ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.

[Still Alive]

3 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Still,

what my parents say - be they honoured - does not count when it comes to Bible intepretation. God counts life from the mother's womb on.

God says it - some among us still don't know .

7 days is not an inference, you find it in the Bible.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

I was using the parent example as an analogy regarding what "beginning" the bible is talking about. 

And the bible is not written by God. It is written by men inspired by God, often quoting God word for word. However, the bible is 66 separate books by many different inspired authors. IOW, the bible is a VERY human book. If it was just men writing, while in a trance, God's words, we would only need one Gospel. And the old testament is very much the words of men based on their own world view. 

Regarding the seven days, as far as we are to be concerned, yes, it was created in seven days, beginning with verse 3 of the first chapter of Genesis. It even drives the point home with the "morning and evening" part.

[Jayne]

5 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

And the bible is not written by God. It is written by men inspired by God, often quoting God word for word. However, the bible is 66 separate books by many different inspired authors. IOW, the bible is a VERY human book. If it was just men writing, while in a trance, God's words, we would only need one Gospel. And the old testament is very much the words of men based on their own world view. 

I know I'm butting in here, but.....

…..In a trance?  I don't understand.  I don't see inspired by God - which means, according to the Bible, itself - "God-breathed" as meaning one was in a trance.  You don't need to be in a trance for God to breathe the truth into your spirit by His Holy Spirit.

There is definitely a need for four gospels or else God would not have divinely inspired it to be so.  They aren't biographies or documentaries of Christ.  They weren't written as the activities were happening but much, much later.  Each as a unique purpose in being written.

They weren't all telling the same story.  They had a point to make to four different audiences and the some of the details used by all four men were the same.  The four points and the four audiences were all different.  God used some of the same material to speak four messages.

• Matthew - This message was for Jews who needed to understand that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.  It focused on his "credentials" as the Messiah.  It teaches Jesus as "King" of the Jews.
•  Mark - Mark's purpose [or God's purpose via Mark] was to teach Jesus Christ as the Servant.  It's fast-paced and action packed.  It focuses on his miracles.  It's not necessarily to a Jew or Gentile, but to all.
•  Luke - Luke, in his opening statement, tells that he made of lot of research and is giving an account of Christ's life.  His emphasis is for Gentiles or Greeks.  They had no need to understand the Old Testament.  They needed to know that Jesus was God come to earth as a man and that's why he was the perfect human being.  
•  John - John's gospel is all about the deity of Christ.  Jesus is God's Son and Jesus is God.

 

 

[Still Alive]

4 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I know I'm butting in here, but.....

…..In a trance?  I don't understand.  I don't see inspired by God - which means, according to the Bible, itself - "God-breathed" as meaning one was in a trance.  You don't need to be in a trance for God to breathe the truth into your spirit by His Holy Spirit.

We are in agreement. However, I see many pastors as inspired by God, but we don't staple their sermon notes to the end of our bibles. The bible is very much the work of men. And the work of God. But I no longer say the bible "is the word of God." Now I say the bible "contains the word of God." In fact, the latter has to be the truth because even Paul at one point says that what he is writing is from him and NOT from God. My rule: If a particular verse SAYS it is Gods words or is "in red", it is the word of God. 

[HAZARD]

10 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hazard, can you adopt a different tone please?

Thomas

 

Ok.

[thomas t]

Hi Argosy,

nice that you are so literal:

14 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

when the Bible says erets is dry ground

now there are two people. An anonymous chap "Argosy" telling me erets always means ground.... and Strong's dictionary telling me erets can mean the earth at large also... whom shall I believe?

That Bibleverse (Exo 9:29 ESV) makes it clear to me that Strong's is right:

Moses said to him, “As soon as I have gone out of the city, I will stretch out my hands to the Lord. The thunder will cease, and there will be no more hail, so that you may know that the dry ground earth is the Lord’s.

---

10 hours ago, Jayne said:

I don't see inspired by God - which means, according to the Bible, itself - "God-breathed" as meaning one was in a trance.  You don't need to be in a trance for God to breathe the truth into your spirit by His Holy Spirit.

absolutely. Hi Jayne.

---

Hi Still Alive,

10 hours ago, Still Alive said:

even Paul at one point says that what he is writing is from him and NOT from God. My rule: If a particular verse SAYS it is Gods words or is "in red", it is the word of God. 

my rule of thumb: when Paul does not say it is from him, the Bible is from God.

11 hours ago, Still Alive said:

it was created in seven days, beginning with verse 3 of the first chapter of Genesis.

you don't have anything in scipture to prove your point, so I stay with my opinion. You didn't even try to back up what you just said except for mentioning the morning.

You seem to be pointing to the fact that, according to the Bible, there was a morning/ an evening before the sun was even made.

So there must have been a concept of morning and evening before sun, in my opinion. That's all.

My approach to explain:

That's a great point for the earth to be a planet. On day 1, 2 and 3, God stood at the one side of it making it light, the other side of the ball was still dark... and the area at the sides of it in between... were morning and evening.

Regards,

Thomas

 

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Argosy,

nice that you are so literal:

now there are two people. An anonymous chap "Argosy" telling me erets always means ground.... and Strong's dictionary telling me erets can mean the earth at large also... whom shall I believe?

That Bibleverse (Exo 9:29 ESV) makes it clear to me that Strong's is right:

Moses said to him, “As soon as I have gone out of the city, I will stretch out my hands to the Lord. The thunder will cease, and there will be no more hail, so that you may know that the dry ground earth is the Lord’s.
 

Genesis 1:9-10 actually defines the meaning or erets as dry ground,...... Not me, it's the Bible Thomas. And you are using a dictionary from the 19th century that confirms that erets/earth is the soil or ground. Only in the 20th century was the word earth more commonly used to point to planet earth. 

 

Why choose your incorrect interpretation of a 19th century dictionary, over the bible's own definition in Genesis 1:9-10?

I believe Genesis 1 occurred literally as described, the Spirit of God was upon the surface of the ocean, that surface was dark, and there was no dry ground. 

The first few days of creation week are about making this planet hospitable for life to flourish. Light filters through, the mists lift, the sun becomes visible, and land appears from beneath the surface of the ocean. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Still Alive]

2 hours ago, thomas t said:

you don't have anything in scipture to prove your point, so I stay with my opinion. You didn't even try to back up what you just said except for mentioning the morning.

The scripture is right there. Genesis 1: 1-5. 

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

How are there "days" before God separated the light from the darkness? 

But the point is really moot. This scripture is calling out that God created the heavens and the earth. Just as the rooster crowing was not really about rooster crowing, this is not really about precision in how he made the earth. The point is that he is the creator of all things. If one gets caught up in the weeds in this many thousands of years old description, they are pursuing the answer to that age old question, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" 

I believe God created it all. How he created it can be argued ad-infinitum for one simple reason: There is not enough detail in the bible to utterly support or refute one position or the other, though I lean toward an old earth but a young age. And scientific discovery supports this. And any opinion on how much time passed between genesis 1:2 and 1:3 is just that - opinion. 

And we all have one.

One of the reasons It took me three churches to find one that worked on my move to rural Kentucky is because the smaller Baptist churches here "knew for a fact" things about the bible where it is intentionally not clear at all. i.e. they were dogmatic. I run from dogmatism.

 

[thomas t]

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Genesis 1:9-10 actually defines the meaning or erets as dry ground,...... Not me, it's the Bible Thomas.

 

Why choose your incorrect interpretation of a 19th century dictionary, over the bible's own definition in Genesis 1:9-10?

 

Argosy, it's you who defines it this way. Genesis 1:10 merely shows that the name Erets is given to the soil. Doesn't mean that Erets can't mean anything else, any more. My interpretation is right, I think. In Gen. 1:5 Light was given the name "day" and darkness was called "night". Are these definitions? No. Just names, too. Day of wrath won't mean light of wrath, for instance. Nothing but simple names.

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I believe Genesis 1 occurred literally as described

Thank you, that's how I do it.

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Only in the 20th century was the word earth more commonly used to point to planet earth.  

 

and it's perfectly now - in the 21st century - that this dictionary uses the word "earth at large".

 

----

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

this is not really about precision in how he made the earth.

Still, it is as precise as it is. When Bible teaches it's seven days, it's seven days.

 

Regards,

Thomas

[ARGOSY]

35 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Argosy, it's you who defines it this way. Genesis 1:10 merely shows that the name Erets is given to the soil. Doesn't mean that Erets can't mean anything else, any more. My interpretation is right, I think. In Gen. 1:5 Light was given the name "day" and darkness was called "night". Are these definitions? No. Just names, too. Day of wrath won't mean light of wrath, for instance. Nothing but simple names.

Thank you, that's how I do it.

and it's perfectly now - in the 21st century - that this dictionary uses the word "earth at large".

 

----

Still, it is as precise as it is. When Bible teaches it's seven days, it's seven days.

 

Regards,

Thomas

Sure it's 7 days, literally 7 days, occurring about 6000 years ago. 

What was made in 7 days? The spirit of God was on the surface of the ocean, the land was submerged, and the mists were so thick, there was no sky and no light. 

This was the state of the planet for times past, in darkness, an empty wasteland. Then the spirit stirred the waters. And the mists thinned just enough for light to filter through.

Thus started creation week. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Still Alive]

59 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Still, it is as precise as it is. When Bible teaches it's seven days, it's seven days.

Can't argue with that. The only thing left is to define what "it's" refers to in that sentence.