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

[Pastor Larry]

This is what Pastor Larry said:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry

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.

You have a hard time reading apparently, and you bolded the wrong parts. Let's try again:

Originally Posted by Pastor Larry

But the phrase as used in Gen 1 only ever means24 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).

You see, the point is about the particular grammatical construction used in Genesis 1. Search that construction and try to find somewhere in the OT where it means anything other than a normal solar day. You won't find it.

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.

Again, notice the emphasis on the phrase, not the word. You are focusing on the word YOM, and ignoring the grammatical construct. That's your problem.

So please be more careful to understand what is being said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

Adam didn't live for a thousand years. And the phrase "in the day" is a Hebrew grammatical construction that is different than the phrase in Gen 1.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But Narnia is a fantasy, not a historical narrative

I never said otherwise. What I did say was the creation account was not a historical narrative in the way you are I look at one.

What if God told him?

What if he didn't?

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

I was referring to the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis. The ancient Summerians don't hold that view. Evolutionist do and most of the scientific community.

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.

You obvioulsy don't get what I'm saying with that. The plagues happened. Yet each plague was directed at a particular Egyptian god.

Have you ever notice God doesn't give us scientific information beyond what we already know? He works with us at our level. Not his. If the ancient world believed creation by Gods would he not show his supremacy over them? Which is what I'm getting at with Genesis creation account. God doesn't speak with Moses about DNA or Atoms or Photons. He does let Moses know that God is God and created the world and sustains it and that there are no other Gods.

I would say Genesis creation account is like this outline Day 1 overview Day 4 more distinct. Day 2 overview day 5 more distinct. Day 3 overview day 6 more distinct. Day 7 completion included command for rest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is what Pastor Larry said:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
You have a hard time reading apparently, and you bolded the wrong parts. Let's try again:

Originally Posted by Pastor Larry


You see, the point is about the particular grammatical construction used in Genesis 1. Search that construction and try to find somewhere in the OT where it means anything other than a normal solar day. You won't find it.

Again, notice the emphasis on the phrase, not the word. You are focusing on the word YOM, and ignoring the grammatical construct. That's your problem.

So please be more careful to understand what is being said.

I'll try but still refer to what I said about a text compared to itself .

here:

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

I never said otherwise. What I did say was the creation account was not a historical narrative in the way you are I look at one.

But you haven't shown that to be true. You compared it to a fantasy.

What if he didn't?

Then the Bible isn't true. The Bible says that God inspired the Scripture, and it isn't from private interpretation (which in context means it didn't come from one's own interpretation of the events).

I was referring to the Enuma Elish and the Atra Hasis. The ancient Summerians don't hold that view. Evolutionist do and most of the scientific community.

I know what you were referring to, and I was pointing out that it answer more than that.

You obvioulsy don't get what I'm saying with that.

No, I get what you were saying.

Have you ever notice God doesn't give us scientific information beyond what we already know?

He doesn't give us anything directly besides what is in Scripture.

If the ancient world believed creation by Gods would he not show his supremacy over them?

Yes, he showed them that by describing to them how the universe came into existence.

God doesn't speak with Moses about DNA or Atoms or Photons. He does let Moses know that God is God and created the world and sustains it and that there are no other Gods.

Correct. But you are actually going beyond that and contradicting what he did say.

I would say Genesis creation account is like this outline Day 1 overview Day 4 more distinct. Day 2 overview day 5 more distinct. Day 3 overview day 6 more distinct. Day 7 completion included command for rest.

I'd say that has no support from the text. But the text doesn't mean much to some people.

 

[Me4Him]

Adam didn't live for a thousand years. And the phrase "in the day" is a Hebrew grammatical construction that is different than the phrase in Gen 1.

I've missed your point or you've missed mine, but,

Are you saying there is "No connection" between all dying "WITHIN" a thousand years (the day) because sin exist,

and us not dying "WITHIN" (the day) a thousand years (MK) because we're "Sinless"??

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

IT is defined on baptistboard.com For me and my google it appeard 38 times, many of which I define it. Here is what to search for:

"48 hour day" site:baptistboard.com

Look at my definition of 48-hour day. Thank you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

IT is defined on baptistboard.com For me and my google it appeard 38 times, many of which I define it. Here is what to search for:

"48 hour day" site:baptistboard.com

Look at my definition of 48-hour day. Thank you.

You're link isn't working can you try it again.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Correct. But you are actually going beyond that and contradicting what he did say.

I'm not contradicting what he said. He created the world in the outline suggested. I am questioning whether his intent was on us to take a literal scientific view of his 6 days of creation or not. The text is narrative. Fantasy is Narrative so that in of itself is not really a valid point. God gives us information in his timing and whats important to salvation. He doesn't tell us how the universe opperates because its not needed for our relationship with him. It's sufficient to know He takes care of it. And with creation its sufficient to know he created the world, the Universe and has supremacy over them all. Not that when he spoke vibrating (microscopic) strings responded in such a way that drew a cluster of them in such a matter as creating particles like Quarks which compined to join into electrons, Neutrons, Protons and caused an electromagnetic field which formed Atoms which bound together creating elements...ETC.... Not only would ancient man not understand that but its not necissary.

 

[Revmitchell]

.
God gives us information in his timing and whats important to salvation. He doesn't tell us how the universe opperates because its not needed for our relationship with him.

This is an assumption based on what?

It's sufficient to know He takes care of it. And with creation its sufficient to know he created the world, the Universe and has supremacy over them all. Not that when he spoke vibrating (microscopic) strings responded in such a way that drew a cluster of them in such a matter as creating particles like Quarks which compined to join into electrons, Neutrons, Protons and caused an electromagnetic field which formed Atoms which bound together creating elements...ETC.... Not only would ancient man not understand that but its not necissary.

More opinion but this ignores the necessity of the fall of man. Nothing in scripture indicates that narrative was given in a fantasy form. Only when you let science interpret scripture do you need such to be the case.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I've missed your point or you've missed mine, but,

Are you saying there is "No connection" between all dying "WITHIN" a thousand years (the day) because sin exist,

and us not dying "WITHIN" (the day) a thousand years (MK) because we're "Sinless"??

I am saying that your comments have nothing to do with the use of "day" in Genesis 1, and that "day" in that context has absolutely nothing to do with "A thousand years is as a day."

 

[Pastor Larry]

I'm not contradicting what he said.

He said it was successive, 24 hour days, and you seem to be saying it isn't.

He created the world in the outline suggested.

The text God gave us doesn't suggest such an outline.

I am questioning whether his intent was on us to take a literal scientific view of his 6 days of creation or not.

It would be hard to suggest otherwise on the basis of the text.

The text is narrative. Fantasy is Narrative so that in of itself is not really a valid point.

The text is historical narrative. Fantasy is not historical narrative. They are two different genres.

God gives us information in his timing and whats important to salvation.

Connecting death to sin is a pretty important part of it, and that is one reason why six day creationism is needed for the gospel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The text is historical narrative. Fantasy is not historical narrative. They are two different genres

Yeah, try to make that distinction 10,000 years from now about a text writen today.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yeah, try to make that distinction 10,000 years from now about a text writen today.

Why would that be difficult? You don't think people in 10,000 years will want to know history? You think they won't have fantasy?

When I was a kid, the first time I read Narnia, I didn't understand how they walked through the door into another world and then had all those experiences and came back but no time had passed. Of course, I learned ...

But just like people in every area have understood different literary genre, I doubt 10,000 years from now, if the Lord should tarry, would be any different.

You are assuming that becaues you don't understand it, nobody in 10,000 years will either. I disagree. I think it is perfectly clear now, and will be then as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why would that be difficult? You don't think people in 10,000 years will want to know history? You think they won't have fantasy?

When I was a kid, the first time I read Narnia, I didn't understand how they walked through the door into another world and then had all those experiences and came back but no time had passed. Of course, I learned ...

But just like people in every area have understood different literary genre, I doubt 10,000 years from now, if the Lord should tarry, would be any different.

You are assuming that becaues you don't understand it, nobody in 10,000 years will either. I disagree. I think it is perfectly clear now, and will be then as well.

I think they will have a hard time with context. Will they believe that since we read Lewis that we believed aspects of it? Or that it was entirely fantasy. Will they believe there are elements of truth to it? Look at the Illiad. For hundreds of years most scholars believed Troy to be in Homer's imagination. Yet we find out in the 1800's that Homer was referring to a real place. A real city. We have a better understanding now of the context in which Homer spoke. The Enuma Elish is a creation story of the day an age it was writen. Very similar in certain aspects to the bible. Are we certian if it was believed? Maybe they viewed it as a creation myth the same as we do today? Very likely I would say even though if your read the narrative in the context of the literature you would say the author was being literal because you're comparing the document to itself. Yet, I and most scholars think this is unlikely. They viewed it as a myth because we are viewing the document from the larger cultural perspective. I suggest that the Genesis creation account can be looked at in a similar manner. From the larger context of the peoples it speaks of.
Kind of like most people read the NT account of the woman who was bleeding as having touched the hem of Jesus garment when the context of his time it would have been Jesus' tassle. Four of which he was required by law to wear.

 

[Allan]

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.

The concepts of Genesis were NOT derived from Enuma Elish nor Atra Hasis. THEY were derived from the account of creation already known. They shadows of the truth that have been retold to suit mans ideas.

Narnia is a fictional book created with the intent to tell an untrue and unreal story.
Scripture can in no way, shape, or form be said to be the same thing.

Moses DID know how the world was formed because God told him about it and made sure via His Spirit it was written down exactly as He stated it. Moses was not making it up as He went along, pulling from Pagan views (as you suppose) to come up with 'his' best guess. It is the accurate and true account from God Himself, was not only there at the time but also the very one who did it. Just as God proved Himself to be the Only True and Living God against the Egytian gods by reveal Himself through plagues that attacked their very deity and power, so God did with the Creation event to dispel the myths about how the world was created and what had transpired up till their present time. No, it is no fictional narritive as you suppose but is 100% real and true.

You are grasping (gasping ) air in this argument.

 

[Marcia]

So day one was Sunday?

I would guess, since the Sabbath was the day of rest and it was Saturday.

 

[StefanM]

No, it is no fictional narritive as you suppose but is 100% real and true.

Bottom line: the assumption of the inerrancy of Scripture precludes any acceptance of alternative theories. If one does not assume inerrancy, then other options exist for discussion.

 

[StefanM]

To answer the OP, yes.

 

[Marcia]

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.

You don't believe that Gen 1 was a revelation of God to Moses in the sense that Moses wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I ask because what you say here makes it sound as though you think Moses just wrote it himself out of his own mind and purposes.