Creation of the angels?

Brian, it is obvious you don't understand the significance of a sidereal day. Your questions make that clear. A sidereal day has nothing to do with a solar day, nor with a solar year. Nor with leap year. In fact, it is the difference between solar time and sidereal time that makes the leap year necessary!

And, regarding "evening and morning," we know how the Hebrew thought process works and how it is translated to writings. Unless, of course, you are ready to abandon the literal interpretation of scripture, then it can mean anything you want it to mean, and you will not have to deal with Genesis 1.31 being a mistake in the bible if your view is correct.

As I said before, it is simple to just dismiss any evidence which mitigates against your presuppositions by saying "how do you know, you weren't there." <sigh>

 

DocCas, sidereal time is base on the stars. The stars weren't around until the fourth day either. The sidereal day would not have existed any more than solar day.

Yes, and we also know that the Hebrew thought process is sometimes wrong. Unless you're willing to interpret the entire O.T. by asking your local synagogue for help.

I'm not abandoning literal interpration. Does not "literal interetation" mean that symbols, metaphores, etc, are often used, but those things point to a reality? I'm not saying "day" is an allegory, I'm saying it doesn't have to be precisely 24 hours.

I do not think Gen 1:31 is a mistake. I think it's possible that people can misunderstand scripture though. And also, I don't recall ever sharing what my view is - I'm just making some comments to consider and generate discussion.

 

Brian, a Sidereal day is a non-solar day. We use the stars to measure it simply because we cannot see a point-in-space without a visible reference. However, God can see a point-in-space lacking a visible reference, and that point-in-space which a fixed point on the surface of the earth passes every 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds constitutes a sidereal day. Of course the sidereal day would still exist without the sun or stars!

You then say, "Hebrew thought process is sometimes wrong." Not under inspiration it isn't!

"Yom" is never used in the bible with the modifiers "evening and morning" in a metaphorical way. It is the modifiers which tell us it is a literal day and not a metaphorical day.

If Genesis 1:31 is true, then nothing existed prior to verse 31 which was not "very good." It can't be both ways. If evil existed, and the distruction postulated by those who say such evil existed, prior to verse 31, then God is either a liar or a terrible judge of what is good and evil.

Not to mention the complete distruction of the Gospel itself! Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

And if sin and death did not originate with one man, Adam, then the converse is also false. Salvation did not come through the one Man, Jesus Christ.

 

DocCas, I know what a sidereal day is. I just disagree with your explanation, and to explain why would require getting into relativity, which I don't have the time or energy for right now. So I'm willing to drop the subject for now.

I agree. But that's the whole point of this conversation - how do we know the 24-hour interpretation is the inspired Hebrew thought process interpretation?

Except maybe here. "Yom" is never used anywhere else in the Bible with the modifiers "evening and morning" at all! If not being used metaphorical elsewhere makes a non-24 hour interpretation wrong, not being used in a 24-hour sense makes a 24-hour interpretation wrong too!

If it wasn't the sun causing the evenings and mornings, we don't know what time span was between the evening and morning.

Is this comment and the rest of your comments directed at me? I do not believe in prior death, the gap theory, etc.

 

When God said Let there be light as of yet there was no physical element to provide that light except for God Himself. (No sun, moon stars etc.) So, when God made that statement it was a beginning and was built upon later with the addition of starts.

Surely the same could be true for verse one. There it is stated that the Heavens and Earth were made, verse two implies to me not a pre-Adamic fall, great sin, catastrophe and the necessity to re-create, but rather God completed in verse two what was begun in verse one.

 

MWickens, amen. That is exactly what the "waw" connective (conjunctive) which starts verse two indicates!

 

Wow, thanks Clint! You ALWAYS come thru!

 

I understand what you're saying. However...

"t does not seem plausible that the angels were created on day 1 or 2 and then one tricked Eve a short time later."

It may not be plausible but neither would it be outside the realm of possibility for Satan to decieve after only a few days. Or perhaps angels function outside of time. Maybe, I have never given it thought.

"I believe that before God restored the earth in 6 days that there was a race of beings(angelic host) whose world was before ours who went on to serve God in the heavens as we will in the future on the new earth."

The problems I would have with the whole idea of re-creating the earth is (1). Scripture does not support it. (2) Scripture actually opposes it.

The Word reads that God said "Let there be" and whatever it involved happened. God did not say "Let there be restored". I am not a Hebrew scholar, or a scholar of any kind for that matter, , but the Hebrew words used do not leave room for debate. They refer to the beginning, not a new start, but THE start.

 

Okay, Here's my monkey wrench...

There are several things written in Genesis that quite frankly blow my mind.

I offer this example. Genesis 5:2 says:
Male and female created he them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

My concordance says that "Adam" is literally interpreted to mean Mankind in that verse.

Could this mean that "Adam" were actually a people and not a person? Or perhaps a people named after a person?

Also, in Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

sons of God? daughters of men?

This has always perplexed me. I would consider Adam the first created man to be a son of God...but it says "Sons" And why would the daughters be of men? Wouldn't after Adam...the sons and daughters be of men?

As far as days being 24 hours... I read somewhere else that a day was as a 1,000 years to God. So....6 days would actually be more like 6,000 years to us. And when waiting for Christ's return...we could think of it being only 2 days since he left... hmmm?

Thank you for trying to explain your canopy theory to me... amazing stuff. I've never heard this theory before. Really cool to think about.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the days of Genesis One are 24 hour days.

Just as there is no doubt in my mind that the man who picked up the wounded man and took him to the inn and asked for the innkeeper to take care of him was a Samaratan man, Really!

But the Samaratan man was part of a parable. Therefore, I don't think the event actually occurred, but was a story told by Jesus to make a point.

The same is true for the first chapter of Genesis. It is a parable, fitted for the understanding of those to whom it was first told.

You don't call a parable "false". You listen and learn the lesson intended by the parable.

 

I thought this was the "Fundamental Baptist Forum." I thought this forum was for those who unashamably call themselves "Fundmental," "Fundamentalist," or are actively and unashamably engaged in "Fundamentalism." I thought this forum was a place to discuss issues without having to constantly hear the old saw about "the bible doesn't really mean what it says."

If this is not the "Fundamental Baptist Forum" could somebody direct me to that forum? Thanks.

 

Here in Texas, we have the Paluxy River bed and there are human tracks and "dinosaur" tracks in the same strata. Much study has been done and no proof of a fruad.

Creation Evidence This is just one of many sites you can check out.

I hold to the canopy theory in that I do believe we had it around us and hence the reason that God tilted the earth after the flood giving us ice caps to take up the excess water. I do not believe in a gap. That was just Christians trying to be "scientific" because evolution seemed plausible and we can't be ignorant so we try to synch up the Word with science that changes constantly and has abandoned most of the historic views of evolution while the Word remains.

 

Paluxy, oh pleeze. That baloney has even been discarded by CRI.

The Bible is not a ‘Universal Manual’. The Bible does not deal with every known topic. General Revelation (that revelation of God that is observed in nature) and Special Revelation (the revealed Word) are both from God and should agree with each other. Both types of revelation require interpretation, and this is done by fallible interpreters. We need to study the Word and study the world, to find truth. We need to test the ideas or theories we discover about our world just as vigorously as we test the spirits (1John 4:1).

Some of us say that God speaks only plainly and simply in his Word, they are just plain wrong! God doesn’t always speak plainly sometimes He has reasons for concealing truth.

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable. ” Proverbs 25:2-3

“With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.” Mark 4:33,34: also see Matthew 13:10-17, 34,35.

I think that creation is one of those areas that God has concealed Himself. It’s a mystery.
Can we search out Biblical truths, Yes. Can we rule out scientifically certain theories, Yes.

Young earth creationism has carefully crafted itself so that there can be no scientific argument against it. God can create a fully functioning universe that looks and acts old.
God can perform miracle upon miracle to smooth out inconsistencies.
Old earth creationists are lesser in number among Baptist believers, but we are still able to hold to fundamental doctrines of the faith.
The restoration theory has dropped out of favor because of the many scientific AND theological problems it poses.

Personnaly, I expect to be completely awed when God reveals His creation secrets to us in eternity. I often think that many Young-Earth creationists will still be arguing and trying to convince Him that it had to happen a different way.

 

Please pardon my outburst.
I have a problem with error being circulated repeatedly among Christian circles concerning creation "myths". Paluxy is one of them. Here's a site one of my friends has that gives a consise overview of the Paluxy problems.

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/palx.htm

 

Is the geneology of Luke 3 which goes back to Adam a parable?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If Adam is a parable per the poster's quote above then Jesus Christ is a parable.

A real and historical Adam and Eve is a fundamental of the faith once delivered to the saints.

HankD

[ September 07, 2002, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Genesis is a parable? What happened to the Fundamental Baptist Forum?