Creation???

[rollinTHUNDER]

It's really up to you to demonstrate that there is something deeper in the text. Why don't you address that instead of this mockery? All Shiloh did was point out that the verse is not appropriate to be used to determine the length of creation. This thread is going downhill fast...

Actually, this view is very common among many scholars. The possiblity does exist and has not yet been proven wrong. Some may not agree with it, but to say that it should not be used to address Bible prophecy is ridiculous. There are still many mysteries contained in God's Word, and also many more hidden clues to discover as well. We will never find them by putting limits on our understanding, or saying we do not have enough light for understanding these mysteries. One of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide us into all truth, and He does take us deeper into God's Word. He has not stopped that ministry by any means. If someone wants to stay on the surface, I have no problem with that, but don't try to clip everyone elses wings because you can't see it. The burden is on him to disprove it, but it's not his place to tell others how or what they can use to address Bible prophecy.

[OneLight]

When a statement is made by anyone, they are the one who needs to validate the truth in the statement. It is not up to everyone else to disprove it. By following your example, if you can't prove that God does not live on KOLOB as the Mormons preach, then it is possible God does live on KOLOB and the Mormons may be correct..

[Fez]

It's really up to you to demonstrate that there is something deeper in the text. Why don't you address that instead of this mockery? All Shiloh did was point out that the verse is not appropriate to be used to determine the length of creation. This thread is going downhill fast...

Actually, this view is very common among many scholars. The possiblity does exist and has not yet been proven wrong. Some may not agree with it, but to say that it should not be used to address Bible prophecy is ridiculous. There are still many mysteries contained in God's Word, and also many more hidden clues to discover as well. We will never find them by putting limits on our understanding, or saying we do not have enough light for understanding these mysteries. One of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to guide us into all truth, and He does take us deeper into God's Word. He has not stopped that ministry by any means. If someone wants to stay on the surface, I have no problem with that, but don't try to clip everyone elses wings because you can't see it. The burden is on him to disprove it, but it's not his place to tell others how or what they can use to address Bible prophecy.

When a statement is made by anyone, they are the one who needs to validate the truth in the statement. It is not up to everyone else to disprove it. By following your example, if you can't prove that Good does not live on KOLOB as the Mormons preach, then it is possible God does live on KOLOB and the Mormons may be correct..

As OneLight says, you advanced the theory, and it is up to you to prove it, using scripture.

You have not done that yet, all you have done is tie a few verses, which people have shown to be otherwise directed, and used them to expound an idea.

Searching scripture for deeper meaning is a good thing, of course, but it is also good to listen to others when they have a different opinion.

Blessings

[ByFaithAlone]

Sorry Everyone:

I've had a busy weekend and I don't like to work on the Sabbath so I haven't looked at any threads until today...

He is not saying that 1000 years = one day with God. He is using a similie, a figure of speech to illustrate a bigger point. The Psalmist is brief transitory nature of human life. God does not die and is unchanging. He lives outside linear time and so his perspective on life is quite a bit different than are own. No one has ever lived to 1,000 years of age.

The REAL comparison being made is the eternal, unchanging existence of God vs. the fragile, temporary, every changing existence of man.

Exactly a comparison is being made. The day and night merely mean beginning and ending of the first yom exactly as the Psalmist compares to the beginning and ending of a man's life. Additionally this makes sense as the word of the Lord has been proclaimed to a thousand generations (almost 40,000 years).

As for the word yom in creation... If God wanted to tell us that each unit of creation was accomplished in long epochs of thousands or even millions of years, there are other words in Hebrew rather than yom that could have been used. The word olam is one such word.

Olam means eternity, forever or old in ancient Hebrew. Eternity is not the correct word to use as creation would never be complete...

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever [olam]"-- (Genesis 3:22)

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever [olam], because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)

Qedem - another word that could be brought up that can also mean old or forever...

"And with the best things of the ancient [qedem] mountains, And with the choice things of the everlasting hills, (Deuteronomy 33:15)

"The eternal God is a dwelling place, And underneath are the everlasting [qedem] arms; And He drove out the enemy from before you, And said, 'Destroy!' (Deuteronomy 33:27)

'Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; From ancient times [qedem] I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, That you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps. (2 Kings 19:25)

THE ONLY "AMOUNTS" OF TIME THESE WORDS INDICATE ARE ETERNITY OR FOREVER...

Furthermore when other places in the Bible reference the the days of creation, they do not make any attempt to communicate that those days were anything other than regular, 24-hour days (Exod. 20:11 31:17).

Both of these passages use yom... what is your point?

You need to keep in mind that the creation of the world/universe was a supernatural event authored by an all-powerful, all-knowing God who also guides and sustains it down to the very last atom. From what we see in Scripture, He micro-manages every aspect of creation. So given that, the notion that He created all of this in 6 days is a valid position and is the one view that is faithful to the plain and intended meaning of the biblical text.

If you are going to approach it biblically, then you need to show from the Scriptures that the Bible intended something other than the plain sense of the word yom in Gen. 1.

I am not saying to would be impossible for God to create the world in 6 days. Based on the 1,000 generations quote (given previously) and the fact that God allowed the earth to bring forth plants on the third day...

Again from Deem's website God and Science...

"The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long."

I'll bring up more examples if I have time later...

__________________________________

I don't remember who exactly brought up the argument of pain and death but I will copy from Richard Deem's website God and Science once again to explain...

"Actually, although scripture says that God's creation was "very good", it does not say there was no "violence, pain, fear, suffering, or death." In fact, scripture says that there was death, mourning, crying, and pain before the fall. This can be seen in part from the curse given to the woman as a result of Eve's sin:

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

You will notice that God multiplies the pain, but that childbirth was already to have been associated with pain. The presence of pain before the fall is confirmed in the book of Revelation:

"and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

This verse tells us that death, mourning, crying and pain are some of the "first things." the Greek words translated "first things" is "prwtos prwtos" which would literally be translated "first first" being actually repeated for emphasis.

Pain, in itself is not evil, but necessary for humans and animals. If we never felt pain, we would occasionally inflict great damage on ourselves. Most people, when they touch a hot object move their hand away from the object rather quickly. If we had no pain receptors, we probably wouldn't move our hand until we smelled the smoke of charred flesh. This is obviously not good. Therefore pain is a good thing in this life. In the new creation there will be no pain, since entropy, the leading, if not only, cause of pain will be eliminated."

__________________________________

And on a personal note...

Hello ByFaithAlone and to perhaps the first person I've met who also fences on these forums (foil for me with a little historical).

What type of historical - SCA? ARMA? I did a bit of cut and thrust/heavy fencing with the SCA about a year ago but I didn't have the time to continue doing it

[Guest shiloh357]

How have you arrived at the conclusion that it is just a simile?

Grammatical structure. When a comparison is made using "like" or "as" it is a similie. When the Bible says, that the voice of the Lord sounded as a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), it is a similie. The voice of the Lord is not sounding like an actual trumpet, but it s the volume that is in view.

When Peter says, 1000 years with God is "as a day," it is not point for point comparison. He is not saying that 1,000 years is 24 hours to God. He is challenging the view of the scoffers who think a lot of time has passed and Christ has not returned and it serves as a chalenge to God's integirty. He is simply pointing out that there is nothing that requires God to hasten His return in order to protect His integrity or to justify His promises to the scoffers. Rather, what appears as a delay to the scoffers is really an act of mercy because as Peter goes on to say, it is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

That settles it. Just keep everything neatly packed inside this little box and everything will be just fine. No need to try and look for anything deeper.

Everyone just move along, there is nothing else to be seen here.

Respectfully, sometimes, a rock is just a rock. Point being, sometimes we try too hard to make more of something than what is intended by the author. Sometimes, the author has one central point he is making and we need to be content with that.

If you feel a deeper truth is there, it is up to you to show that the text demands that we understand it in light of that deeper truth.

[Guest]

Okay, well that settles it then.

That settles it. Just keep everything neatly packed inside this little box and everything will be just fine. No need to try and look for anything deeper. Everyone just move along, there is nothing else to be seen here.

What's your problem 'rollinThunder? It appears that you are contemptuous towards Shiloh.

[rollinTHUNDER]

When a statement is made by anyone, they are the one who needs to validate the truth in the statement. It is not up to everyone else to disprove it. By following your example, if you can't prove that Good does not live on KOLOB as the Mormons preach, then it is possible God does live on KOLOB and the Mormons may be correct..

The OP brought up Psalm 90:4. All I did was present another popular theory of that verse in a nutshell. I do realize that it is a theory which has not been proven or disproven.

I happen to believe the theory will be proven correct in the long run, for several different reasons. But I don't believe it can be proven either way, until Christ returns. I believe efforts attempting to prove or disprove it at this time will be fruitless and a waste of time, so don't expect me to participate in it.

You may have a different view, which does not bother me in the least.

This is a poll in which I voted for six 24 hour days, which is also what I believe, but I don't feel the need to prove this point either. If you believe something different, that's all well and good. I don't even care to challenge your beliefs in that regard, but I will not be told how I can or can not address Bible prophecy. I'm simply not going to be handcuffed in such a way.

Good day!

[Guest shiloh357]

This is a poll in which I voted for six 24 hour days, which is also what I believe, but I don't feel the need to prove this point either. If you believe something different, that's all well and good. I don't even care to challenge your beliefs in that regard, but I will not be told how I can or can not address Bible prophecy. I'm simply not going to be handcuffed in such a way.

No one is telling you how you can or cannot address Bible prophecy. The only point being made is that the contexts of either Ps. 90:4 or II Pet. 3:8 are not meant by the authors to be a "key" to understanding God's prophetic timeline. Modern Bible prophecy teachers reach for sensational stuff and try to make Peter' words to mean something entirely different than what Peter was trying to convey.

If you want to believe that the six days of creation somehow represent a 6,000 year prophetic plan of God, that is up to you. No one can stop you. But II Peter 3:8 and Ps. 90:4 don't really help that position.

[goldust59]

The reason I believe the literal 6 day creation is because God specifies "the evening & the morning were". Maybe I need to do a study on what is meant by "evening & morning", but that is how I see it at this time.

I would like to say though that the word 'day' is used to represent different time frames. When God told Adam he would die 'in the day' he disobeyed, Adam's death was not complete til his body died many years after. Using the 1000 yrs=day( 2 Peter 3:8) time frame, Adam died in the day he disobeyed. I still see something here.

[Guest shiloh357]

The reason I believe the literal 6 day creation is because God specifies "the evening & the morning were". Maybe I need to do a study on what is meant by "evening & morning", but that is how I see it at this time.

I would like to say though that the word 'day' is used to represent different time frames. When God told Adam he would die 'in the day' he disobeyed, Adam's death was not complete til his body died many years after. Using the 1000 yrs=day( 2 Peter 3:8) time frame, Adam died in the day he disobeyed. I still see something here.

Always look to context. For example "The 'Day' of the Lord" is a prophetic reference to the tribulation period and also includes the Millennial Reign of Christ. Sometimes, the prophetic phrase "in that day" simply means "at that time." Sometimes the word is used figuratively as in your example of "in the 'day' you eat thereof..." The surrounding context will tell you how to understand the word AND corroborating Scriptures that specifically address that passage.