-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How old is the earth?
- Thread starter GODzThunder
- Start date
word_digger
New Member
Of course it is interesting...I wrote it!
The main point is, it shows that Satan transgressed (sinned) BEFORE Adam. Therefore, if the Scriptures and spiritual laws cannot be broken (i.e. death comes by sin), then death would have come by Satan instead of Adam in the present world if Satan sinned first in this present world. However, Romans 5:12 says:
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:
Consequently, the only way that the Scriptures remain unbroken is if Satan sinned in a world before our present one.
I will point out to Helen that there is NOTHING said about Satan's transgression anywhere in the Genesis narrative. At his first appearance on stage at Genesis 3:1 he has already transgressed and is against God at that point. There is nothing in the Bible in Genesis to support Helen's assumption:
Her argument that Satan fell "certainly after creation week" is NOT supported by the Scriptures. It is only unscripturtal reasoning from a Young Earth POV.
Helen: I would recommend that you review my link: The Biblical Difference between the words WORLD and EARTH to get a better understanding of the English language on this matter.
In addition, and in reference to your exegesis on the word replenish and how it should be "fill" at Genesis 1:28 I call your attention to this fact in the translation of the KJV Bible:
Just five verses before rendering male as "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, the same translators rendered the SAME HEBREW WORD male as "fill" in Genesis 1:22:
"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."
(Genesis 1:22 KJV)
This fact shows that these English translators most certainly knew the subtle differences in meanings in translation of the Hebrew word "male" into English in context, and were well aware of the interpretive implications of using the English word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 and 9:1. Why did they go to the trouble of rendering the word differently in those two places if they did not intend a subtile difference in meaning? Common sense says that it was done with a purpose, and was not sloppy translation work.
Of course, I have noted that you use the NIV version to attack the KJV, so I'm aware that these points will probably roll off your back like water off a duck, but those who believe and trust their KJV Bible will understand.
Lacy Evans
New Member
Not if "death" was not a consequence of his (Satan's) sin.
Is there anywhere in the Scripture that speaks of death apart from earthly creatures?
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I think it can be reasoned that the death spoken of in Romans must be spiritual death and not natural/physical death. If nothing ever died physically before Adam, we would get into some very serious difficulties. Genesis speaks of plants reproducing "after their kind". Wheat for example must "die" to reproduce. If the seed is harvested green, it will not grow. The plant must be dead.
Also, many creatures have very short life-spans. Can you imagine how many flies there would be in a year if none ever died?
If my reasoning is not faulty, then Satan's (spiritual) death - separation from God- was (and is) evidence of the wages of his sin.
I understand your point Lacy, but I still don't think the term "death" can be applied to angelic beings.
Also, we do not know the dynamics of reproduction either plant or animal before Adam's sin.
It has to be different. Today there are labor pains but apparently not before the fall.
Today a kernel of wheat must fall into the ground and "die" to reproduce, but before the fall we just don't know.
Just because death and reproduction are linked today doesn't necessarily mean it was always that way.
HankD
Also, we do not know the dynamics of reproduction either plant or animal before Adam's sin.
It has to be different. Today there are labor pains but apparently not before the fall.
Today a kernel of wheat must fall into the ground and "die" to reproduce, but before the fall we just don't know.
Just because death and reproduction are linked today doesn't necessarily mean it was always that way.
HankD
In the Hebrew, the word translated behemoth is 'water-ox', which is what the Hebrews called a hippipotomus. The Hebrew word for leviathan is a crocodile. It's only when translated into English do these words become enigmatic. But in the original Hebrew, it's no mystery at all.
John, if you desire a rational discussion I will join you. If you want to sink to name-calling, you are all by your lonesome.
Christ taught authoritatively from the creation account as though it was literal.
For you and others to do otherwise, is at the very least implying that he did not know what he was talking about. I just refuse to say that about Christ.
Christ taught authoritatively from the creation account as though it was literal.
For you and others to do otherwise, is at the very least implying that he did not know what he was talking about. I just refuse to say that about Christ.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
OK Enlighten us. What exactly did Christ say about the creation account?
In the Hebrew, the word translated behemoth is 'water-ox', which is what the Hebrews called a hippipotomus. The Hebrew word for leviathan is a crocodile. It's only when translated into English do these words become enigmatic. But in the original Hebrew, it's no mystery at all. </font>[/QUOTE]The description of Behemoth bears very little resemblance to a hippo.
The description of Leviathan doesn't match a crocodile either. Note what Job 41 says:
You must read alot "out of" this text in order to make it a crocodile. Further, other citations firmly discount the restriction of this term to 'crocodile' since it can also be a sea creature (Psalms 104, Isaiah 27).
Lacy Evans
New Member
In the Hebrew, the word translated behemoth is 'water-ox', which is what the Hebrews called a hippipotomus. The Hebrew word for leviathan is a crocodile. It's only when translated into English do these words become enigmatic. But in the original Hebrew, it's no mystery at all. </font>[/QUOTE]Gotta disagree with you here Johnv.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Have you looked at a Hippo's tail? It's more like a blade of grass than a cedar.
Job 41
1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2. Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
I saw a man wrestle a crocodile and hold his own. I've also seen boots made of their skin.
18. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Definitly not a crocodile. This is the most obvious fire breathing dragon (dinosaur)I've ever seen.
Lacy
BTW. I'm sorry we can't debate like adults without those who have to resort to subjective, mean-spirited, emotional attacks (Like you "worshipping a false God") instead of just sharing the truth as they see it. Gunther's words were absolutely unnecssary to this discussion and would best be ignored. Be brave enough to stand untill someone PROVES you wrong, then be brave enough to change your mind!
Then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what "fundamental" is and is not. I know in some circles they like to think of KJVOnlyism as fundamentalism but it isn't. In fact, it is anti-fundamentalism. I would recommend "The Fundamentals" to you. (One guy was even trying to type all 4 volumes onto a website.)
The original fundamentalists and virtually all those that followed them for the next 50 to 60 years ascribed primary authority to the originals- not a translation.
I invite you to check out a cedar tree. It's a long skinny tree with scraggly branches, very much like a hippo's tail (long and skinny, with scraggly hairs at the end).
As for the "sinews of his stones", it's a description of a male hippo's genitals (the Hebrew word interpreted "stones" is "testicles"). Dinosaurs didn't have external genitalia. They had internal genitals, similar to modern reptiles and birds.
If you read the entire chapter, it describes how difficult it is to capture a crocodile. Notice, it's asking metaphoric questions, not giving a description.
Well, if it's a fire breathing dragon, then it's a mythical creature, and it would be neither a croc nor a dinosaur (hence, both you and I would be wrong).
Interestingly, were Job ascribing metaphoric traits in this verse, it's likely that he's describing Satan, in similar fashion that other verses refer to Satan as the Serpent (even though serpents are real creatures that have nothing to do with Satan). But that's a whole different topic tat might be worthy of discussion elsewhere.
Interestingly, if the laviathan were a crocodile, it really doesn't prove or disprove anything, since, presuming an old earth time line, crocodilia are cretaceous creatures, having lived during a dinosaur era to the present.
Thank you, and I appreciate your spirit filled words and your support. Indeed healthy discussion is welcome in a community of believers. It's the only way we learn and grow as a community, and we should not be afraid to, nor should we make anyone afraid to, voice ideas that differ from other peoples' ideas.
I shall endeavour to do both.
Lacy Evans
New Member
Do you have a Biblical precedent for this theory? Is there a verse, a story, an inkling that only originals are the "primary authority". Because I do have a Biblical precedent for my (radical) view.
http://www.harvestbaptistofmidland.org/home/default.cfm?nav_id=6&par_nav_id=&content_id=&article_id=371&layout=Default&Link_URL=
Lacy
It's not my purpose to stir up the KJV issue. it just seems that hardly anyone in this day and age can debate without correcting the Bible.
Here's the Greek word in my handy-dandy Strongs. Here's a big list of possible definitions. Hmmmmm. I choose this one.
How presumptuous to second guess what was most probably the greatest assembly of scholars in history. Do you realize how complicated language translation is? Am I saying that noone should test the KJV? By no means. Test the spirits. But a bunch of guys hanging out on a message board debating doctrine going up against LANCELOT ANDREWS, JOHN OVERALL, JOHN BOIS, etc. It doesn't make sense.
I believe that the Holy Spirit must be involved in preservation or else we're in a sad way.
Lacy
word_digger
New Member
You have raised an interesting point. Adam and Eve, although innocent and sinless when the Lord God made them (they were not born), were NOT IMMORTAL beings. Since they were created from the dust of a temporal world, they would have to eat of the "Tree of Life" (Genesis 2:9) in order to have full physical immortality; else why the necessity of there even being a "Tree of Life" in the garden?
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Although Adam was made innocent, without sin, he was not immortal at this point. Had he not eaten of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" his flesh would have eventually died anyway, unless he and Eve ate from the "tree of life" that was in the garden. When Adam and Eve transgressed, their "eyes were opened" (see Genesis 3:7); their innocence was lost and they died spiritually and, in due course, physically.
Lacy, are you kidding me?
I have to intervene.
The KJV translators persecuted Baptists. They were ANGLICAN. They baptized babies. They were Amill. Etc. Yeah, they were scholars alright. Try they were theologically incompetent. And now baptists bow to their work. Classic.
- War being a true fundy and not an imposter.
Gunther
I have to intervene.
The KJV translators persecuted Baptists. They were ANGLICAN. They baptized babies. They were Amill. Etc. Yeah, they were scholars alright. Try they were theologically incompetent. And now baptists bow to their work. Classic.
- War being a true fundy and not an imposter.
Gunther
Lacy Evans
New Member
I "like" Ruckman? Thanks so much for letting me know. I make one passing remark in an article (I called him mean too.) and you know my heart.
I "like Ruckman's work".
You are a piece of work Gunther. You are so quick to jump to conclusions and make presumptuous remarks.
When you claim (howbeit indirectly) that you have supernatural insight into a man's heart, you're in effect, throwing your feet up on God's desk. I sternly rebuke you and beg you to change your attitude. You are right to debate your point and defend your beliefs, (I commend you for that) but do it like a man!
Lacy
PS. I am so much more of a "radical" KJVOnly man than Ruckman that I take your comments as an insult!
