Young Earth/Old Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, post said:

Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.
(Isaiah 40:4) 

As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet
(Luke 3:4) 

but the earth herself was not smoothed out. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them;
I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth.
These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.
(Isaiah 42:16)

and He has, and does -

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord
(Ephesians 5:8)

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.
For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,
as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.
For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,'
and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.
(Mark 11:23)

On that day the deaf will hear words of a book,
And out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.
(Isaiah 29:8) 

as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."
(Romans 11:8)

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him,
were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, 
to the praise of his glory.
(Ephesians 1:13-14)

There two main problems here.   The first problem is an inability to know the difference between passages that speak to millennial conditions on earth after Jesus returns  and sets up His kingdom.   The second problem is thinking that one can just tear verses out of their immediate, literary context, disregarding their occasion and audience and stringing those verses together like lights on a Christmas tree in order to make the Bible appear to say what you want it to say. 

[post]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The two are not related. 

"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.
So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” 
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:12-13)
 

[post]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There two main problems here. 

or you could praise God  


another thing you might try is at least saying something with substance, instead of just ephemeral, meaningless, non-specific criticism. 
you know, as if you had an actual thing to say, and weren't just playing the pre-eminence game of "blindly accuse post whenever post posts"

still i'll give you +100 bonus points just for being a loyal customer 
hopefully you can level up your character now! 

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound,
but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.
(John 3:8) 

but what does poor post know? maybe Shiloh is following the Spirit, & not blind malice at all. 
would i be able to tell? 
how? 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, post said:

"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.
So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” 
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:12-13)

 

Amen Post, I agree. There has been no convincing arguments from Shiloh nor Ezra so far IMO. I believe it is pretty clear.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
 

Lu 1:17  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, post said:

"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.
So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” 
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
(Matthew 17:12-13)
 

Yes, but the point is that the ministry of John the Baptist did not fulfill Malachi 4:5.   Niether Jesus nor anyone else in the NT connects Malachi 4:5 with the ministry of John the Baptist.  You are simply mistaken on that point.

[post]

6 hours ago, Joline said:

Amen Post, I agree. There has been no convincing arguments from Shiloh nor Ezra so far IMO. I believe it is pretty clear.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
 

Lu 1:17  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
 

it's just what the scripture says, right? 

& this all shows that sometimes a person reads the Bible literally, and sometimes figuratively, even though the text by itself doesn't give any indication that we should. 

in Malachi, there is no reason in the words themselves as they are written to think that the prophecy is anything but a literal return of Elijah. but because we don't believe in reincarnation - something we get from outside the text - we don't read it that way. 
in the gospels, Jesus says clearly that John is the Elijah that was prophesied. this is recorded more than once. so Jesus is affirming that Malachi's prophecy ((the only place Elijah is mentioned by name in prophecy)) is figurative, not literal, because he speaks in other places of John as 'John' -- they are different people. 
now, we have people who don't accept that this is fulfilling what was said through Malachi. so they are taking what Jesus said and reading it figuratively, instead of plainly & literally, as the text reads. not because of anything in the record of Christ saying this itself, but because of something they get from somewhere else. 

((say - if Jesus is speaking figuratively, when He says John is figuratively Elijah - then is John only figuratively, figuratively Elijah, so he's literally Elijah? does a double-figurative negate itself and become a literal?? ))

so if plain, clear language in the scripture could be understood literally, but for reasons of reconciling it with outside ideas and knowledge ((like there is no reincarnation, the day of judgement should immediately follow the return of Elijah, i must negate anything post says, etc.)) -- then why isn't it also possible that Genesis should be read the same way in some places? 
if we can read this as figurative language - without any textual indicators saying that it's figurative - because it just makes more sense to us to see it as figurative . . . why not understand a 'yom' in the creation account, and later in Moses' relating the sabbath to the creation, as not a literal 24-hour period, but some other indeterminate period of time? 
then the scripture is reconciled to what we perceive to know from other sources, and the scripture is not maligned - the word is used ambiguously in other places ((even in the creation account itself, God calls light "yom" - Genesis 1:5 - and He's not talking about a period of hours)), and there is no dishonor to the scripture if Moses is later saying that the weekly sabbath reflects the same ratio of work to rest - 6 periods of work, one period of rest. 

we can see that we don't consistently take everything as literal, and we don't consistently take everything as figurative - and there is not always a direct reason to do so. but we understand what's written by what we perceive and understand from what makes sense to us because of natural order of things ((e.g. reincarnation, literal Elijah vs. just coming in the spirit of Elijah)), and what we read in other places ((e.g. Adam did not actually die that 24 hour day, so either 'day' is not 24 hour here, or 'death' is not 'death')). 


all of this is just to say that an OEC view can be fully justified and remain faithful to the scripture and to God. so YEC-ers should not act as though "a Christian has no excuse not to understand Genesis" in one way or the other - we can very justifiably take either position, and we can very justifiably just say "i don't know - i wasn't there and it could be either way!"
. . . and a person is not 'trampling on the word of God' to take either view, nor lacking faith to humbly admit that they can't be sure of either. 

so there should be peace among us, and this question of creation in 6 days or 6 indeterminate periods should not be something that divides us. 
it should not be something that we hold a professed believer up to to measure him or her by. 


if everyone is cool with that, and doesn't judge others over what their understanding of what Genesis 1-2 is telling us, then there's no argument here. 
. . . but some people will argue that the color blue is not blue. some people will argue that you are interpreting the Bible wrong when all you do is post a Bible verse, without even giving any interpretation of it. 

[Guest shiloh357]

25 minutes ago, post said:

it's just what the scripture says, right? 

& this all shows that sometimes a person reads the Bible literally, and sometimes figuratively, even though the text by itself doesn't give any indication that we should. 

in Malachi, there is no reason in the words themselves as they are written to think that the prophecy is anything but a literal return of Elijah. but because we don't believe in reincarnation - something we get from outside the text - we don't read it that way. 
in the gospels, Jesus says clearly that John is the Elijah that was prophesied. this is recorded more than once. so Jesus is affirming that Malachi's prophecy ((the only place Elijah is mentioned by name in prophecy)) is figurative, not literal, because he speaks in other places of John as 'John' -- they are different people. 
now, we have people who don't accept that this is fulfilling what was said through Malachi. so they are taking what Jesus said and reading it figuratively, instead of plainly & literally, as the text reads. not because of anything in the record of Christ saying this itself, but because of something they get from somewhere else. 

((say - if Jesus is speaking figuratively, when He says John is figuratively Elijah - then is John only figuratively, figuratively Elijah, so he's literally Elijah? does a double-figurative negate itself and become a literal?? ))

so if plain, clear language in the scripture could be understood literally, but for reasons of reconciling it with outside ideas and knowledge ((like there is no reincarnation, the day of judgement should immediately follow the return of Elijah, i must negate anything post says, etc.)) -- then why isn't it also possible that Genesis should be read the same way in some places? 
if we can read this as figurative language - without any textual indicators saying that it's figurative - because it just makes more sense to us to see it as figurative . . . why not understand a 'yom' in the creation account, and later in Moses' relating the sabbath to the creation, as not a literal 24-hour period, but some other indeterminate period of time? 
then the scripture is reconciled to what we perceive to know from other sources, and the scripture is not maligned - the word is used ambiguously in other places ((even in the creation account itself, God calls light "yom" - Genesis 1:5 - and He's not talking about a period of hours)), and there is no dishonor to the scripture if Moses is later saying that the weekly sabbath reflects the same ratio of work to rest - 6 periods of work, one period of rest. 

we can see that we don't consistently take everything as literal, and we don't consistently take everything as figurative - and there is not always a direct reason to do so. but we understand what's written by what we perceive and understand from what makes sense to us because of natural order of things ((e.g. reincarnation, literal Elijah vs. just coming in the spirit of Elijah)), and what we read in other places ((e.g. Adam did not actually die that 24 hour day, so either 'day' is not 24 hour here, or 'death' is not 'death')). 


all of this is just to say that an OEC view can be fully justified and remain faithful to the scripture and to God. so YEC-ers should not act as though "a Christian has no excuse not to understand Genesis" in one way or the other - we can very justifiably take either position, and we can very justifiably just say "i don't know - i wasn't there and it could be either way!"
. . . and a person is not 'trampling on the word of God' to take either view, nor lacking faith to humbly admit that they can't be sure of either. 

so there should be peace among us, and this question of creation in 6 days or 6 indeterminate periods should not be something that divides us. 
it should not be something that we hold a professed believer up to to measure him or her by. 


if everyone is cool with that, and doesn't judge others over what their understanding of what Genesis 1-2 is telling us, then there's no argument here. 
. . . but some people will argue that the color blue is not blue. some people will argue that you are interpreting the Bible wrong when all you do is post a Bible verse, without even giving any interpretation of it. 

You don't appear to understand what taking the Bible literally means.   Biblical interpretation is always literal.   There is no such thing as taking the Bible figuratively.   Interpretation is never "figurative."    "Figurative"  refers to literary devices;  it never refers to a mode of interpretation.   If try to interpret Scripture figuratively, then we are free to make the Bible mean what ever we want.

Figurative devices always point to a literal truth.  We interpret figurative devices the way the author expects us to.  Trying to interpret the Bible figuratively causes us to make subjective and arbitrary judgments about the text.

Figurative "interpretation"  is simply a way of trying to get around what the Bible says, to encourage doubt that the text of the Bible can't really be trusted to mean what it says.  

OEC is not faithful the text because OEC demands that "day" not be considered a literal day.  It demands that day be viewed as millions or billions of years.    But it makes that demand based on no authority from Scripture and it challenges the inerrancy of the Bible, to boot.   Every place outside of Genesis, the earth is said to created in 6 literal days.   But the OEC view uses fallible science to reject the infallible, inerrant word of God.   Science has become the plumline against which the Bible is judged, making the Bible's claims inferior to the claims of fallible men.

OEC is really nothing but an enabler for Evolution.   OEC is just one step away from it. If you can get someone to disbelieve the Bible and get them to accept that "days"  in the Bible were long epochs of time, then it is not very difficult to get them to accept evolution as an explanation for why millions or billions of years is needed.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, Joline said:

Amen Post, I agree. There has been no convincing arguments from Shiloh nor Ezra so far IMO. I believe it is pretty clear.

Mal 4:5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
 

Lu 1:17  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
 

That is an illegitimate way of linking Scripture together.  Luke 1:17 is not claiming that Mal. 4:5 is fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist.  It is not presented there as a fulfillment at all.  It simply means that John the Baptist and Elijah have one aspect of their ministries that are similar.  Taking Malachi 4:5 as written in its entirety defies any attempt to make John the Baptist's ministry a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5.

[post]

20 hours ago, Joline said:

Amen Post, I agree. There has been no convincing arguments from Shiloh nor Ezra so far IMO. I believe it is pretty clear.

he just doesn't get it, does he? 

i often wonder about people like that; why they can't see, or refuse to see - and which it is. 
but then, you have to wonder why so many people saw all the things that Christ did, and still didn't believe Him, too. or people who believe in a flat earth or that there was no moon landing, etc. 

not that i'm comparing YEC to rejecting Christ, or to any conspiracy theory. not at all -- YEC is perfectly legitimate and may turn out in the end to be the literal truth. what i mean is how people get set in a mode of thinking, and no matter how you try to talk to them, no matter what you do or say, even if you perform miracles for them, they just cannot for the life of them see anything but what they want to see. they'll talk themselves into whatever circles necessary to preserve what they presuppose -- they just aren't to be reasoned with. 

the comparison i mean to draw -- not that believing in 24-hour 'yoms' in Genesis 1 is comparable to rejecting Christ or that evidence or reasoning against it is comparable to miraculous signs, not at all -- is that we may find it totally inexplicable that so many devout Jews, so zealous for God, could totally reject the Messiah when He actually showed up and stood and spoke in front of them. and the Bible gives an answer for this, that Israel was blinded, by God Himself, via prophets ((re: Isaiah 6)) and a spirit of stupor ((re: Romans 11:8, Isaiah 29, etc)), so that His own purposes would be fulfilled. 
and i wonder if it is not the same for others -- people who are consumed by winds of doctrine that are clearly seen to be wrong by those the Lord chooses to give discernment, or people who run after fairy tales, or others who give their whole minds over to fretting over conspiracies, or some legalistic mockery of righteousness, etc. 
that the Lord causes them to be deaf, and to be blind, because He has a purpose for this. 


some people just can't be reasoned with. 
i am sure someone is going to read this post, and think i'm calling YEC a fairy tale, and that i'm the one who can't be reasoned with. 
it won't matter to them how utterly false such a conclusion is, or how clear i make it that that's not what i'm saying at all. 
likewise, what motivates people like that? does God consign them to perpetual disagreement and criticism, for some purpose? 


this isn't exactly on topic, but i think it's very much relevant to what you put here, Joline. i don't know how much more clear Christ could have been, unless He had said "as spoken by the prophet Malachi" -- but i doubt that Shiloh or Ezra will ever have a convincing argument against Christ's own words ((how would that even be possible?)) and i doubt that no matter what anyone says, they will ever consider otherwise. i mean, hasn't Jesus said it? this is the Elijah who was to come? if that's unconvincing to them, how could you or i be convincing? 
so maybe this is for God's purpose too, that He hardens some people's minds and hearts this way. 

maybe likewise God has consigned me to a state of perpetual wonder, never being able to be convinced either that the universe is very old, or that the universe is quite ancient - never being convinced that i comprehend the mystery of His creation, though without any doubt i am absolutely convinced that the record of Genesis is true. has the Almighty set this wonder in place in me, until He Himself comes and explains it to me in detail? 
for what purpose? i wonder still. 


what do you think, Joline -- am i just being too fatalistic here? 
 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, post said:

he just doesn't get it, does he? 

i often wonder about people like that; why they can't see, or refuse to see - and which it is. 
but then, you have to wonder why so many people saw all the things that Christ did, and still didn't believe Him, too. or people who believe in a flat earth or that there was no moon landing, etc. 

 

That's an erroneous comparison.  You have never really presented an argument to reject.  All you  have done, basically, is complain and rant. 

Quote

not that i'm comparing YEC to rejecting Christ, or to any conspiracy theory. not at all -- YEC is perfectly legitimate and may turn out in the end to be the literal truth. what i mean is how people get set in a mode of thinking, and no matter how you try to talk to them, no matter what you do or say, even if you perform miracles for them, they just cannot for the life of them see anything but what they want to see. they'll talk themselves into whatever circles necessary to preserve what they presuppose -- they just aren't to be reasoned with. 

I have made every attempt to reason with you, but all you do is subject me to misrepresenting me, accusing me of saying things I did not say and subjecting me to other dishonest debate tactics, because you haven't really been able to mount an actual refutation.   You have complained about what I have said, you have rejected what I said, but you NEVER actually refuted it.  You never give a reason.   So you have not been the one who has tried to reason with anyone.   It's basically a case where I have to agree with you, or be called a Pharisee.    And yes, you are comparing YEC to rejecting Christ, essentially. 

Quote

the comparison i mean to draw -- not that believing in 24-hour 'yoms' in Genesis 1 is comparable to rejecting Christ or that evidence or reasoning against it is comparable to miraculous signs, not at all -- is that we may find it totally inexplicable that so many devout Jews, so zealous for God, could totally reject the Messiah when He actually showed up and stood and spoke in front of them. and the Bible gives an answer for this, that Israel was blinded, by God Himself, via prophets ((re: Isaiah 6)) and a spirit of stupor ((re: Romans 11:8, Isaiah 29, etc)), so that His own purposes would be fulfilled. 
and i wonder if it is not the same for others -- people who are consumed by winds of doctrine that are clearly seen to be wrong by those the Lord chooses to give discernment, or people who run after fairy tales, or others who give their whole minds over to fretting over conspiracies, or some legalistic mockery of righteousness, etc. 
that the Lord causes them to be deaf, and to be blind, because He has a purpose for this. 

1.  The Jews who rejected Jesus were not zealous for God.  They were zealous for their traditions and they were zealous for the Oral Law.  They had replaced God's word with the Oral Law and with their other manmade  traditions.

2.  It's ridiculous to claim that if someone holds to what the Bible says, that they have been blinded by the God who wrote the Bible that they have chosen to believe.  Your comparison is entirely erroneous.   God caused a partial blindness to come upon Israel in order to bring in the Gentiles.   And by the way, holding to sound doctrine isn't a bad thing, like you making it appear.   It is those who hold strictly to the Bible who have discernment, not the ones who try to convince them that hugging so close to the Bible is a mistake.

Quote

some people just can't be reasoned with. 
i am sure someone is going to read this post, and think i'm calling YEC a fairy tale, and that i'm the one who can't be reasoned with. 
it won't matter to them how utterly false such a conclusion is, or how clear i make it that that's not what i'm saying at all. 
likewise, what motivates people like that? does God consign them to perpetual disagreement and criticism, for some purpose? 
 

You have provided not one single claim that can be reasoned with.   Again, all you have done up to this point is rant and rail at me for not bowing to your demands, like you are doing now. 
 

Quote

 

this isn't exactly on topic, but i think it's very much relevant to what you put here, Joline. i don't know how much more clear Christ could have been, unless He had said "as spoken by the prophet Malachi" -- but i doubt that Shiloh or Ezra will ever have a convincing argument against Christ's own words ((how would that even be possible?)) and i doubt that no matter what anyone says, they will ever consider otherwise. i mean, hasn't Jesus said it? this is the Elijah who was to come? if that's unconvincing to them, how could you or i be convincing? 
so maybe this is for God's purpose too, that He hardens some people's minds and hearts this way. 
 

 

You have not provided one shred of exegesis to show either Ezra or me that we are wrong.   You have not demonstrated anywhere that Malachi 4:5 was fulfilled in John the Baptist's ministry.   I am just supposed to accept that claim, no questions asked.   And when I don't, and when I demonstrate why it cannot refer to John the Baptist, instead of providing sound exegesis to show me why I am wrong, again, all you do is complain that I am like some Pharisee because I didn't accept your claim at face-value.   Not every verse about Elijah in Malachi is about John the Baptist.  

No one's heart is hardened.  I simply reject your claim because your claim is not based on sound exegesis and you won't find any competent Christian scholar who ties Malachi 4:5 to John the Baptist.

Quote

maybe likewise God has consigned me to a state of perpetual wonder, never being able to be convinced either that the universe is very old, or that the universe is quite ancient - never being convinced that i comprehend the mystery of His creation, though without any doubt i am absolutely convinced that the record of Genesis is true. has the Almighty set this wonder in place in me, until He Himself comes and explains it to me in detail? 

No, it's not like that.   It is simply your refusal to simply take God at His word.  There is no "wonder" in terms of what God has plainly said.  The Bible is a lot easier to understand when you simply decide to believe what God said instead of trying circumvent the truth with trying  to be all mystical and mysterious.   God speaks in plain ordinary terms and expects us to accept what He says, as it is written.  No need to get so dramatic.