Guest Teditis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 41 minutes ago, other one said: Do you all realize that if you do take all the descriptions of creation in both Genesis and the prophets as literal you end up with a flat round earth with a hard canopy over it, and God living on top of it. All setting on 4 pillars for a foundation. That's not accurate at all.... that's what happens when the reader uses inference, eisegesis, or simply uses preconceptions to interpret a body of text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,124 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,854 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2016 47 minutes ago, Teditis said: That's not accurate at all.... that's what happens when the reader uses inference, eisegesis, or simply uses preconceptions to interpret a body of text. I've got about 30 hours of video's you can go through if you would like.... from people with doctors degrees in Hebrew and Greek and a whole list of MA's in just about anything religious... let me know if you are interested.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Haha, no thanks. It gives me the willies to watch/hear smart people talking foolishly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 hours ago, ARGOSY said: The darkness was an unknown period that existed before the first 24 hour day. The first 24 hour day is associated with light. Sure its possible that the the period of darkness occurred within that 24 hours, but the verse does not even hint at that. Oops...wrong button 6 hours ago, Vendtre said: Verse 27 of chapter one states man and woman were made as part of day 6. Chapter 2 gives details of what happened between the creation of man and the creation of woman. Since both man and woman were created on day 6, if you believe day 6 was only 24 hours long then everything between the making of man and the making of woman had to take place in less than 24 hours, so chapter 2 would have to be a 24 hour period... If you ascribe to the 24 hour view Bump for Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,124 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,854 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Teditis said: Haha, no thanks. It gives me the willies to watch/hear smart people talking foolishly. Well, they are just taking the Bible in the original language and showing what it says literally... Not that I take it literally, but it is what it says literally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,186 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,464 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 11, 2016 9 hours ago, ARGOSY said: The darkness was an unknown period that existed before the first 24 hour day. The first 24 hour day is associated with light. Sure its possible that the the period of darkness occurred within that 24 hours, but the verse does not even hint at that. It is as all verses-> day 1 then day two then so on and all that was done is listed that is the common literary flow of chapter 1 ... God defined the literary meaning of day Ge 1:14 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: KJV so to say day one just because verse 14 is not yet present is to presume upon the Scripture when God's stated intention on verse fourteen was the definition of day... to say He needed vs 14 to be present in day one is outside the stated hermeneutic and is something other than God's Word to base it on... If you are contending something other than God's defined day show me in Scripture cause I am not concerned with reason apart from God's Word.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,186 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,464 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 11, 2016 The error that most scientific thought does with God - is they make Him subject to the laws He put in place-> thus their god is the law and not the uncreated one called God Who sets laws in motion but Himself is not bound by anything except His Own Being which is boundless! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,186 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,464 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Teditis said: Haha, no thanks. It gives me the willies to watch/hear smart people talking foolishly. I am in total agreement with your assessment of the ever learning but never gaining~ intellectuals... 2 Ti 3:7-8 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. KJV It will never be with self initiated knowledge that puffs up but in humility of mind seeking God in His Word knowing that unless God places the understanding there in the proper hermeneutic we will never have the reasoning of God within us... I with tears and requests beg God to let me undeservedly to know Him through His Word! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 hours ago, enoob57 said: It is as all verses-> day 1 then day two then so on and all that was done is listed that is the common literary flow of chapter 1 ... God defined the literary meaning of day Ge 1:14 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: KJV so to say day one just because verse 14 is not yet present is to presume upon the Scripture when God's stated intention on verse fourteen was the definition of day... to say He needed vs 14 to be present in day one is outside the stated hermeneutic and is something other than God's Word to base it on... If you are contending something other than God's defined day show me in Scripture cause I am not concerned with reason apart from God's Word.... Well the story of Genesis 1 is pretty simple. There is a dark watery earth, the spirit of God is on the surface. From this vantage point we see light appearing through the thick atmospheric waters (misty clouds?). Visibility is therefore increased. The expanse of the sky then appears. Land rises up from the water. Then the sun and moon and stars are produced visibly in the sky. And biological life is created. This is not a story about the creation of the univrse. This is a story about the spirit of God on a dark watery planet, and the mists lifting and life being created on a previously inhospitable planet. Yes, all in 6 24 hour days. I'm a strict bible literalist, but using Hebrew, NOT English. Sure a young earth is possible from the wording of Genesis 1, but its not the most obvious. ps there is a very clever way to interpret Genesis 1 using Hebrew , not English. Whenever you see heavens, replace with SKY. Whenever you see earth, replace with LAND. Most places you see "created", replace with PRODUCED VISIBLY. Then you can read Genesis 1 properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Posted February 11, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.49 Reputation: 1,292 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2016 On 2/8/2016 at 8:56 PM, ARGOSY said: There are no riddles. The bible is a literal book. But the literal wording allows for an ancient universe and planet. Its a fallacy that God took six days to make the earth. The Hebrew word for "earth" is "eret" and this word means "land" and does not mean "planet earth". The dry land was created on the third day, NOT the planet. Genesis 1:1 is clear the planet already existed in a watery state, before creation week even started. Then land was created on day 3. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas So an old earth and old universe is a perfectly acceptable belief system for a bible literalist. Sure, dry land, the expanse of the sky and all biological life was recent, but nothing in Genesis 1 implies the universe and planet is a recent creation. That question is left open. 6 days, is six days. that does not leave a lot of time for long indeterminable time periods in the creation does it? I understand that there is an indeterminable time before creation, but the planet itself does not appear until the third day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts