stars

[Guest Teditis]

6 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

I'm not assuming anything? Your understanding of Gen. 1:1 is flawed.

I believe what I read, In the beginning, (meaning, some time in the dateless past), God created the heaven and the earth, not 6,000 years ago.  God never created a palette and blank canvas so as to demonstrate to us His Creative ways.

Just as, "In the beginning was the Word," John 1:1.  Was that 6,000 years ago as well?

No, don't you see that you ARE indeed assuming.

In the Beginning means, simply that.... in the beginning.

NOT "some time in the dateless past"... that's added to the Scripture by YOU!

You are adding to Scripture... period.

[HAZARD]

Just now, Teditis said:

No, don't you see that you ARE indeed assuming.

In the Beginning means, simply that.... in the beginning.

NOT "some time in the dateless past"... that's added to the Scripture by YOU!

You are adding to Scripture... period.

You said;

"God may have wanted a palette and blank canvas so as to demonstrate to us His Creative ways."

And your not adding to the Word  read above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ????? Where's that in Scripture?

How about you try and summarise "In the beginning was the Word? and fit that into your 6,000 year ago creation line?

John 1: 1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2, The same was in the beginning with God.
    3, All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

 

[Guest Teditis]

9 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

You said;

"God may have wanted a palette and blank canvas so as to demonstrate to us His Creative ways."

And your not adding to the Word  read above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ????? Where's that in Scripture?

How about you try and summarise "In the beginning was the Word? and fit that into your 6,000 year ago creation line?

John 1: 1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2, The same was in the beginning with God.
    3, All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

 

See, this is why I wonder about your level of reading comprehension... I said "maybe". And I said that

because I'm not sure why God did things the way that he did. I don't assume.

But you read whatever you like... whatever tickles your emotions, and then react. Try not to do that.

Jesus (the Word), was at the Beginning... what's so hard about that to understand. It means that He

was always alongside God.

And BTW, I have never held a 6,000 year old earth, that I believe is a miscalculation in adding up all

the Begetting verses.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Teditis

[HAZARD]

11 minutes ago, Teditis said:

See, this is why I wonder about your level of reading comprehension... I said "maybe". And I said that

because I'm not sure why God did things the way that he did. I don't assume.

But you read whatever you like... whatever tickles your emotions, and then react. Try not to do that.

Jesus (the Word), was at the Beginning... what's so hard about that to understand. It means that He

was always alongside God.

And BTW, I have never held a 6,000 year old earth, that I believe is a miscalculation in adding up all

the Begetting verses.

And you obviously didn't see my brackets ( . . . . )

Quote

"

And BTW, I have never held a 6,000 year old earth, that I believe is a miscalculation in adding up all

the Begetting verses."

If it never happened 6000 years ago, and your not sure, then it must have happened sometime in the dateless past. I never once said or suggested that the Word, who became Jesus was not always with the Father?"[/quote].

 

If your not sure about something why go on about it? I see you will carry on because you want to have the last word on this subject, so I will let you have the last word. Your on ignore!

 

 

 

[hmbld]

22 minutes ago, Teditis said:

 

And BTW, I have never held a 6,000 year old earth, that I believe is a miscalculation in adding up all

the Begetting verses.

Having read a little about the begetting, and how sometimes a generation was skipped between grandfather and grandson in recording genealogies, I too have wondered how the 6,000 years could be accurately calculated.  Still, the theory that the 6 days with the 7th day of rest corresponding to 6,000 years with the last 1,000 years of Jesus rule does seem plausible, even if only conjecture.  Any thoughts?

[Guest Teditis]

24 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

And you obviously didn't see my brackets ( . . . . )

I quoted you exactly... I don't have control over that feature... there were no "brackets", and even if there were brackets

I doubt that you understand what grammatical significance brackets have in written English.

Your skills at grammar and written language seems to be wanting and below grade-school level.

That's not meant to be an attack... merely an observation.

What does that even mean? Brackets? What do brackets do to a sentence?

Quote

If it never happened 6000 years ago, and your not sure, then it must have happened sometime in the dateless past. I never once said or suggested that the Word, who became Jesus was not always with the Father?

If your not sure about something why go on about it? I see you will carry on because you want to have the last word on this subject, so I will let you have the last word. Your on ignore!

 

I have a vested interest in the Bible being taken literally, as it is written... that's why I go on about this topic.

I think that you twist and contort Scripture to suit your preconceived ideas. Thereby trying to convince believer's

of this so-called Gap-Theory that has no foundation in Scripture and tries to push God's Word into a semantical

rabbit-hole, so that you can fix your mind alongside traditional scientific models of an "old earth".

I didn't attack your conception that Jesus wasn't with the Father at the Beginning... I merely pointed out that

that was all the Scripture meant. Jesus was at the Beginning.

 

You told me before that I was on ignore... keep it that way. I've had you on ignore for a year now, haha.

I just peek in when you're on a delusional rant about this subject or the RCC.

Why do you run away when people start asking question that go to the heart of your misconceived theory about

the Beginnings?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Teditis

[Guest Teditis]

4 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Having read a little about the begetting, and how sometimes a generation was skipped between grandfather and grandson in recording genealogies, I too have wondered how the 6,000 years could be accurately calculated.  Still, the theory that the 6 days with the 7th day of rest corresponding to 6,000 years with the last 1,000 years of Jesus rule does seem plausible, even if only conjecture.  Any thoughts?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by... "the 7th day of rest corresponding to 6,000 years with the last 1,000 years of Jesus rule does seem plausible". Could you rephrase that?

I believe that generations were indeed skipped and that the entire block of Scripture was not meant to be for establishing a broad and general timeline

but rather a timeline that was specific to the genealogy of the Messiah.

[hmbld]

9 minutes ago, Teditis said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by... "the 7th day of rest corresponding to 6,000 years with the last 1,000 years of Jesus rule does seem plausible". Could you rephrase that?

I believe that generations were indeed skipped and that the entire block of Scripture was not meant to be for establishing a broad and general timeline

but rather a timeline that was specific to the genealogy of the Messiah.

I've seen it discussed here at worthy, but lets see if this pic shows up:

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by hmbld

[HAZARD]

7 minutes ago, Teditis said:

I quoted you exactly... I don't have control over that feature... there were no "brackets", and even if there were brackets

I doubt that you understand what grammatical significance brackets have in written English.

Your skills at grammar and written language seems to be wanting and below grade-school level.

That's not meant to be an attack... merely an observation.

What does that even mean? Brackets? What do brackets do to a sentence?

I have a vested interest in the Bible being taken literally, as it is written... that's why I go on about this topic.

I think that you twist and contort Scripture to suit your preconceived ideas. Thereby trying to convince believer's

of this so-called Gap-Theory that has no foundation in Scripture and tries to push God's Word into a semantical

rabbit-hole, so that you can fix your mind alongside traditional scientific models of an "old earth".

I didn't attack your conception that Jesus wasn't with the Father at the Beginning... I merely pointed out that

that was all the Scripture meant. Jesus was at the Beginning.

 

You told me before that I was on ignore... keep it that way. I've had you on ignore for a year now, haha.

I just peek in when you're on a delusional rant about this subject or the RCC.

I peek in on you occasionally too, ha, ha.

How rude saying I'm on a delusional rant. That's Christ like?

You can say, I believe, I'm not sure, I assume, but I cannot say, "In the beginning," was some time in the distant past. Who's delusional?

[Guest Teditis]

16 minutes ago, hmbld said:

I've seen it discussed here at worthy, but lets see if this pic shows up:

 

I think that there may be an allegorical aspect of this that makes it seem plausible. But I don't think that it is

historically accurate.

In this thread I see the topic to be the Literal interpretation of Genesis 1. And I think God took 6 literal days to

create the Cosmos... period. So this model that you've provided doesn't necessarily take that into account. Still,

as an allegorical reference, it may be plausible.

I'm thinking that the block of Scripture that speaks to all those who begot others often skips generations and

time periods... this still allows for an definition of "begetting" to remain true, as begetting does not solely mean

"gave birth to".

In the allegorical sense, your model does indeed line up with my beliefs, as I belief that the "7th day" is synonymous

with the age of Grace that comes only through Jesus Christ.