EnochBethany

Assumptions. If A = B, then A + C = B + C. Can science (or any logical system) dispense with assumptions like the above; that is axioms? Can you prove anything whatsoever without tracing it back to axioms, self-evident truths which are never proven, but used for proof? How do you know that D is true? D is true becs of E. Fine, but how do you know that E is true? E is true becs of F. Yofi, but how do you know that F is true? F is true because of G. Marvey, but how do you know that G is true? As you can see, such proof never proves anything, because it leads to an endless series, in which a proof can always be demanded for a proof. So if you don't have any axioms, self-evident truths to assume, how can you ever prove anything logically?

Are you sure there is not even one gap in Genesis 1? How about here: "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Are you sure that there was no time gap between male and female? The verse starts "And God created man in his own image." Are you sure that there is no time gap between that and female? Are you sure there is no time gap between vs 27 & 28? There is no time gap between creating man and speaking to man? Not even 5 seconds? "And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Context: "(Ephesians 3:18) "May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;" This refers to the vastness of the love of Christ (which passes knowledge), evidently eading to being filled to all the fullness of God. If you want to know how to be "filled," read Ephesians 3:14-19, the only passage I know of that tells you how.

IMHO: I do not claim that a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is an exegetical necessity. However, it does appear to me that there is possibly some amount of time between God creating the heavens & the earth & the earth being tohu & bohu, waste & void. Does not Isaiah say God did not creat the earth that way? The idea of God creating a waste & void earth seems to me improbable. Putting an unknown period of time between 1:1 and 1:2 does not depend on unnecessary baggage like: 1) postulating a pre-Adamic race, 2) changing the meaning of "the earth was waste" to "the earth BECAME waste." The other alternative is to make 1:1 a paragraph heading, which I do not deny is possible. If there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, then we don't have revelation as to when the earth was created. We do have revelation as to when Adam was created, though some famous Christian scholars have denied that one can add up the dates in Genesis to date Adam's creation, scholars like Unger and Archer. A young human race does not necessitate a young earth. The Day Age theory has been held by some Christians. But I don't find it consistent with symbiosis (as just for an example, one might have a bird that cannot live without the existence of some land animal, which fact would rule out a long age of birds before land animals were created). I will admit that I have not searched enough for grammatical parallels to 1:1-2 in the Hebrew Bible.

There is only 1 Bible. You are invited to read it and affirm for yourself that you perceive God speaking -- or deny it at your own peril. That it is God's word is self-evident even when one reads translations, of which there are many good ones. If you really care enough, you can go study Greek and Hebrew to get the original language text, which is also available as a free interlinear online. Try Biblos.com. An interlinear is the original language with each word translated below. But the act of affirmation or denyal is yours to do for yourself.

Clever parable. I think I would use "Life after gestation."

It is self-evident that the God of the Bible exists and that the Bible is the Word of God. "My sheep hear My voice." It should be obvious that the early Christians at once accepted the epistles from the NT writers as God's word at once, not waiting for ecclesiastical councils 300 years later nor for the non-Christian Constantine to put his blessing on the writings. The whole concept of canon involves a misconception.

What do you mean by communicate? You mean send and receive messages? Do you mean personal messages, like, "Don't step on my blue suede shoes?" Perhaps you mean interact? Or are you asking how do the human body and spirit interface? Like where does the body connect to the spirit, as if "where" were a concept relevant to a spirit? I don't know the answer to the last question. If I were to make a wild guess, I would choose the thalamos in the brain as the contact point. Now don't ask me for the contact point on the spirit!

Actually a term which has been translated "free will" occurs in the NT, the term hekousion. κατὰ ἑκούσιον (kata heousion) has been rendered according to free will in Philemon, that Philemon should act of free will instead of necessity." The related adverb is ἑκουσίως; hekousiōs, the related adverb is in Hb 10:26. That being said, it should also be noted that in the NT there is no specific word for "will" as a faculty of the human or of the human mind. Thelēma is a thing willed, like it is my will that you eat beans; that word does occur, but it does not mean a faculty of will. In Philemon we read, "but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will." Yet we do find the Lord, at least on occasion, turning hearts. But it is clear that the Lord wants us to act of free will in doing good. He cares that we actually love others and act out of that love. Some of us would like the Lord to take over and control our lives like the potter over the clay. We would like to experience, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." But it goes on to say, "And the life which I live in the flesh, I live in faith." But we ever have a necessity to trust the Lord, like Peter when he walked on the water, only to find himself soon sinking with eyes off the Lord. And there is a limit on taking over and controlling a Christian's life, else we would never sin -- but in many ways we all stumble (James). You can't even pray any prayer whatsoever now & be guaranteed you won't sin 5 minutes later!

Thanks for this topic post. Actually if a person does not believe in Eternal Security, such a person does not trust the Lord Jesus as Savior in the sense that I do. When I say I trust the Lord Jesus as my Savior, I mean that I trust Him for my new nature and for eternal bliss in companionship with Him wherever He may be at any time, currently in Heaven. I do not mean that I believe He will give me eternal bliss if such & such. I think that some who teach that one can lose salvation have a deficient understanding of what salvation is. Salvation is not going to Heaven in the first instance. Salvation is first of all a transformation from sinner to Child of God right now, though it does include eternal life. Salvation is not an award to be received after your works are judged based on having done good works. Salvation is a new birth, a metamorphosis for child of Adam to child of God, becoming a member of a new race, the race founded by the Lord Jesus: I give them eternal life and they shall never perish