Young Earth/Old Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Joline said:

Acts is sloppy exegesis? Poor luke can't even get it right huh?

No, the sloppy exegesis is applying Malachi 4:5 to Acts 2.   No one does that.  Everyone knows that the great and terrible day of the Lord occurs at the Tribulation, prophetically.  There is nothing "great and terrible" about the day of Pentecost.  

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the sloppy exegesis is applying Malachi 4:5 to Acts 2.   No one does that.  Everyone knows that the great and terrible day of the Lord occurs at the Tribulation, prophetically.  There is nothing "great and terrible" about the day of Pentecost.  

Then the pouring out of the holy spirit could not have happened either then...............No one does that? Who says???????????You again? Well I just did that because it is also talking about the terrible day of the Lord. So just maybe you are wrong about your views on the prophets heh?

But I will accept what Luke says............

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, Joline said:

Then the pouring out of the holy spirit could not have happened either then...............No one does that? Who says???????????You again? Well I just did that because it is also talking about the terrible day of the Lord.

But I will accept what Luke says............

Malachi 4:1-5 has nothing to do with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.  That's Joel 2.   Joel 2: 31 is speaking to the same Tribulation time period, as Malachi, which is still future.    No one associates Malachi 4:5 as being a  fulfillment of the  day of Pentecost because it has nothing to do with it.   Malachi  is not quoted in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. 

 

[Guest]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Malachi 4:1-5 has nothing to do with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.  That's Joel 2.   Joel 2: 31 is speaking to the same Tribulation time period, as Malachi, which is still future.    No one associates Malachi 4:5 as being a  fulfillment of the  day of Pentecost because it has nothing to do with it.   Malachi  is not quoted in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. 

 

YOU CONNECTED IT. You made this about the terrible day of the Lord......................................

Now if John could not be him which Malichi prophesies to come before that day, Neither could the holy spirit COME BEFORE THAT DAY.

Yet Luke in acts does indeed tell us this was the fulfillment of JOEL.

[post]

20 hours ago, Thallasa said:

Post ,I wonder ,do you have anything to say about Genesis 2 : 17 and what it means .

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.
(Genesis 2:17) 

"day" there is Strong's 3117, "yom"
"die" is Strong's 4191, "muth" 

anyone who just reads that verse alone, and doesn't know the rest of the story, would probably come to no other conclusion but that it is literal -- that if the man ate of this tree, he would die the very same "yom." there is zero evidence in the text itself to suggest that it means anything other than that. 

but as we read on, we find that Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years after the time that they ate of the tree. so there's a problem -- we know the scripture is true, but what we ((thought we)) understood clearly when we read verse 17 seems to contradict the knowledge that we later attain as we keep reading. -- we can't just pretend that Adam & Eve actually died that same day and claim whoever says that is an "evil liberal" -- it's the Bible itself that contradicts the plain reading of the text.
there are three solutions to this "problem": 

• the scripture is contradictory and untrustworthy
• "yom" doesn't mean 24 hour day here; maybe it means something like an "age" or "era" 
• "die" doesn't mean literally die here; maybe it means spiritual separation or the beginning of a long process of decay

the first option, we reject immediately. we trust the word of God. 
the second option, if because of some bias, a person is not comfortable with defining a "yom" as anything other than a 24 day, especially in such proximity to Genesis 1, they reject out of hand too, and readily accept option 3. 

interestingly though, no matter whether we accept option 2 or option 3, we're doing exactly the thing that some people boast about never doing: we're assuming that a passage of the scripture which has no internal reason to believe is anything but literal is actually figurative. we are doing this because as we gain a bit more knowledge, our first impression of the text stops making sense. we realize that our understanding was at fault, and we come to a new understanding that accommodates both the plain written statement of Genesis 2:17 with facts that we learn from places outside of Genesis 2:17. 

the Holy Spirit backs us into a corner as we read this narrative: we are forced to either reject the scripture itself, or to admit that we do not have a perfect understanding of it as we read. we have to either accept that what's written as "day" in English doesn't necessarily mean "day" in normal human terms, or that what's written "die" in English doesn't necessarily mean "die" in normal human terms. the spiritual sword humbles us here, striking with the flat against our knee and causing us to bow our understanding. 


the reader may be sitting there thinking option 3 is obvious -- but this is because you're thinking about knowledge from the NT scriptures that came to light well over a thousand years after Moses wrote this down - knowledge that changed how this verse was understood. and that is still not so obvious as you might like it to be - this Hebrew word for death is used over 800 times in the OT, and quite literally -- not figuratively. it's not until someone writing in Greek, with a whole lot of context specifying without doubt that they are talking in a figurative, not literal sense, that this other Greek word for death is sometimes in scripture being used figuratively. it's not ambiguous. 

the reader may instead be thinking that option 2 may actually be more likely, and pausing to re-think some things, realizing that just a few paragraphs away from the creation account, we have "yom" or "day" meaning something  very different than a 24-earth-hour time period. 


what i hope all of us gain from thinking about this is that what for all appearances is a literal statement in the Bible, may turn out as the Lord reveals more things, to be a different kind of statement altogether. that this can be the case without any disrespect for the authority of scripture at all -- believing every word of it. when more facts are made known, and the way we understand scripture seems to be in conflict with them -- even with regard to what seems to be very clear, plain language in scripture -- it is not the scripture that is in error. it is our understanding. 

we need to be able to accept that we might not have perfect understanding, and keep our eyes open, not becoming willfully ignorant or blind to preserve our own misunderstanding. we need to not lean on our own understanding, but trust the Lord at His word, and the truth, and re-evaluate our own thinking when it is necessary. 

 

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, post said:

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.
(Genesis 2:17) 

"day" there is Strong's 3117, "yom"
"die" is Strong's 4191, "muth" 

anyone who just reads that verse alone, and doesn't know the rest of the story, would probably come to no other conclusion but that it is literal -- that if the man ate of this tree, he would die the very same "yom." there is zero evidence in the text itself to suggest that it means anything other than that. 

but as we read on, we find that Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years after the time that they ate of the tree. so there's a problem -- we know the scripture is true, but what we ((thought we)) understood clearly when we read verse 17 seems to contradict the knowledge that we later attain as we keep reading. -- we can't just pretend that Adam & Eve actually died that same day and claim whoever says that is an "evil liberal" -- it's the Bible itself that contradicts the plain reading of the text.
there are three solutions to this "problem": 

• the scripture is contradictory and untrustworthy
• "yom" doesn't mean 24 hour day here; maybe it means something like an "age" or "era" 
• "die" doesn't mean literally die here; maybe it means spiritual separation or the beginning of a long process of decay

the first option, we reject immediately. we trust the word of God. 
the second option, if because of some bias, a person is not comfortable with defining a "yom" as anything other than a 24 day, especially in such proximity to Genesis 1, they reject out of hand too, and readily accept option 3. 

interestingly though, no matter whether we accept option 2 or option 3, we're doing exactly the thing that some people boast about never doing: we're assuming that a passage of the scripture which has no internal reason to believe is anything but literal is actually figurative. we are doing this because as we gain a bit more knowledge, our first impression of the text stops making sense. we realize that our understanding was at fault, and we come to a new understanding that accommodates both the plain written statement of Genesis 2:17 with facts that we learn from places outside of Genesis 2:17. 

the Holy Spirit backs us into a corner as we read this narrative: we are forced to either reject the scripture itself, or to admit that we do not have a perfect understanding of it as we read. we have to either accept that what's written as "day" in English doesn't necessarily mean "day" in normal human terms, or that what's written "die" in English doesn't necessarily mean "die" in normal human terms. the spiritual sword humbles us here, striking with the flat against our knee and causing us to bow our understanding. 


the reader may be sitting there thinking option 3 is obvious -- but this is because you're thinking about knowledge from the NT scriptures that came to light well over a thousand years after Moses wrote this down - knowledge that changed how this verse was understood. and that is still not so obvious as you might like it to be - this Hebrew word for death is used over 800 times in the OT, and quite literally -- not figuratively. it's not until someone writing in Greek, with a whole lot of context specifying without doubt that they are talking in a figurative, not literal sense, that this other Greek word for death is sometimes in scripture being used figuratively. it's not ambiguous. 

the reader may instead be thinking that option 2 may actually be more likely, and pausing to re-think some things, realizing that just a few paragraphs away from the creation account, we have "yom" or "day" meaning something  very different than a 24-earth-hour time period. 


what i hope all of us gain from thinking about this is that what for all appearances is a literal statement in the Bible, may turn out as the Lord reveals more things, to be a different kind of statement altogether. that this can be the case without any disrespect for the authority of scripture at all -- believing every word of it. when more facts are made known, and the way we understand scripture seems to be in conflict with them -- even with regard to what seems to be very clear, plain language in scripture -- it is not the scripture that is in error. it is our understanding. 

we need to be able to accept that we might not have perfect understanding, and keep our eyes open, not becoming willfully ignorant or blind to preserve our own misunderstanding. we need to not lean on our own understanding, but trust the Lord at His word, and the truth, and re-evaluate our own thinking when it is necessary. 

 

1 Co 2:13-16

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
KJV
You have gone to earthy first born things in your reason and are like the Scribes and Pharisees in understanding...
The instant in the day they ate they died- God's Breath left them and they became eternally separated from God!
Love, Steven

[post]

20 hours ago, Thallasa said:

Post ,I wonder ,do you have anything to say about Genesis 2 : 17 and what it means .  Is this how Lucifer sinned I wonder ?

what do you mean exactly, is this how Satan sinned? 

do you mean maybe also he ate of this tree? 

hmm.. that's interesting thought. 

the Devil's sin is spelled out for us in Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 ((provided both of these are double entendres describing both Satan & human kings/kingdoms)) 
-- and in both of these chapters, it's described as pride. 

it seems at first thought to me that this might be true, & that he did this because of his pride -- wanting to be like God: because this is how he describes the effect of the fruit, and how his sin is described in Isaiah. that actually makes some sense

interesting! 
and of course, not something that we can know for sure now, or a reason to cast doubt on the authenticity of anyone's faith if they are skeptical about the idea. 
 

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, post said:

what do you mean exactly, is this how Satan sinned? 

do you mean maybe also he ate of this tree? 

hmm.. that's interesting thought. 

the Devil's sin is spelled out for us in Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 ((provided both of these are double entendres describing both Satan & human kings/kingdoms)) 
-- and in both of these chapters, it's described as pride. 

it seems at first thought to me that this might be true, & that he did this because of his pride -- wanting to be like God: because this is how he describes the effect of the fruit, and how his sin is described in Isaiah. that actually makes some sense

interesting! 
and of course, not something that we can know for sure now, or a reason to cast doubt on the authenticity of anyone's faith if they are skeptical about the idea. 
 

Not possible! For then you have sin in existence before Lucifer fell with a furthering more difficult question-
who tempted the devil to eat... the father of sin is satan and the tree became the fruit of both God's
knowledge of Good and Lucifer's perversion of that knowledge listed as evil...  Love, Steven

[post]

16 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

You have gone to earthy first born things in your reason and are like the Scribes and Pharisees in understanding...
The instant in the day they ate they died- God's Breath left them and they became eternally separated from God!

seeing that you come away from my post with unfounded accusations of carnality, i don't think you comprehended what i was writing, and probably because i didn't make myself clear -- giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you actually carefully read and considered everything i said and didn't just hastily accuse me & attack the character of my reasoning here out of bias and prejudgment without comprehension. 

do you get this understanding from the plain text as it is written, or from another knowledge that was received and written many hundreds of years later? over a thousand years? over a thousand pages later in the book?

imagine you are reading this account for the first time. when you read Genesis 2:17 for the first time -- do you immediately understand it as meaning spiritual separation? is this the same thing you think when you first read of Cain & Abel? 

before you read that Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years after this event -- not just a few hours -- before you finish reading the account of that very day that this happened, do you understand the plain thing that God said to be a literal statement or a figurative one? 

even with the understanding you expressed -- and i'm not challenging that understanding at all here -- you have with extremely high probability changed your understanding of what was written, as you gained more knowledge. as you read on, gaining the knowledge that they didn't die within 24 hours. as you kept reading and came to the new testament, and were taught that death is equivalent to separation from God.
because that concept is not within the text, and the plain reading of the text does not make sense, what you are doing is applying knowledge not found in the plain reading of this verse, and coming to an understanding that either "day" or "die" is figurative, not literal. that one of those two words should be understood in a way that is quite different from normal human understanding. 

your understanding of what the Lord is saying has to be humbled and changed as you read this and come to terms with the facts. 
that is a very interesting result of how God phrased what He said, and i believe that He spoke these words in a very deliberate way. 

 

[enoob57]

2 minutes ago, post said:

seeing that you come away from my post with unfounded accusations of carnality, i don't think you comprehended what i was writing, and probably because i didn't make myself clear.

do you get this understanding from the plain text as it is written, or from another knowledge that was received and written many hundreds of years later? 

imagine you are reading this account for the first time. when you read Genesis 2:17 for the first time -- do you immediately understand it as meaning spiritual separation? is this the same thing you think when you first read of Cain & Abel? 

before you read that Adam & Eve lived for hundreds of years after this event -- not just a few hours -- before you finish reading the account of that very day that this happened, do you understand the plain thing that God said to be a literal statement or a figurative one? 

even with the understanding you expressed -- and i'm not challenging that understanding at all here -- you have with extremely high probability changed your understanding of what was written, as you gained more knowledge. as you read on, gaining the knowledge that they didn't die within 24 hours. as you kept reading and came to the new testament, and were taught that death is equivalent to separation from God.
because that concept is not within the text, and the plain reading of the text does not make sense, what you are doing is applying knowledge not found in the plain reading of this verse, and coming to an understanding that either "day" or "die" is figurative, not literal. that one of those two words should be understood in a way that is quite different from normal human understanding. 

your understanding of what the Lord is saying has to be humbled and changed as you read this and come to terms with the facts. 
that is a very interesting result of how God phrased what He said, and i believe that He spoke these words in a very deliberate way. 

 

There in no value in human understanding ... if one does not have the The Holy Spirit of God within them
they cannot assess Spiritual matters! Such as- God operates in the eternal realm and all that passes away
should have no consequence to our reasoning with God because of self evident truth of eternal matters...
It's like offering a rock (common ole everyday rock) for all I have in the bank you say that would be stupid
right... spiritually neither are of any importance for both are not being kept by God thus their value is only
that which God is fulfilling His Word in and no more! Either does not remain with my eternal soul God had
redeemed and is in process of sanctifying... this is where my treasure lies not in earthy, temporary, worthless
to eternal matters stuff. And The Bible is written to lead the understanding away from the deception of this
place to the eternal truth made ready to enter into the eternal place called the New Heaven and New Earth.
 Love, Steven