Featured God’s 7000 Year (7-Day) Plan

Not really. As an interpertation, many think so.

 

(Matthew 24:23-31)
“Then if anyone tells you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There he is,’ don’t believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones. See, I have warned you about this ahead of time. “So if someone tells you, ‘Look, the Messiah is out in the desert,’ don’t bother to go and look. Or, ‘Look, he is hiding here,’ don’t believe it! For as the lightning flashes in the east and shines to the west, so it will be when the Son of Man comes. Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near. “Immediately after the anguish of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will give no light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.

 

No, the bible gives very specific information about the ages of people, including when they bore children and how long they lived. When you add it up, you get pretty close to 6000 years. That isn't an interpretation. That's taking the bible to mean what it plainly states and a little arithmetic.

 

No, according to the Bible in Genesis 2, the Day of the Lord was not a 24 hour day. Neither is the Day of the Lord as prophecied in Scripture.

Your argument about a week later is no more relevant than a month later.

If Adam is a type of Christ or vice-versa, Christ is typified in Adam, as being the second Adam, why would 30 years not be significant?

The case that they were out of the Garden around 100 years before Seth was born, also has a case in point in Isaiah 65.

I don't hold to your innocence stance, but as a child in the millennium 100 years is still a probationary period of time: Isaiah 65:20

"There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

This seems to simply say, that after 100 years of age, disobedience becomes less likely. Pertaining to the Millennium, if one lives to 100, they will have outgrown their childhood tendency to question authority. That Adam and Eve lived in sin and death, and made it passed 100 years after the Garden, is a milestone, during times of living in longevity.

Do people not realize there were other humans, sons of God living on earth at that time? Men of renown after a millenia of life on earth? How can there be men of renown after only a hundred or a hundred and 30 years? For those 100 years Adam and Eve were the only sinners living among all those sons of God. Seth had not even been born yet. Then they would live for about another 800 years having sons and daughters. Cain did not marry Seth and produce offspring. Seth had no offspring himself for another 105 years later. We are not told why, but there were about 3, and perhaps a few more siblings, sinners, living among the sons of God for over 200 years.

Before the Flood longevity was the norm. There literally was no age limit set. That is until God set that limit to 120 years.

My point is that Adam and Eve made it to 100 years and according to Eve, God blessed them with a child, Seth. Even if it was written as replacing Abel, would she have tried several times to replace Abel, but could not? You don't think they attempted to have children during those 100 years in sin?

Also Cain and Abel were born in the Garden prior to sin. Another point that cannot be proven in Scripture either way, explicitly. Cain had to leave God's presence, the same as Adam and Eve. Cain was working on letting sin "into the Garden". What alter did Abel use other than the one God set up in the Garden? Eve would have understood child birth prior to sin, and did have more difficulty after sin. Several miscarriages until Seth was born in that 100 year period. It is not a normal thought process to say they remained celebate for decades before trying to have more children. Cain and Abel were born on that timeline of 130 years. We are not told when, unless you think they waited 130 years after Abel lived or was born?

The first 4 chapters of Genesis are not necessarily in strict chronology, but overlap each other. Genesis 4 is about Cain, but is not after the Garden. We are not told how old Cain and Abel were in this chapter. Genesis 3 is not a week after the 6th day. Genesis 3 is after Adam named all the animals, lived in the Garden alone, and was put to sleep, when God separated Eve from Adam. Cain and Abel could have easily been born before Eve decided to actually eat of the tree. There is no Scripture that declares Cain was born later. Eve would have experienced both types of labor:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children."

Seems Eve had experience, and that would become much harder. You cannot use zero to multiply. That would still be zero. Two births would increase suffering by twofold.

Thirty years in the Garden is not just random thought.

There are no artificial gaps in Scripture generated by human thought alone. One needs to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Take it or leave it. Not forming doctrine here. There is plenty of that already out there over the last 1900 years. Just pointing out by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

 

And all amil would agree, that it is only 6,000 years and no additional 1,000 year period.

There is a 6,000 year history in Scripture, including this year 2023, which is almost 2,000 years after the Cross. Not because the Bible states we would still be here 2,000 years later.

Only the first 4,000 years are documented in Scripture. So just saying there is a 6,000 year plan is human conjecture. Saying there is a 7,000 year plan because the last thousand is mentioned in Revelation 20 is still human conjecture, because how does one reconcile the last 1993 years without Scripture?

The last 1993 years is not documented in Scripture explicitly, but there are symbolic points made in Scripture if one bothers to look.

The 6,000 year plan can only be based on Adam's punishment if one is going to use Scripture as their support for this 6,000 years.

This creation was not just here for 6,000 years of sin. Or 10,000 years of sin, if one thinks sin is around for an indefinite amount of time.

One note in relation to the topic. The fulness of the Gentiles is over 1990 years in longevity. That is 500 years longer than Israel had from Egypt to the Cross. That was only about 1400 years. Between the Flood and Egypt was only about 600 years. They were in Egypt for about 430 years. Between Adam being banned and the Flood was only about 1500 years, still shorter than 1990 years.

So the church has had a lot more time than any other set of years between major events. That is probably why Peter pointed out in 2 Peter 3 that there would be scoffers right before the Second Coming stating nothing has changed since creation.

"Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

Of course now we have scoffers who claim there has only been change, evolution, from the beginning, but I think the point still stands. Evolution is just an excuse to disregard the timing that is found in Scripture.

Seems to me that even if redeemed people only claim 6,000 years of sin and death is all we get, they are scoffers stating nothing has changed since creation, nor will change in the future. Sin and death is the constant in this non changing scenario. Even stating an indefinite time frame beyond 6 thousand years to tens of thousands of years is allowing nothing to change.

 

.

What about Cainan in Luke 3:36?

 

Do you call yourself a Christian? (That's a real question!) Certainly no Baptist I've ever heard of would believe or teach anything remotely similar to what you've said here.

Regardless, if this is how you do doctrine, which it clearly is, you have to know that ANYTHING goes! There isn't any wild-eyed wacky doctrine that anyone wanted to contrive that could not be teased out of the scripture in essentially the same manner as you've done here.

Cain and Abel conceived in Eden! That single point is enough to disqualify you from any serious doctrinal discussion.

Answer the above question if you like. I probably won't ever see it. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

What about it?

 

Genesis 11:13, ". . . And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. . . ."
LXX, ". . . And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Canaan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. . . ."

 

Yes, yes. I'm not stupid. I'm perfectly capable of reading that passage.

What about it?

 

The Hebrew has lost some text. The Greek translation, where we have the Hebrew, has different numerical values. This is an issue.

 

Alan

please start adding text boxes to your posts

it works out better

do better next time and more orange and yellow

 

Perhaps so but not to the degree of throwing off the calculations by even one single order of magnitude (or even anything close to that, actually).
If the text of scripture can be trusted then getting to an age of the Earth even beyond 10,000 years is quite a hard stretch and just completely forget about millions or billions of years. If the Earth is that old, the bible is false because the biblical record says that the Earth about 6000 years old.

 

What God has neverthelessless made an an issue of, per 1 Timothy 1:4, ". . . Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do . . ."

 

Take texts out of their context much?

 

Do you know the difference between from a context and out of context?

 

Do you know how to have a normal conversation with regular human beings?

Are you suggesting here that my point wasn't clear?