Do you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?

[annsni]

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,

How about a thousand rotations of the "sun"?? :laugh:

Daniel's 70 week prophecy represents a "year" for each "day".

Of course we use 24 hours for a "day".

Genesis doesn't give us a "context" to judge how long each creation day represented.

It certainly does:

"And there was evening and there was morning, the _____th day."

 

[Me4Him]

It certainly does:

"And there was evening and there was morning, the _____th day."

What do you put in the blank, thousand years, one year, 24 hours???

 

[Alcott]

How is it that God warned Adam to not eat the fruit from the middle of the garden, for "in the day you eat it you will die;" yet he lived more than 800 years after the day he did eat it?

 

[annsni]

What do you put in the blank, thousand years, one year, 24 hours???

Umm - maybe re-read Genesis 1 to get the answer??

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I personally do not.

I believe the biblical record indicates somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years since the dawn of creation.

I believe that what science has come up regarding millions and blillions of years is 100% speculation, and not one iota of it can be proven. Pure theory.


Do you guys agree...or not?

:godisgood:

I totally disagree with you on this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,

How about a thousand rotations of the "sun"??

It says one day is "as" a thousand years .... not one day is a thousand years. Don't miss the small words. They make a big difference.

Daniel's 70 week prophecy represents a "year" for each "day".

The word "week" is not in Daniel's prophecy. It is "seventy sevens."

Genesis doesn't give us a "context" to judge how long each creation day represented.

Morning and evening seem pretty clear don't it. If I say "I am going to bed this evening and I will see you in the morning," you don't expect it will be thousand or millions of years until you see me again.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How is it that God warned Adam to not eat the fruit from the middle of the garden, for "in the day you eat it you will die;" yet he lived more than 800 years after the day he did eat it?

A great example that strengthens the point I have been making. Remember, we have talked about the grammatical construction of YOM in Genesis 1.

This one, in 2:17, is completely different. It is "in-the-day of your eating." You see, it is a different kind of use of YOM.

Again, the point stands that whenever YOM does not mean a 24 hour day, it is shown by the construction or the context to be different. In 2:17, the Hebrew reads "beyom." The preposition "be" means something like "in." It is not an absolute (unmodified) use as it is in Gen 1.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Don't we learn something new every day!... er, every 24 hours....er, every sunset-to-sunset... maybe all of them.

Why do you think we have a leap year every four years? Because a day doesn't equal precisely 24 hours. No one who knows anything thinks that it does. But it equals roughly 24 hours, and that is why it is used.

For all your complaining about us being hyper-literal with the text, you sure are hyper-literal with the issue. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A great example that strengthens the point I have been making. Remember, we have talked about the grammatical construction of YOM in Genesis 1.

This one, in 2:17, is completely different. It is "in-the-day of your eating." You see, it is a different kind of use of YOM.

Again, the point stands that whenever YOM does not mean a 24 hour day, it is shown by the construction or the context to be different. In 2:17, the Hebrew reads "beyom." The preposition "be" means something like "in." It is not an absolute (unmodified) use as it is in Gen 1.

But I thought you said Yom always means a 24 hour period in the bible that it was never used in any other way. If it wasn't you then it deffinately was someone on this thread. See what we're talking about. Just make the bible fit your interpretation. If its a story that outlines creation this type of thing is to be expected. A literal view comes into some problems.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But I thought you said Yom always means a 24 hour period in the bible that it was never used in any other way.

Think again. Go back and read. I never said that and never saw anyone say that. Go back and take the time to thoughtfully read what has been said. If you have questions, I will be glad to take a stab at answering them.

See what we're talking about. Just make the bible fit your interpretation.

Yes, this is what we are talking about. There are those who have to make the Bible fit a "millions of years universe" and so they will change it to fit it.

A literal view comes into some problems.

Such as?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Think again. Go back and read. I never said that and never saw anyone say that. Go back and take the time to thoughtfully read what has been said. If you have questions, I will be glad to take a stab at answering them.

Yes, this is what we are talking about. There are those who have to make the Bible fit a "millions of years universe" and so they will change it to fit it.

Such as?

You said God inspired a 24 hour period. You're taking a narrative and comparing it against itself and saying this is what it means. But if you read narnia its also a narrative and reads things as literal that shouldn't be taken that way. That's the contention. So if I take the Narnia Stories I can spend all day saying this text means that time is faster in narnia but the point is Narnia doesn't exist and the author doesn't want us to interpret it that way. Its a vehicle for getting a point across. If I took Narnia literally and argued the text against itself imagine what I would come up with. ie magic used in the context of the words around it means that Aslan was in use of it but because the word her preceeded magic we assume it means witch. The contention is the Genesis creation account (like narnia) may not have been meant to be taken literally in the scientific sence but getting a point across especially when you consider similarities from other works of the same period by the same culture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You said God inspired a 24 hour period.

No that's not precisely what I said. Again, go back and read. Familiarize yourself with the arguments.

You're taking a narrative and comparing it against itself and saying this is what it means.

Not exactly. We are reading a narrative as narrative, and comparing narratives structures with narrative structures. This is probably a bit more literary a discussion then you are prepared to have and than this forum is geared for. But simply put, when understanding texts, you must understand its genre, and compare grammatical forms to the way grammatical forms are used in other identical genres.

But if you read narnia its also a narrative

No, Narnia is a fantasy, not a historical narrative. There is a big difference.

That's the contention.

And you can see that it is an incorrect contention.

...Narnia doesn't exist and the author doesn't want us to interpret it that way.

But the world that God created does exist, and the literary form that he communicated it to has nothing in common with Narnia.

The contention is the Genesis creation account (like narnia) may not have been meant to be taken literally in the scientific sence but getting a point across especially when you consider similarities from other works of the same period by the same culture.

That's another bad contention because the creation account is not like Narnia. And when you consider other works of the same period by the same culture, you have none. When you compare similar works from different cultures, you can understand that Moses was writing a polemic or an apologetic against false beliefs about the origin of the world.

 

[annsni]

But I thought you said Yom always means a 24 hour period in the bible that it was never used in any other way. If it wasn't you then it deffinately was someone on this thread. See what we're talking about. Just make the bible fit your interpretation. If its a story that outlines creation this type of thing is to be expected. A literal view comes into some problems.

I know that Pastor Larry never said such a thing - nor did anyone else. All of us are saying use the CONTEXT. I have learned that "yom" with an ordinal number never means a span of time other than a day as we know it. Note that in the reference you mentioned, God didn't say "In the second day you shall die". Then we'd have to read it as a literal day. Instead, due to the construct of the phrase, we can see that it's not necessarily a day as we read it.

You said God inspired a 24 hour period. You're taking a narrative and comparing it against itself and saying this is what it means. But if you read narnia its also a narrative and reads things as literal that shouldn't be taken that way. That's the contention. So if I take the Narnia Stories I can spend all day saying this text means that time is faster in narnia but the point is Narnia doesn't exist and the author doesn't want us to interpret it that way. Its a vehicle for getting a point across. If I took Narnia literally and argued the text against itself imagine what I would come up with. ie magic used in the context of the words around it means that Aslan was in use of it but because the word her preceeded magic we assume it means witch. The contention is the Genesis creation account (like narnia) may not have been meant to be taken literally in the scientific sence but getting a point across especially when you consider similarities from other works of the same period by the same culture.

So you're comparing the inspired Word of God with a book written by C.S. Lewis? Umm - totally different animals. So now the Genesis creation account is no more reality than Narnia? Wow.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's another bad contention because the creation account is not like Narnia. And when you consider other works of the same period by the same culture, you have none. When you compare similar works from different cultures, you can understand that Moses was writing a polemic or an apologetic against false beliefs about the origin of the world.

Yes but not in a scientific sence. He used already held creation consepts (Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis) and showed the actual supremecy of God. I only used Narnia to show my point that you take a fictional narrative and can determine very little of fact by it apart from metaphore. Moses most likely did not know how the world was created but could guess at it. What he did know was that God created it. And to instill the supremacy of God over heathen God's he attacked the widely held creation myths in subjection to God. Much like the plagues of the Exodus were aimed at each of the false God's that the Egyptians held dear. I might put the Genesis account of Creation in the same catagory.

 

[Me4Him]

How is it that God warned Adam to not eat the fruit from the middle of the garden, for "in the day you eat it you will die;" yet he lived more than 800 years after the day he did eat it?

Adam died "in the day" he sinned, both "spiritually" (the instance he sinned) and "literally", God's thousand year day.

No one has lived a thousand years since sin entered, all have died "in the day" they sinned.

But we will live/reign a thousand years (7th day) with Jesus and "not die", proving Jesus removed "ALL" of our sins.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know that Pastor Larry never said such a thing - nor did anyone else. All of us are saying use the CONTEXT. I have learned that "yom" with an ordinal number never means a span of time other than a day as we know it. Note that in the reference you mentioned, God didn't say "In the second day you shall die". Then we'd have to read it as a literal day. Instead, due to the construct of the phrase, we can see that it's not necessarily a day as we read it.




So you're comparing the inspired Word of God with a book written by C.S. Lewis? Umm - totally different animals. So now the Genesis creation account is no more reality than Narnia? Wow.

You're obviously not getting what I'm saying. It was an example to show that a text compared to itself doesn't show how the author wants you to take it literally or not. We know Lewis wants to tell us a fantasy. But we understand the context. How about 10,000 years from now when the world speaks a different language? Will they think we believed Lewis literally?

 

[Ed Edwards]

48-hour-day

Go look up on the internet the 48-hour-day.
Report back. Thank you.
we are looking for the definition

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know that Pastor Larry never said such a thing - nor did anyone else. All of us are saying use the CONTEXT. I have learned that "yom" with an ordinal number never means a span of time other than a day as we know it. Note that in the reference you mentioned, God didn't say "In the second day you shall die". Then we'd have to read it as a literal day. Instead, due to the construct of the phrase, we can see that it's not necessarily a day as we read it.




So you're comparing the inspired Word of God with a book written by C.S. Lewis? Umm - totally different animals. So now the Genesis creation account is no more reality than Narnia? Wow.

This is what Pastor Larry said:

But the phrase as used in Gen 1 only ever means 24 hour days. It is not like the term used to describe the inheritance of the land (and your understanding of that is wrong here, though that is off topic).

God inspired the use of a phrase that only even means 24 hour days. Yet there are some who say that God didn't know what he was talking about when he inspired the use of that phrase ... he really meant something else.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Go look up on the internet the 48-hour-day.
Report back. Thank you.

To what end? This is what I got off of Google: 48 heures par jour - a french movie. Does that help you?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes but not in a scientific sence. He used already held creation consepts (Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis) and showed the actual supremecy of God.

Did he? How do you know he used their concepts? How do you know he wasn't giving a completely different view than their concepts? You see, you started with your conclusion and then worked backwards.

I only used Narnia to show my point that you take a fictional narrative and can determine very little of fact by it apart from metaphore.

But Narnia is a fantasy, not a historical narrative.

Moses most likely did not know how the world was created but could guess at it.

What if God told him?

And to instill the supremacy of God over heathen God's he attacked the widely held creation myths in subjection to God.

Yes, and the widely held creation myths that earth took millions and millions of years to get here.

Much like the plagues of the Exodus were aimed at each of the false God's that the Egyptians held dear. I might put the Genesis account of Creation in the same catagory.

Could be. Those plagues actually happened just like the Bible says. So if you put the creation account in the same category, then we would conclude that it actually happened just like the Bible says.