Young Earth/Old Earth

[Guest]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

         Okay cause me and the duck were completely lost in this one  

LOL, sorry...............

[Guest Thallasa]

3 hours 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. 

 

Well, since I do not believe it is likely at all ,that it means six literal turnings of the earth against the sun ,nor to mean literally eating of the tree ,I am disappointed a little, that you did not give an explanation as I asked ,of what it means ,not when it happened .

I think I know what the knowledge of 'good and evil ' may mean , and wondered if you had anything to say on the matter .

 

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, Thallasa said:

 

I think I know what the knowledge of 'good and evil ' may mean , and wondered if you had anything to say on the matter .

 

The phrase "the knowledge of good and evil"  is what we call a "merism."   A merism is a manner of speaking where two opposites are used to represent the totality of something.   For example, if I say that I have "looked high and low"  for something I have lost, "high and low" mean that I have looked Everywhere.    If I say that I am sick from my head to my feet, it means my whole body is sick.

In the same way, "the knowledge of good and evil'  means the knowledge of everything.   It doesn't mean, omniscience, but it does refer to  a far greater general knowledge of everything in the universe. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 5/23/2016 at 7:16 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

That is your opinion, one that I do not share.  Try reasoning out the scriptures instead of belittling the work of countless theologians and Jewish Rabbis who disagree with you.  As a Moderator, you should set a higher standard, imho.

Well, yes, that is my opinion. I do not see where you have any reason to believe that is have not reasoned out the scriptures. Are you suggesting, that anyone who disagrees with your reasoning is necessarily wrong, there is no chance that you are?

Regarding 'countless theologians and Jewish rabbis". If countless theologians say one thing, and countless theologians disagree with them, then countless theologians are mistaken. I am pretty sure, that countless rabbis, do not recognize Jesus as Messiah, so enough said there about their spiritual discernment. Theology is not done as a democracy, we do not (at least I do not) take a head count to determine who is right, and who is mistaken. 

As a Moderator, what higher standard do you think I should set for myself, should I come to you to get my understanding? I think each believer, is capable of reading the Bible and letting it speak to them. Mind you, I am not even set in my opinion on this topic. I just know that the Bible uses the word day, in describing creation, and if it means something else, then I am uncomfortable thinking, that I need to have a secular scientest (or those who agree with them) inform me of how I should understand scripture. If the Bible is that complicated and subject to the positions held by atheists (typically), then Jesus did not rise from the dead. Call be simpleminded, but I prefer faith.

[post]

15 minutes ago, Thallasa said:

Well, since I do not believe it is likely at all ,that it means six literal turnings of the earth against the sun ,nor to mean literally eating of the tree ,I am disappointed a little, that you did not give an explanation as I asked ,of what it means ,not when it happened .

I think I know what the knowledge of 'good and evil ' may mean , and wondered if you had anything to say on the matter .

i'm sorry -- i was thinking in terms of what had been going on here in the thread recently, and "what i understood you to mean" turns out to have been quite wrong, even though your language was very clear 

now i stand,
corrected --

-- you mean what is the tree, and the eating of it, because perhaps this is allegory? 
i have to think. i don't have strong impressions about that -- murky ones, yes -- and i've heard some interesting takes on this, if that's what you mean. 

i have to sleep now - i'll get back tomorrow. 

and sorry again that my understanding of your question was flawed ! 

[Guest Thallasa]

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The phrase "the knowledge of good and evil"  is what we call a "merism."   A merism is a manner of speaking where two opposites are used to represent the totality of something.   For example, if I say that I have "looked high and low"  for something I have lost, "high and low" mean that I have looked Everywhere.    If I say that I am sick from my head to my feet, it means my whole body is sick.

In the same way, "the knowledge of good and evil'  means the knowledge of everything.   It doesn't mean, omniscience, but it does refer to  a far greater general knowledge of everything in the universe. 

Thankyou , I like this  . It makes sense to me .  Humanity is putting itself in danger then, by certain so called types of 'scientific  advances' , which have 'crossed the line ' into forbidden territory . 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

No, Post brought up the issue about Elijah first to counter my contention about taking Genesis 1 literally, if you go back and look at his original response to me.  He was using Matt. 11 and John 1 to show that "Elijah" could mean something other than the literal prophet in order to make the case that "day" could mean something other than a literal day in Genesis 1.   An additional  problem is that he is trying to make the ministry of John the Baptist a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, which it was not.  Elijah is going to come back from heaven and fulfill that verse.

Shiloh, There was nothing wrong with Posts remark. Elijah was spoken of other than Elijah himself. Jesus said John was the Elijah to come. It does not matter what anyone thinks of passages in Malachi. The Elijah to come was indeed John the Baptist, at least once. So Elijah does not always mean Elijah no matter how many times it does.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

18 minutes ago, Joline said:

Shiloh, There was nothing wrong with Posts remark. Elijah was spoken of other than Elijah himself. Jesus said John was the Elijah to come. It does not matter what anyone thinks of passages in Malachi. The Elijah to come was indeed John the Baptist, at least once. So Elijah does not always mean Elijah no matter how many times it does.

 

Yes, but he was making a  false comparison and before you decided to weigh in on the issue, that was what I was endeavoring to point out to him. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, but he was making a  false comparison and before you decided to weigh in on the issue, that was what I was endeavoring to point out to him. 

You decided to make it about your views on Malachi.......................................which did not dismiss his point at all......................

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, Joline said:

You decided to make it about your views on Malachi.......................................which did not dismiss his point at all......................

No, I simply answered his question on the issue.  I didn't make it about my views.  I would not even be talking about it now, except you seem to have real obsession about this.