized one of these 'men,' the one who stayed behind with him while the other two went on to sodom for Lot.
Lot likewise does not see them as 'normal men.'
1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
--Gen 19
I think its more about holy spirit revelation, that they know these angels are from God and not the devils angels for the devil can transform himself into the spirit of light.
The prayers/cries of the rightoeus that God hears comes from lots familly and so they already know who God is and his messangers.
However to the men outside of lots home these angels of God are muscle men (probably), who they'r perverted minds lusted after. They did not see these angels only that they "heard" there were two men there that they never experienced before.
If what you are saying is that fallen angels often walked among sodom and that these men lusted after them and did, then why would fallen angels allow sinful men to abuse them. If this was the case the fallen angels would come and destroy all those men in revenge, even a holy person would dish out the most painfull revenge, let alone satanic princes.
But it was God who destroyed Sodom and the evil men, people in it, as sodomy was just one of many sins they did.
According to Enoch, it was the fallen angels who taught men 'science and technology' to make war, and how to make themselves more beautiful with makeup and jewels to attract mates, and witchcraft, and immoral sex, and all kinds of godlessness.
8
And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Êzêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven...
--1 Enoch
"you will be like gods"
--Gen 3
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 08, 2010, 04:05:29 AM
My 2¢
The war in "heaven" is between my ears until:
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Luke 10:18
:thumbsup:
Chapter 1
1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be
2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed.
And he took up his parable and said -
Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God,
saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw,
but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.
3 Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:
..........The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
4 And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
..........[And appear from His camp]
..........And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.
5 And all shall be smitten with fear
..........And the Watchers shall quake,
..........And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth.
6 And the high mountains shall be shaken,
..........And the high hills shall be made low,
..........And shall melt like wax before the flame
7 And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder,
..........And all that is upon the earth shall perish,
..........And there shall be a judgement upon all (men).
8 But with the righteous He will make peace.
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them.
And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall be prospered,
And they shall all be blessed.
And He will help them all,
And light shall appear unto them,
And He will make peace with them'.
9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
--Enoch 1
14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
--Jude 1
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 08:35:24 AM
According to Enoch, it was the fallen angels who taught men 'science and technology' to make war, and how to make themselves more beautiful with makeup and jewels to attract mates, and witchcraft, and immoral sex, and all kinds of godlessness.
8
QuoteAnd Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates
, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Êzêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven...
[/i]
--1 Enoch
"you will be like gods"
--Gen 3
He should have taught men to make rifles, machine guns and bazookas instead, swords are awfully inefficient.
:laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
Well, ok. I just think there are some really interesting things going on here. The men of sodom really lusted after those angels, meaning to me that this was not something foreign to them. If I saw an angel for the first time, I don't think it is unbridled lust that would enter my mind first. I also would consider an angel 'strange flesh' to a human.
Here, the translator puts the angels and sodom in the same sentence, to show they are related.
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [strange flesh], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
--Jude 1
Here, the translator says the angels left their 'princehood' giving reference to the princes mentioned in Daniel, and the princes of this age named in 1 Cor 2:6 and 1 Cor 2:8.
6 And he reserved under darkness angels, that kept not their princehood, but forsook their house, into the doom of the great God, into everlasting bonds. [Soothly angels that kept not his princehood, but forsook his house, he reserved into the doom of great God, in everlasting bonds under darkness.]
The saints are being raised up to to take the place of the fallen princes when Jesus returns to rule the world with his saints in the next age.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
:cloud9: Wow, Molly. I never noticed the wording of that before. To me, that makes it VERY plain what the Nephilim are, and what they did. That "LIKEWISE" in verse 6 makes it obvious. Their goal in this age is the same as it was in ages past, ie. to gain salvation by mingling seed. My :2c: Blessings.....
I never noticed that wording either. Very interesting. But if anything I think the Nephilim were the result of what these princes did. Yet, I still have a problem with that because of Jesus statement about the resurrection. He says in the resurrection we are neither male nor female but "like the angels". Some might say this simply means angels don't marry. I take to mean that angels are asexual(their nature transcends sexuality....Jesus was made "for a little while lower than the angels"....) and do not procreate.
:cloud9: The non-fallen variety are, I believe. But we're talking about fallen ones here, and they do have sexual organs, hard as that is to believe. But if you understand that sex which came from/IS the fruit of the fall, has to do with the rod of authority being "lowered" from the heart area (ark) to reproduce the flesh nature instead of the nature of the Spirit, it's not far-fetched at all. My :2c: Blessings....
I have no problem with that as a possibility, in regards to some transformed physical aspect of fallen angels. However I am not convinced that sex if the fruit of the fall.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
(Gen 2:21-25)
Adam was created out of clay. The combination of the physical(earth) and the spiritual(breath of life) into a living soul was always Gods intention. Although the nature of sexuality may well have changed in the fall, think it a stretch to say sex was the fruit of the fall. The multiplication of man was God's plan from the beginning -"Be fruitful and multiply". The method may be in question but there is nothing unholy about sex within its designed context-marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife." These words were spoken before the fall.
:cloud9: I'm discussing original intent vs. what was permitted as a result of the garden, ie. the different "wills" of the Lord, acceptable, good, perfect. Jesus, the pattern Son, didn't have a natural wife or have sex, and He fulfilled the law (whatever God speaks, in the INTENT or Spirit of it) perfectly, including leaving and cleaving.
Ever think about who was Adam's father and mother that he had to leave to cleave? Blessings....
Quote from: eaglesway on October 09, 2010, 05:16:26 PM
I have no problem with that as a possibility, in regards to some transformed physical aspect of fallen angels. However I am not convinced that sex if the fruit of the fall.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
(Gen 2:21-25)
Adam was created out of clay. The combination of the physical(earth) and the spiritual(breath of life) into a living soul was always Gods intention. Although the nature of sexuality may well have changed in the fall, think it a stretch to say sex was the fruit of the fall. The multiplication of man was God's plan from the beginning -"Be fruitful and multiply". The method may be in question but there is nothing unholy about sex within its designed context-marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife." These words were spoken before the fall.
Very Good I like that.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 09, 2010, 05:03:52 PM
:cloud9: The non-fallen variety are, I believe. But we're talking about fallen ones here, and they do have sexual organs, hard as that is to believe. But if you understand that sex which came from/IS the fruit of the fall, has to do with the rod of authority being "lowered" from the heart area (ark) to reproduce the flesh nature instead of the nature of the Spirit, it's not far-fetched at all. My :2c: Blessings....
Oh my goodness, that's why Satan caused Adam to fall--it wasn't just to murder him--but to also bring every man into the realm of the carnal because the carnal is at enmity with God [and thus in Satan's camp]. What you said also about mingling his seed with man's--an effort to keep it always this way--man forever at enmity with God? But like iron mixed with soft clay, the two will not mingle. Satan generally knew God's plan for man, and wanted to thwart it in any way possible. But, God turned it on its head, hiding us in Christ--he is not just in us, we are in him.
2The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A staff." 3And he said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it.
4But the LORD said to Moses, "Put out your hand and catch it by the tail"—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand—--Exodus 4
John 12:34
The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
My :2c: :0) Adam had no mother and father to cleave or leave, as the first man, created. The purposes hidden within his creation were preliminary to the purposes of Jesus, the pattern son.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope(a forward view not an inconclusive wish) that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
(Rom 8:20-21)
Adams purpose was multiplication and "subjection to futility"(For from Him....). Jesus' purpose was redemption, reclamation, new creation, light from darkness, order from chaos(...through Him...). The end result being a multitude as the sands on the sea and the stars in the sky- in harmonious fellowship, celebration, and union within the allness of God(....and to Him are all things, that God may be all in all). The method and purpose of Jesus reproduction(creation of life giving spirits) is different than the creation of living souls. It is all a seamless convergence of various aspects of one great plan.
So, I was merely saying that sexuality was created before the fall for a designated and holy purpose and therefore IMO is not the fruit of the fall. The fall has merely obscured that purpose and distorted it.
The relationship between God's purposes in the physical creation and the realm of the spirit/eternity are not opposed, they are united and growing towards a glorious unity.
For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
(Rom 8:22-23)
Quote from: Cardinal: Nephilim . Their goal in this age is the same as it was in ages past, ie. to gain salvation by mingling seed. My :2c: Blessings.....
/quote]
God made our flesh. The Fall did not.
Satan did not bless man and woman with intimacy through physical oneness and pleasure. God alone gives us good things.
The fruit of our body, children, the creative act of one couple is the result of sexual activity, intimacy, oneness. Satan only perverted Intimacy by bastardising it into Lust.
What God intended for good, Satan turned into harm.
Conviction, vs. Condemnation
Intimacy, vs. Lust.
Righteous, vs. Carnal
Yet shall God turn what Satan intended for harm, into glory.
The flesh is not evil by its own will, it is diseased because Death riddles the natural world.
The Fall of Creation was not just being cast out of paradise, it was the fall of the Supernatural - enhanced, pure, pristine, beautiful Reality into a marred form, merely Natural. Satan separated Natural from that which made it Super: Life (God).
The word "fall," at times, can imply that the Lord is not Sovereign.
Nothing fell that He did not declare to be fallen.
Plan, perhaps, is the operative.
I was using common terminology :)
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 08:35:24 AM
According to Enoch, it was the fallen angels who taught men 'science and technology' to make war, and how to make themselves more beautiful with makeup and jewels to attract mates, and witchcraft, and immoral sex, and all kinds of godlessness.
8
And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl (taught) astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Êzêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven...
--1 Enoch
"you will be like gods"
--Gen 3
enoch vs the bible
11
I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, [6]
and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13
ezekiel16
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. 16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. 17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of
my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, [7] and didst commit whoredom with them, 18 And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set
mine oil and mine incense before them. 19
My meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet [8] savour: and thus it was, saith the Lord GOD. 20
Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21
That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? 22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.
The bold parts are Gods blessings towards people. The underlined parts are mans iniquity who sacrifice their kids to devils.
See that God is the one who gives blessings, but it is the devils who thieve take and destroy. Enoch however says that it is the fallen angels that bless mnakind with silver, tools, swords, etc. The only evil that they give in the chapter are the enchantments and sorcorery. The rest are Gods, for he owns the silver and gold of the earth and everything in it, that to me is another indication that the book of enoch that we have access too is not inspired, otherwise it would be included in the bible. I do belive however that there is a genuine book of enoch out there that is inspired and may be part of the dead sea scrolls, which have yet to be revealed.
Being a bit of a "I love my bible dag nabbit! and I like trusting that it is accurate!" sort of guy myself...
I wonder what would happen if a new book (inspired, and consistent with the Bible) did indeed arise from the Dead Sea Scrolls or some similar source...
>_>
Especially to those who claim (accurately or not) that the Bible is absolutely complete.
If it was to explain how "fallen angels" mated with women, it would be quite useless.
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on October 09, 2010, 05:03:52 PM
:cloud9: The non-fallen variety are, I believe. But we're talking about fallen ones here, and they do have sexual organs, hard as that is to believe. But if you understand that sex which came from/IS the fruit of the fall, has to do with the rod of authority being "lowered" from the heart area (ark) to reproduce the flesh nature instead of the nature of the Spirit, it's not far-fetched at all. My :2c: Blessings....
Oh my goodness, that's why Satan caused Adam to fall--it wasn't just to murder him--but to also bring every man into the realm of the carnal because the carnal is at enmity with God [and thus in Satan's camp]. What you said also about mingling his seed with man's--an effort to keep it always this way--man forever at enmity with God? But like iron mixed with soft clay, the two will not mingle. Satan generally knew God's plan for man, and wanted to thwart it in any way possible. But, God turned it on its head, hiding us in Christ--he is not just in us, we are in him.
2The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A staff." 3And he said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it.
4But the LORD said to Moses, "Put out your hand and catch it by the tail"—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand—
--Exodus 4
John 12:34
The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
:cloud9: Think about it.....his only way out of endless judgment from the angels falling, is to become one with the ones (man) who are gaining redemption....possession doesn't get them into the bloodline that is being cleansed; mingling the seed by union, DOES. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on October 10, 2010, 03:46:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on October 09, 2010, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on October 09, 2010, 05:03:52 PM
:cloud9: The non-fallen variety are, I believe. But we're talking about fallen ones here, and they do have sexual organs, hard as that is to believe. But if you understand that sex which came from/IS the fruit of the fall, has to do with the rod of authority being "lowered" from the heart area (ark) to reproduce the flesh nature instead of the nature of the Spirit, it's not far-fetched at all. My :2c: Blessings....
Oh my goodness, that's why Satan caused Adam to fall--it wasn't just to murder him--but to also bring every man into the realm of the carnal because the carnal is at enmity with God [and thus in Satan's camp]. What you said also about mingling his seed with man's--an effort to keep it always this way--man forever at enmity with God? But like iron mixed with soft clay, the two will not mingle. Satan generally knew God's plan for man, and wanted to thwart it in any way possible. But, God turned it on its head, hiding us in Christ--he is not just in us, we are in him.
2The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A staff." 3And he said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it.
4But the LORD said to Moses, "Put out your hand and catch it by the tail"—so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand—
--Exodus 4
John 12:34
The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
:cloud9: Think about it.....his only way out of endless judgment from the angels falling, is to become one with the ones (man) who are gaining redemption....possession doesn't get them into the bloodline that is being cleansed; mingling the seed by union, DOES. Blessings....
By union, yes, amen!
Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear,
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Look at the Lord Jesus Christ and you see the form of God.
"Philip says unto Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it suffices us. Jesus said unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known Me, Philip? He that has seen Me has seen the Father; and how can you say then, Show us the Father?" (Jn. 14:8-9).
"My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be FORMED IN YOU" (Gal. 4:19).
I Cor. 6:17; "He that is joined unto the Lord IS ONE SPIRIT."
One Spirit!
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope(a forward view not an inconclusive wish) that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
(Rom 8:20-21)
It is clear to me that Adam was set up, and that God is way ahead of the game. He causes all things to work according to the counsel of His own will.
...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
(Eph 1:4-6)
Amen eaglesway.
Adam is not inherently evil.
It's about our overcoming all that is contradictory to God.
Man's will must be put to rest before the image of God can shine safely and eternally through him — one Elohim!
:cloud9: Out of the heart of man proceedeth.....
lol,
it wasn't the apple it was the Eve.
Westerners(especially Americans :o) seem to think they invented everything. Our Christianity has very shallow roots.
It barely reaches back to Luther, much less past the Nicene convention, then through the anti-Nicene fathers, and apostles. And certainly not into its Hebrew roots and the teachings of the rabbis. Those teachings provide echoes of the theology of Israel and the cosmology of ancients. They believed that the judgment would end in in punishments of various terms for the wicked and "olam ha-ba" for the righteous- a banquet hall, a life of joy and peace. Many of them also believed in the inclusion of the righteous goyim. The Hebrews understood the righteous and merciful discernment of God before Christ. Paul, a rabbi himself, echoes this teaching in Acts 17 and Romans 1&2.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(Joh 1:9-10)
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
(Act 17:28)
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:20)
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
(Rom 2:14-16)
Now we have a dispensational gospel that judges men by dates and scraps of knowledge, rather than by the testimony of the Lord concerning their heart, & whether their deeds were good- or evil. And since all of us are hopelessly theologically evil, we must receive God in (their) prescribed way, and they decide who will live and who will burn forever by their theological precepts.
It kinda sounds like the Pharisees to me.
Woe unto you Pharisees, for you hold the keys of knowledge and you refuse to go in and prevent those who would from entering.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426712/olam-ha-ze
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 10, 2010, 03:49:35 PM
lol,
it wasn't the apple it was the Eve.
:cloud9: Exactly....the root of the tree was the stony heart (Eve) of Adam, that God took out of him to show him what was in his heart, just like He told the Israelites He took them out into the wilderness to show them what was in their hearts. And lo and behold, it had only "improved" slightly from their water baptism in the wilderness, as it was a golden calf (the best works flesh had to offer).
What gets me is the lame excuse of how they said it came out of the fire, LOL. Forgot about the 4th man in Daniel, or I wonder if time-wise that hadn't happened yet? :dontknow: I'm not up to speed on the chronological list of events in there.
If it had happened yet, it looks like to me they were dodging going thru the fire themselves and just thought "maybe He wouldn't notice" the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, LOL. Blessings....
Quote from: EagleswayIt kinda sounds like the Pharisees to me.
We are still being ruled by the Pharisees. That's why the religion is 'shallow' as you put it. They like it that way. They train us up that way. That is how they rule. They control every piece of 'approved' information we are exposed to--you think they don't control the big churches? Of course they do.
This is the antichrist--against Christ, against people, against life itself. Antichrist is the ruler of this age.
Everything out of their mouths is lies--just like Jesus said. And, the one they worship is the father of lies. Thus, religion is shallow, history is shallow, science is shallow--how else can they control it?
What new piece of theatre are they going to spring on us? world war 3? great depression 2? invasion by 'aliens'? false flag 2? How about the rapture? All Christians disappear at 3am--raptured!
Jesus said, [If you love me,]
Feed my sheep.
Amen!
If you continue in my word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
By this the world will kno you are my disciples, by your love for one another.
Hebrews 13:10-16
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle(earthly house) have no right to eat.
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So,
1) let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then,
2)let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And 3)do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
:cloud9: Amen, Molly.....I don't know what thread it was, but Beloved said something that really struck a chord in me this week......until we are in His rest, it IS all warfare, and so it will continue to be all warfare "out there" regardless of whether or not WE are at rest. IMO, this is what we are being prepared for, ie. to bring the others into His rest. Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on October 10, 2010, 07:13:57 PM
:cloud9: Amen, Molly.....I don't know what thread it was, but Beloved said something that really struck a chord in me this week......until we are in His rest, it IS all warfare, and so it will continue to be all warfare "out there" regardless of whether or not WE are at rest. IMO, this is what we are being prepared for, ie. to bring the others into His rest. Blessings....
Rest is good. But, can't we just win the war and be done with it? lol
Why is it necessary to live like this?
And how is it possible to have rest when people are dying daily?
I die daily, for it is not I that live — but Christ — Who is the Sabbath Rest.
In this rest the war is won through Peace that surpasses all understanding.
A kick against the goad prolongs our own pain and that of anxious creation.
Amen?
We are not only running this race for ourselves. We are running to win freedom for all creation.
Selfishness dies with self.
We have a job do to that's the most simple and at the same time the most difficult thing to do.
And that is nothing.
Just wait on the Lord.
Be still and know that He is God.
And that includes rendering still the images and idols that only exist in our mind — the battleground!
Quote from: Molly on October 10, 2010, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: EagleswayIt kinda sounds like the Pharisees to me.
We are still being ruled by the Pharisees. That's why the religion is 'shallow' as you put it. They like it that way. They train us up that way. That is how they rule. They control every piece of 'approved' information we are exposed to--you think they don't control the big churches? Of course they do.
This is the antichrist--against Christ, against people, against life itself. Antichrist is the ruler of this age.
Everything out of their mouths is lies--just like Jesus said. And, the one they worship is the father of lies. Thus, religion is shallow, history is shallow, science is shallow--how else can they control it?
What new piece of theatre are they going to spring on us? world war 3? great depression 2? invasion by 'aliens'? false flag 2? How about the rapture? All Christians disappear at 3am--raptured!
Jesus said, [If you love me,] Feed my sheep.
I see your point, even though the above events may happen, religions uses these events to cause endless fear in Gods people, distracting people from the more important things in life.
I have been an end time fanatic for many years, even before being a christian and it does not bring much fruit, perhaps an apple here and an orange there but no bunch of bananas or grapes. It is refreshing to be here at this forum where christians don't point to every earthquake in the news and say the "end is nigh". They been saying it's the end for last century, but to me I know the end is nigh so I either live in fear or I live the christian life, and when the tribulation starts
trust God will tell me, because when relying on people, every year they say the tribulation is "here" or this president is the antichrist, but another year goes by. Now they say obama is the antichrist :laughing7: lets name every president the antichrist :gamer:
:cloud9: Don't you just hate that when they do that? I just can't listen to it, it grieves my spirit when they point to every catastrophe as being THE one to "end it all". Seems like all those of that mindset do is look for signs instead of Him. :dontknow: Blessings....
Anyone who has entered God's rest has ceased from is/her own works even as God ceased from His- that is when we enter those works that were prepared from the foundation of the world, that we should walk in them. What I do for me by my own compass is my work. What I do for others by my own compass is often my work(whether I realize it or not). What I do for Him that is beyond my will and ability, that is the finished work....works that will abide into eternity. Repentance from dead works, the first foundation- wonder if I'll ever get there :o)
That was stunning.
Quote from: thinktank on September 08, 2010, 02:50:27 AMAslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
I think you shouldn't take that image to literal.
Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God? And if you can isn't there so much difference between the image and the original that it isn't similar at all.
For example is God made out of dust?
God just said He created us out of dust. He didn't mention a duration and process.
Evolution truely turns (star)dust into man, animals, plants etc.
TT eats cows. Cows eat grass. Grass eats dust.
Quote from: wwCan you even mention one thing in which we look like God?
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
--Gen 1
let them have dominion ...over all the earth...
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
--Gen 3
Jesus looks like a man and looks like the Father.
John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
we shall be like him
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God?
Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ, lest we never forget.
Gen 1:26 Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.......
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
2Co 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
"Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God?"
I dont believe that any of those verses answer that question, except in ones mind as the individual. My :2c:
Joh 1:18
(ASV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(WNT) No human eye has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the Father's bosom--He has made Him known.
(YLT) God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2010, 04:29:42 PM
Gen 1:26 Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.......
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
2Co 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
I know those verses but they in no way answer TT's claim/thought
Quote from: TTAslo don't forge the implications. If God created humanity via evolution, then that means we are nothing more than evolved developed chemical formulas and not beings made in the image of God.
Verses only speak about image, but don't define what exactly that image is like. Was it created instantly? Or with many intermediate steps? Is the image about looks? Brain? Character?
Quote from: wwVerses only speak about image, but don't define what exactly that image is like. Was it created instantly? Or with many intermediate steps? Is the image about looks? Brain? Character?
God could be 'creating' man in his image as we speak. But that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution which states that man is descended from monkeys.
Genesis 1 makes it clear that God created the animals discretely--not throgh evolution.
So, if I understand TT's point correctly, he is saying that man from the beginning was being created in God's image, not descended from monkeys.
Then you ask, is the image about looks, brain, character?--yes all of that and more. God created man as a package which is greater than the sum of its parts. In the image of God he created him.
The image , IMO, is primarily about the divine nature...
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:20)
In the beginning was the Word(logos- expressed thought)- Jesus came out of the Father, to reveal the Father, by BEING WHO HE IS. YHWH says I AM THAT I AM, Jesus says before Abraham was I AM.
...in these last days(YHWH) has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
(Heb 1:2-3)
If you have seen me you have seen the Father, I and my Father are one...
Jesus is the image of God and we are being conformed to His image
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
(Rom 8:29)
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
(2Co 3:18)
This is primarily about BEING. Our being is what was created in His likeness, was subjected to futility, and is now being "made new",
Col 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--
The one new man is being made new, recreated, restored in the image of the being/nature of the one through whom YHWH created everyone who comes into the world.
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
(2Pe 1:2-4)
The true knowledge is always about "being"- IMO their is nothing more consistent in Jesus' teaching than that.
Quote from: eaglesway...who called us by His own glory and excellence.
Isn't that the truth! And it makes me so sad--those who cannot see it, but they can't. :dontknow:
We are really blessed.
...still searching for an image even being told not to look after the flesh.
Yes, and everyone who seeks will find, and to evryone who asks it will be given, and to evryone who knocks the door shall be opened. It is the only worthwhile quest.
AMEN
It is the only worthwhile quest.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 12, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God?
Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ, lest we never forget.
What does Jesus Christ look like?
Dependent on Him, the whole Body — its various parts closely fitting and firmly adhering to One Another — grows by the aid of every Contributory Link, with power proportioned to the need of each individual Part, so as to build Itself up in a Spirit of Love.
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
(Heb 12:1-2)
But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
(2Co 3:15-18)
Whenever I feel like I am losing sight of the Lord- I like to take a "gos-pill". I read the gospels and absorb the words of Jesus in the situations He was in and I see who He was and is, in His character, "the radiance of the Father's glory and exact representation of His nature"(He. 1:1-3). Also, in the revelation of John, I see Him revealed in all His glory as He is and will be, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 15, 2010, 06:16:51 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 12, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God?
Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ, lest we never forget.
What does Jesus Christ look like?
Rev 1
12 And I turned to see the
voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the
Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his
eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his
feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his
voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his
right hand seven stars: and out of his
mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17 And when
I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And
he laid his right hand upon me,
saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold,
I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
We can see that in his glorified form that he has human characterisitics such as feet, eyes, voice, clothes and a hand, but he is far more glorious than us, naturally, being God of course.
The title often given him is the "Son of man" for as well as being God he is also shares human blood by being of the seed of Abraham that was prophecied to crush the serpents head all the way back in Genesis. The son of man is often cited throughout the old testament and makes his appearance before prophets such as Daniel.
:cloud9: Article discussing Nephilim and 1st century Jewish work of the Zohar........seems to go with this topic we were on before......
The Authenticity of the Zohar
As Evidenced by the Book of Enoch
[Note: The point of this paper is the "authenticity" of the Zohar, that is that the Zohar was compiles by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the late first century, and not a forgery produced in Europe in the Middle Ages. That is not to say that the Zohar should be considered authoritative or even canon, which is a separate issue entirely.]
Ever since Moses DeLeon (c. 1250 – 1305 C.E.) discovered the Zohar and revealed his discovery to the world, critics have attacked the authenticity of this book. The book itself claims to have been redacted by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the late first century. Yet some have even accused even Moses DeLeon himself of having forged the book.
Clear evidence for the originality of the book lies in the fact that the Zohar makes much use of the first and second books of Enoch, both of which were lost to the Western World in ancient times, and were not recovered until fairly modern times. 1st Enoch was not recovered until the famous explorer James Bruce brought Ethiopic copies of the book to Europe in 1773. But it was not until 1800 that translations of any of the material was published. 2nd Enoch remained unknown until William Richard Morfil translated the recently discovered Slavonic text in 1896. It was not until the 19th century that the first and second books of Enoch and their contents became known to the Western world.
Now the Zohar mentions the Book of Enoch on ten occasions. While it is true that some of these citations have no exact parallel in either 1st or 2nd Enoch as they have come down to us, this is also true of the citations of the Book of Enoch found in the ancient "Church Fathers". Nonetheless in the majority of cases these citations have at least some parallel in 1st or 2nd Enoch, and some of them make it clear that the authors of the Zohar were quite familiar with the contents of the Books of Enoch.
The first mention of the Book of Enoch in the Zohar is as follows:
'The seventh precept is to circumcise the male child on the eighth day after birth and thereby to remove the defilement of the foreskin. The "living" (hayah) of which we have spoken forms the eighth grade in the scale, and hence the soul which has flown away from it must appear before it on the eighth day. And in this way it is made clear that this is really a "living soul", emanating from that holy "living" and not from the "unholy region". And this is alluded to in the words: Let the waters swarm, which in the Book of Enoch are explained thus: Let the water of the holy seed be stamped with the stamp of the "soul of the living", (2Enoch 30:8?) which is the form of the letter yod impressed on the holy flesh in preference to all other marks.
(Zohar 1:13a)
This is certainly a reference to the following passage in 2nd Enoch:
On the fifth day I commanded the sea, that it should bring forth fishes, and feathered birds of many varieties, and all animals creeping over the earth, going forth over the earth on four legs, and soaring in the air, male sex and female, and every soul breathing the spirit of life.
(2Enoch 30:8)
While the passage cited must have read somewhat differently in the copy which the author of the Zohar held (there are many variations in the known manuscripts of 2Enoch) it is beyond coincidence that 2Enoch has a passage which parallels that of Genesis 1:20 as the passage cited surely did.
The next citation of Enoch in the Zohar is as follows:
MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM: the one included in the other. R. Abba said: 'God did indeed send down a book to Adam, from which he became acquainted with the supernal wisdom. It came later into the hands of the "sons of God", the wise of their generation, and whoever was privileged to peruse it could learn from it supernal wisdom. This book was brought down to Adam by the "master of mysteries", preceded by three messengers. When Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden, he tried to keep hold of this book, but it flew out of his hands. He thereupon supplicated God with tears for its return, and it was given back to him, in order that wisdom might not be forgotten of men, and that they might strive to obtain knowledge of their Master. Tradition further tells us that Enoch also had a book, which came from the same place as the book of the generations of Adam.... [Tr. note: Here follows a highly allusive passage identifying Enoch with "the lad" (v. Prov. XXII, 6), i.e. Metatron.] This is the source of the book known as "the book of Enoch". When God took him, He showed him all supernal mysteries, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden and its leaves and branches, all of which can be found in his book.(1Enoch 24-25; 2Enoch 8:3) Happy are those of exalted piety to whom the supernal wisdom has been revealed, and from whom it will not be forgotten for ever, as it says, "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and his secret to make them know it." '
(Zohar 1:37b)
Again this passage is easy to locate in the 1st and 2nd books of Enoch:
3 And the seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne: and fragrant trees encircled the throne.
4 And among them was a tree such as I had never yet smelt, neither was any among them nor were others like it: it had a fragrance beyond all fragrance, and its leaves and blooms and wood wither not for ever: and its fruit is beautiful, and its fruit resembles the dates of a palm.
5 Then I said: 'How beautiful is this tree, and fragrant, and its leaves are fair, and its blooms very delightful in appearance.'
6 Then answered Mikha'el, one of the set-apart and honored angels who was with me, and was their leader.
1 And he said unto me: 'Chanoch, why dost you ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, and why dost you wish to learn the truth?'
2 Then I answered him saying: 'I wish to know about everything, but especially about this tree.'
3 And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which you hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of Elohim, is His throne, where the Set-apart Great One, YHWH of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness.
4 And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgment, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever.
(1Enoch 24:3-25:4)
3 And in the midst of the trees that of life, in that place whereon YHWH rests, when he goes up into Pardes; and this tree is of ineffable goodness and fragrance, and adorned more than every existing thing; and on all sides it is in form gold-looking and vermilion and fire-like and covers all, and it has produce from all fruits.
(2Enoch 8:3)
:cloud9: Part 2
The next citation in the Zohar is as follows:
When Noah grew up, and saw how mankind were sinning before God, he withdrew himself from their society and sought to serve his Master, so as not to be led astray by them. He was especially diligent in the study of the book of Adam and the book of Enoch which we have mentioned, and from them he learnt the proper forms in which to worship God. This explains how it is that he knew it was incumbent upon him to bring an offering; it was these books which revealed to him the basis on which the existence of the world depends, to wit, the sacrifices, without which neither the higher nor the lower world can endure.' (2Enoch 45; 59:2-6; 66:3)
(Zohar 1:58)
1 Whoever hastens to make offerings before YHWH's face, YHWH for his part will hasten that offering by granting of his work.
2 But whoever increases his lamp before YHWH's face and make not true judgment, YHWH will not increase his treasure in the realm of the highest.
3 When YHWH demands bread, or candles, or the flesh of beasts, or any other sacrifice, then that is nothing; but Elohim demands pure hearts, and with all that only tests the heart of man.
(2Enoch 45:1-3)
2 For man brings clean animals to make sacrifice for sin, that he may have cure of his soul.
3 And if they bring for sacrifice clean animals, and birds man has cure, he cures his soul.
4 All is given you for food, bind it by the four feet that is to make good the cure, he cures his soul.
5 But whoever kills beast without wounds, kills his own souls and defiles his own flesh.
6 And he who does any beast any injury whatsoever, in secret, it is evil practice, and he defiles his own soul.
(2Enoch 59:2-6)
3 Bow down to the true Elohim, not to dumb idols, but bow down to his similitude, and bring all just offerings before YHWH's face. YHWH hates what is unjust.
(2Enoch 66:3)
Again we read in the Zohar:
AND THE SONS OF NOAH THAT WENT FORTH FROM THE ARK WERE SHEM, AND HAM, AND JAPHETH. R. Eleazar asked why the Scripture inserts the words "who went forth from the ark". Did, then, Noah have other sons who did not go forth from the ark? R. Abba said: "Yes: the children whom his sons bore afterwards; and the Scripture points out that these did not go forth from the ark.' R. Simeon said: 'Had I been alive when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave mankind the book of Enoch and the book of Adam, I would have endeavoured to prevent their dissemination, because not all wise men read them with proper attention, and thus extract from them perverted ideas, such as lead men astray from the Most High to the worship of strange powers. Now, however, the wise who understand these things keep them secret, and thereby fortify themselves in the service of their Master.'
(Zohar 1:72b)
Here the Zohar does not indicate anything in particular that is actually said in the Book of Enoch. The next reference to the Book of Enoch in the Zohar is as follows:
We find in the book of Enoch that after the Holy One, blessed be He, had transported Enoch to the supernal regions and shown him all the treasures of the King, both the celestial and the terrestrial (1Enoch 17-18; 2Enoch 5-6 ), He permitted him to behold the Tree of Life (1Enoch 24-25; 2Enoch 8:3) and that Tree of which Adam was warned (1Enoch 32:3-6), and showed him the place where Adam had dwelt in the Garden of Eden (1Enoch 32:3-6; 2Enoch 8), and Enoch perceived that if Adam had been obedient he would have so dwelt for ever, having eternal life and perpetual joy in the glory of the Garden. But because he broke the commandment of his Lord, he was punished.'(1Enoch 69:6)
(Zohar 2:55a)
This citation of the Book of Enoch references several things that are in fact found in 1st and 2d Enoch:
1. ...the Holy One, blessed be He, had transported Enoch to the supernal regions and shown him all the treasures of the King, both the celestial and the terrestrial
This material is found in both 1st and 2nd Enoch:
1 And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were like flaming fire, and, when they wished, they appeared as men....
3 And I saw the places of the luminaries and the treasuries of the stars and of the thunder and in the uttermost depths, where were a fiery bow and arrows and their quiver, and a fiery sword and all the lightnings....
1 I saw the treasuries of all the winds: I saw how He had furnished with them the whole creation and the firm foundations of the earth.
(1Enoch 17:1,3; 18:1)
1 And here I looked down and saw the treasure houses of the snow, and the angels who keep their terrible store-houses, and the clouds whence they come out and into which they go.
1 They showed me the treasure house of the dew, like oil of the olive, and the appearance of its form, as of all the flowers of the earth; further many angels guarding the treasure-houses of these things, and how they are made to shut and open.
(2Enoch 5:1-6:1)
2. He permitted him to behold the Tree of Life
3 And the seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne: and fragrant trees encircled the throne.
4 And among them was a tree such as I had never yet smelt, neither was any among them nor were others like it: it had a fragrance beyond all fragrance, and its leaves and blooms and wood wither not for ever: and its fruit is beautiful, and its fruit resembles the dates of a palm.
5 Then I said: 'How beautiful is this tree, and fragrant, and its leaves are fair, and its blooms very delightful in appearance.'
6 Then answered Mikha'el, one of the set-apart and honored angels who was with me, and was their leader.
1 And he said unto me: 'Chanoch, why dost you ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, and why dost you wish to learn the truth?'
2 Then I answered him saying: 'I wish to know about everything, but especially about this tree.'
3 And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which you hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of Elohim, is His throne, where the Set-apart Great One, YHWH of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness.
4 And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgment, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever.
(1Enoch 24:3-25:4)
3 And in the midst of the trees that of life, in that place whereon YHWH rests, when he goes up into Pardes; and this tree is of ineffable goodness and fragrance, and adorned more than every existing thing; and on all sides it is in form gold-looking and vermilion and fire-like and covers all, and it has produce from all fruits.
(2Enoch 8:3)
3. and that Tree of which Adam was warned
3 And I came to the Pardes of Righteousness, I was shown from afar off trees more numerous than these trees and two great trees there, very great, beautiful, and glorious, and magnificent, and the tree of knowledge, whose set-apart fruit they eat and know great wisdom. That tree is in height like the fir,
4 and its leaves are like (those of) the Carob tree: and its fruit is like the clusters of the vine, very beautiful: and the fragrance of the tree penetrates afar.
5 Then I said: 'How beautiful is the tree, and how attractive is its look!'
6 Then Rafa'el the set-apart angel, who was with me, answered me and said: 'This is the tree of wisdom, of which your father of old and your mother of old, who were before you, have eaten, and they learned wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden.
(1Enoch 32:3-6)
4. and showed him the place where Adam had dwelt in the Garden of Eden
(This is found in the passages from 1st and 2nd Enoch already cited above)
5. and Enoch perceived that if Adam had been obedient he would have so dwelt for ever, having eternal life and perpetual joy in the glory of the Garden. But because he broke the commandment of his Lord, he was punished.'
1Enoch does in fact mention the event of Adam's disobedience, thought the Zohar has either interpreted further information from the account, or the version held by its author contained further information:
And the third was named Gadreel:
he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed [the weapons of death to the sons of men] the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the children of men.
(1Enoch 69:6)
:cloud9: Part 3
The next mention of the Book of Enoch is as follows:
There is here a profound mystery. According to the Book of Enoch, this "building" [the palace above the garden] is indeed constructed by the other spirit which was left in the "vessel,', and which draws after him the spirit which roams about in the air naked and alone; and these two spirits are welded together, and if the person is worthy to be built up again, the two spirits become one indeed, an organ in which a superior soul may wrap herself. (1Enoch 13-14?)
(Zohar 2:100a)
In fact 1Enoch does in fact give us an account of this heavenly palace:
8 And behold a dream came to me, and visions fell down upon me until I lifted my eyelids toward the gates of the palace of heaven, and I saw a vision of the wrath of chastisement, and a voice came to me and it said: Speak to the sons of heaven, and reprimand them....
9 And I went in till I drew near to a wall, which is built of crystals and surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to frighten me.
10 And I went into the tongues of fire and drew near to a great house, which was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tessellated floor (made) of ice.
11 Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightning's, and between them were fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water.
12 A flaming fire surrounded all their walls, and its gates blazed with fire.
13 And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice: there were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon me.
14 And as I quaked and trembled, I fell upon my face.
15 And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater than the former, and the entire gate stood open before me, and it was built of flames of fire.
16 And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to you its splendour and its extent.
17 And its floor was of fire, and above it were lightning's and the path of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire.
(1Enoch 18:8; 14:9-17)
The next citation of the book of Enoch in the Zohar is as follows:
"The dust of the earth" is a reference similar to that explained in the Book of Enoch, that the associates saw the letters of which these words are composed, and a voice was heard, saying: "Awaken and sing, ye who dwell in the dust" (Isa..XXVI, I9). The first edifice of the world (of the pre-resurrection period) will be as refuse in comparison with the second edifice (of the post-resurrection period), for this last will be perfected according to the Divine plan. (2Enoch 47:5)
(Zohar 2:105b)
In fact 2Enoch does make use of the phrase "dust of the earth" but again it is unclear whether the author of the Zohar's copy containe more information, or if he has used an unknown method of interpretation:
YHWH has placed the foundations in the unknown, and has spread forth heavens visible and invisible; he fixed the earth on the waters, and created countless creatures, and who has counted the water and the foundation of the unfixed, or the dust of the earth, or the sand of the sea, or the drops of the rain, or the morning dew, or the wind's breathings? Who has filled earth and sea, and the indissoluble winter?
(2Enoch 47:5)
The next citation of Enoch in the Zohar is:
We have found in the Book of Enoch the following: "An only son [Tr. note: Aaron.] will be born unto Him of the White Head, [Tr. note The Supernal Priest] and when they of the asses' flesh [Tr.note: The mixed multitude, cf Ezek, XXIII, 20] shall come, they will mislead him through him who puts pearls into bells of gold without knowing what he does, and an image will be fashioned with a chisel." (1Enoch 89?)
(Zohar 2:192b)
The reference is likely to 1Enoch which mentions offspring of a white bull:
12 But that white ox-calf which was born from him begat a black wild boar and a white sheep; and the former begat many boars, but that sheep begat twelve sheep.
(1Enoch 89:12)
And an apostate race of men represented by asses:
11 And they began to bite and to chase one another; but that white bull which was born among them begat a wild ass and a white ox with it, and the wild asses multiplied.
(1Enoch 89:11)
The next citation of Enoch in the Zohar is as follows:
Hence the words spoken by the Torah: "and I would be playing always before him" (Prov. VIII, 30), In the verse cited there is twice mention of "them that fear the Lord"; the first indicates the men themselves as they are here below, and the second their images as reflected in their words that ascend on high. This esoteric doctrine is found in the Book of Enoch, where it says that all the words of exposition uttered by the righteous on earth are adorned with crowns and are arrayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, who delights Himself with them. They then descend and come up again before His presence in the image of that righteous man who gave expression to them, and God then delights Himself with that image. The words, then, are inscribed in "a book of remembrance before Him", so as to endure for evermore. "And they that thought upon His name" is an allusion to those that meditate on the words of Torah in order thereby to cleave to their Master through an insight into the Divine Name, so as to know Him and beceme equipped with the wisdom of His name in their heart. It is written: "And above the firmament that was over their heads was as the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne" (Ezek. I, 26). (????)
(Zohar 2:217a)
It is unknown whether the author in the Zohar has cited a lost passage of Enoch or he has applied an unknown method of interpretation to an unknown Zohar passage.
R. Eleazar said: 'There is a mystery relating to the offering in the verse, "I have come to my garden, my sister, my bride... eat, 0 friends, drink, 0 beloved" (S.S. v, 1), which I have seen in the book of Enoch.' Said R. Simeon: 'Tell us what you have seen and heard.' (1Enoch 77:3?)
(Zohar 3:240a)
This could be a reference to any number of passages in either 1st or 2nd Enoch however a likely passage is one from 1Enoch:
3 And the fourth quarter, named the north, is divided into three parts: the first of them is for the dwelling of men: and the second contains seas of water, and the abysses and forests and rivers, and darkness and clouds; and the third part contains the garden of righteousness.
(1Enoch 77:3)
In addition to the ten direct references to the Book of Enoch there are many passages where the authors of the Zohar draw from material in the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch gives a detailed account of the fall of angels only implied in Genesis. According to the Book of Enoch these fallen angels were led by two major fallen angels named Shemikhaza and Azzazel. These angels copulated with men and beasts to produce a race of giants later whipped out by the flood. They also taught men many things including secrets of sorcery. Finally they were judged by being chained in a pit until the time of judgment.
The Zohar mentions this fall as follows:
R. Isaac said: "Uzza and Azael fell from the abode of their sanctity
above, they saw the daughters of mankind and sinned with them and
begat children. These were the Nefilim, of whom it is said, THE
NEFILIM WERE IN THE EARTH (Gen. 6:4)."
(Zohar 1:37a)
"Of the Nefilim it is said: "and the sons of God saw the daughters
of men that they were fair" (Gen. 6:1f). These form a second
category of the Nefilim, already mentioned above, in this way:
When God thought of making man, He said: "Let us make man
in our image, etc." i.e. He intended to make him head over the
celestial beings, who were to be his deputies, like Joseph over
the governors of Egypt (Gen. 41:41). The angels thereupon
began to malign him and say, "What is man that You should
remember him, seeing that he will assuredly sin before You."
Said God to them, "If you were on earth like him, you would
sin worse." And so it was. For "when the sons of God saw the
daughters of man", they fell in love with them, and God cast
them down from heaven. These were Uzza and Azael; from them
the "mixed multitude" derive their souls, and therefore they also
are called nefilim, because they fell into fornication with fair
women."
(Zohar 1:25b)
The Zohar account agrees with that of 1st Enoch except for abbreviating the name Shemikhazah with Uzza. In fact according to the Zohar Balam knew where Uzza and Azael were kept in chains, and went to them to learn his sorcery:
...after God cast Uzza and Azael down from their holy
place, they went astray after the women folk and seduced
the world also. It may seem strange that being angels they
were able to abide upon the earth. The truth is, however,
that when they were cast down the celestial light which
used to sustain them left them and they were changed to
another grade through the influence of the air of this world.
Similarly the manna which came down for the Israelites in
the wilderness originated in the celestial dew from the most
recondite spot, and at first its light would radiate to all worlds
and the "field of apples", and the heavenly angels drew
sustenance from it, but when it approached the earth it
became materialized through the influence of the air of
this world and lost its brightness, becoming only like
"coriander seed". Now when God saw that these fallen
angels were seducing the world, He bound them in chains of
iron to a mountain of darkness. Uzza He bound at the bottom
of the mountain and covered his face with darkness because
he struggled and resisted, but Azael, who did not resist, He
set by the side of a mountain where a little light penetrated.
Men who know where they are located seek them out,
and they teach them enchantments and sorceries and
divinations. These mountains of darkness are called the
"mountains of the East", and therefore Balaam said:
"From Aram has Balak brought me, from the mountains
of the East". Because they both learnt their sorceries there.
Now Uzza and Azael used to tell those men who came to
them some of the notable things which they knew in former
times when they were on high, and to speak about the holy
world in which they used to be.
(Zohar 3:208a)
In which place and from whom did Balaam derive all his
Magical practices and knowledge? Rabbi Isaac replied:
"He learned it first from his father, but it was in the
"mountains of the East", which are in an eastern country,
that he obtained a mastery of all the arts of magic and
divination. For those mountains are the abode of the
[fallen] angels Uzza and Azael whom the Holy One cast
down from heaven, and who were chained there in fetters.
It is they who impart to the sons of men a knowledge of
magic.
(Zohar 1:126a)
Here it is helpful to examine the 1st century Book of Y'hudah (Jude) in the so-called "New Testament". This book quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14-15 = 1Enoch 1:9) and references the account of the fallen angels (Jude 1:6-7, 13) as a typology for a last days apostasy. Y'hudah goes on to call this apostasy "the error of Balam" (Jude 1:11). Clearly the book of Y'hudah and the Zohar point to a first century tradition that Balam obtained his sorcery as a follower of the fallen angels mentioned in the Book of Enoch.
An examination of the Zohar in light of the Book of Enoch demonstrates that the Zohar could not have been a forgery produced by Moses De Leon, nor any other European living in the Middle Ages. The authors of the Zohar express a knowledge of the Book of Enoch and its contents which was impossible anytime between its loss in ancient times and its nineteenth century restoration. In fact the authentic use of the Book of Enoch in the Zohar supports the claim that at least the core of the Zohar is what it claims to be, a document compiled by first century Rabbi, the authors of which demonstrate a working knowledge of documents well known in the first century, yet unknown in the middle ages, and also of first century traditions associating Balam with the Enoch account.
QuoteThe Creationists have little evidence that a scientifically trained eye would find credible. The earth is not 6000 years old. And I agree with you WW Neo-Darwinism crumbles under the weight of random mutational theory. It just can't happen. It's just as absurd as saying the earth is 6000 years old.
What is the Neo-Darwinism? In terms of Evolution.
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 15, 2010, 06:16:51 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 12, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Can you even mention one thing in which we look like God?
Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ, lest we never forget.
What does Jesus Christ look like?
Jesus looks like the flesh of that brother or sister who keeps getting in your face such that you find it hard not to stay offended at them.
3 And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which you hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of Elohim, is His throne, where the Set-apart Great One, YHWH of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness.
Interesting passage from the book of enoch. Notice that the high mountain will be like the throne of Elohim.
I recall Jesus talking about his throne and the Fathers throne.
So who is Elohim in this passage, it hints towards the Father!
The set apart one = YHWH, the eternal king and will visit the earth. Slightly off topic, but important evidence of Christs divinity.
Resurrecting this thread...
Somewhere in this thread Shawn stated homids are much older than 6000 years.
But what exactly is the defenition of man?
The Bible classifies a whale as a fish and a bat as a bird while both ar classified as a mammal by science.
Not sure but I think insects are also classified differently in the Bible.
My point is that God seems to have a different classification system.
So perhaps that's the answer. Science and God classify man differently.
Also discussed in this thread is the age of the earth.
YECs believe earth was created in 6 24-hour day and mankind is 6000 year old.
That's based on Bisschop Ushers calculation of the Biblical genealogy.
He dates Adam/mankind at 4004BC and the universe 144 hours older.
Jews and (many?) Christians believe the universe is billions of years old and mankind itself is 6000 years old.
For me that variation is much easier to accept.
But that still gives (some) problems because for example Damascus is dated 9000BC,
I know some calculations show a 10000 year old mankind. I've never seen those calculations.
Recently I was Googling for Jubilee and found this site http://www.bibletime.com/theory/history/adam
The site is 400 pages of not so well organized stuff.
Short summary: Adam was created 13000 years ago.
Summary:
Genelogies in Genesis and Luke seem to contradic.
But only due to translation errors.
Basicly the point is that in Genesis only 3 fathers are really a father.
All others ancestors.
At the age of 130 Adam names (begot) Seth. In Biblical terms that means Seth is the direct decendant of Adam.
It's the word "names" that defines the father/son relationship.
In any other case it means "became ancestor of"
So at the age of 130 Adam became the father(=ancestor) of Jesus.
So his explanation is that all except for 3 lifespans should be chained together.
So let's take Methuselah as an example.
At the age of 187 Methuselah became ancestor or Lamech. But Lamech was not his son.
Bisschop Ussher counted the 187 years for the genealogy. The owner of that site counts the full 969 years.
So Adam ---> Abraham is 8958 years.
Not entirly sure about it, but it aren't solar years but prophetic years that are 364.8 days on average.
It's less than half a day per year so it's not of great importance for this thread.
13000 years solves a lot of archelogical problems but causes problems elsewhere.
A day is a thousand year no longer can be a week/7000 years.
But there is about 7000 years after the flood.
YLTMatt 1
1 A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.
I think this verse proves the above....
Son clearly means descendant in that verse
Found a fantastic 7 part lecture for YECs (and OEDs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpVRjQTBVZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRPJ-yo7k4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTOtR3GBfsc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YBC3ORwfhQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q24iqwqnAjU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xTTprfqpc0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyXmmXdUPc&NR=1
American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.
... has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".
Craig argues that science and faith are connected. In his writings, he states: "I think we are living in a time in human history where physical science is more open to the existence of a creator and designer of the universe than at any time in recent memory."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/#ixzz1VXgTuRdI
:bigGrin: :thumbsup:
Is science what scientist say it is, because they say it is?
Or is science the objective discovery of whatever is truly real through impartial investigation by those who have no further investment than the love of the truth?
Does reality change with every new discovery, or was reality always what it presently is, infinite and awaiting infinite exploration for the pure joy of discovery?
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".
What you said :bigGrin:.
I'm thinking it's good that lately more people are open to there being a Creator. I say 'lately', because I suppose :dontknow: that used to be a pretty much accepted fact...
On the other hand - have you ever had those moments where you think the world has gone nut? Lost its mind?
Yeah, me too.
No, but sometimes I am pretty sure I have. :wacko2: Maybe I am too focused on myself. :dontknow:
CHB
I think it's an outworking of this....Romans 1;19 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal powers and divine nature
-has been clearly seen,being UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE,so that men are without excuse.
who's not over awed just beholding the work of His hands...the intelligence behind the 'design' of His creation..the perpetual cycles
that support life...the awesomeness of the universe...and yet He tells us...these are only the temporal things!..These are the 'lower' things
in addition, the devil knows his time is short.....a mad frenzy of lawlessness ...an a last dash of destruction from those destroying the earth...
is not surprising to me. NOW IS A TIME TO KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE CLOUDS :cloud9:
Quote from: jabcat on August 21, 2011, 10:44:11 AM
What you said :bigGrin:.
I'm thinking it's good that lately more people are open to there being a Creator. I say 'lately', because I suppose :dontknow: that used to be a pretty much accepted fact...
On the other hand - have you ever had those moments where you think the world has gone nut? Lost its mind?
Yeah, me too.
I must agree with you thinking and also CHB. :bigGrin: