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!
And they are quoted in God's own Exodus 20:8-11 summary of that Genesis 1-2 "account".
I wasn’t there. There were three of them according to God’s word. God was the only one there to see them.
As I said, It teaches it. To say “It seems pretty clear” is a colloquial way of making a point without being unnecessarily direct. It teaches it in Genesis 1, in Exodus 20, and in Matt 19. That is the word of God to Moses in the creation account, the word of God to his people in the Law, and the word of Christ to the Pharisees. In Genesis 1, the literal 24 hours days is explicit in the text. In Exod 20, God uses those literal days to assert a work week pattern for his people. Anything other than 24 hour days makes this text absurd. In Matt 19, Christ asserts the literal creation as a fact for his teaching on marriage and divorce.
I am not lying about you. Go back and read what you have said. You say it again in the next post. Genesis 1 teaches that God created animals before man. You believe Gen 2 teaches that he created man before animals. You have based your cosmology on Gen 2, thereby declaring Gen 1 to be wrong. If, as you suggest, Gen 2 is right (that God created man first, then animals), then Gen 1 (that says God created animals first, then man) has to be wrong. This is simple. Perhaps you missed it in your thinking.
This has reached the level of foolishness now. I have told you and shown you that Gen 2 can be reconciled by understanding the Hebrew form and assuming that 1 and 2 do not contradict. I do not believe they do. Therefore, I see the verb form in 2:19 as “had formed.” That is a legitimate aspect of it and it fits very nicely. There is no contradiction. The contradiction comes only because you will not increase your understanding on this point.
How do you know what intention the ancient writer had?? Every word used in Gen 1 indicates a literal usage. To have a poetic or non-literal usage in Gen 1 violates every grammatical rule we know about in Hebrew. It is you that has the burden to make that stick. You would have seven uses of YOM that contradict every other usage of that form in Scripture. That is a hard mountain to climb. A writer's intention is known by his words. When the author intended to communicate a period of time as in 2:4, he used a form that expressly communicates that. When he intended to communicate 24 hour days, he used a form that means only that.
You are spinning this in the most beneficial way possible, and in a way that contradicts your church's history. However, it doesn't really help your position. The point is that you have to believe what your church tells you to believe, unless you are going to abandon the catechism.
There is nothing in the text that would indicate this. This is pure speculation, based on a need to find something. I do not share that need, and therefore reject this speculation.
But to say this is to assert that the text was in error. I agree that the how is not specific. It says that God created it. However, when the Bible speaks of "how," no matter how imprecise it is, it cannot be inaccurate. And that is the problem you run into. God specified a time frame, then used that time frame as the pattern for man's work week. To assert that the creation week was something more than six successive 24 hour days, is to assert that man should work differently than ancient Israel practiced and than we practice. That simply will not work. Every scriptural reference to creation assumes a literal account. There is no need to find anything else.
I think the text is violated when you make it mean something the words don't mean.
You're right. You weren't there. And if God was speaking of days in a figurative sense, to make a lovely narrative to explain His creation, it would not detract from anything. The use of "days" that total up to "seven" could just as easily be in the story to establish for the Jews a basis for their "six days of work, one day of rest" without God LITERALLY working that amount of time.
No, you don't understand. I AGREE THAT 24-HOUR PERIODS EXISTED FROM THE MOMENT TIME EXISTED. I am saying that an "earth day" is a 24-hour period that involves the rotation of the earth and the distance of the sun from the earth. Without these in place, calling a 24-hour period a "day" is totally relative and does not have the same meaning as a 24-hour "earth day" when the sun IS in place, when there is an actually rising and setting of the sun, thus, morning and evening.
Why does God have to be referring to literal 24-hour days for the creation account to be true?
I've already quoted the letters of Peter in which we see that to God, one day is as a thousand years, and that we should not "ignore this fact." I'm not boldly saying anything in the face of revelation other than what revelation tells me I'm not to ignore.
It teaches it because you said so. Nice evidence.
No. Because the text is indeed the Word of God, when God inspired man to write down the Creation as He wanted us to know, He employed the pattern of a six-day work week to give us a basis, because that is how he wanted us to live our lives (work, but also set aside time for worship). The practice is legitimate because Genesis is legitimate, AND TRUE, without the account being literal in all its facets. Genesis 1 and 2 are absolutely true because they share with us the Truth: God created the Heavens and the earth by His Holy Word, created man in His image, and man fell, but not without continued provision from God and the promise of a Savior.
Is that why you had to go back to the Hebrew? Seems the English is a little sticky.
No, you did lie, because you say I don't believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are true, when I have never said that, but said quite the opposite. I do not believe that all of the elements present are to be interpreted as LITERALLY true, but that does not make these two chapters any less true.
False. My whole point is that it doesn't matter, because the story doesn't need to be literally true to be wholly true.
So, I ask you how a stranded person on an island, with only an English Bible is supposed to reconcile seeming contradictions, and you say he needs to refer to the Hebrew, and make an inference as to which verb tense is correct.
What are you talking about?
Pastor Larry - please note - Carson has not actually said anything in the text above. There is no exegetical - Bible-based point made. It is mere speculation and the "hope" that you will "speculate back" rather than apply the sound principles of exegesis to the problem.
This is an argument regarding the "apparent meaning" of the text of the creation account.
I don't think that is the RCC position. I think Carson summed it up well on the first page as to to what the church teaches. What you have a problem with is the individuals, not the "RCC position." However, there are just as many non-RCCers who hold the positions espoused by our Catholic brethern here. I don't think anyone claims that the church does not allow one to take the Creation account literally. They are merely saying that that is not a litmus test for orthodoxy, like it is used by some Evangelicals. I hold to a literal understanding of the Creation account. I don't think I am being condemned by the Catholics here for doing so. However, if I was to use that as my litmus test for others, they would probably then be condemning me.
Except the meaning of the words used.
Did you even read this text?? I can't imagine that some of you participating here have read the text. Let me cite it for you:
No, you don't understand. I AGREE THAT 24-HOUR PERIODS EXISTED FROM THE MOMENT TIME EXISTED. I am saying that an "earth day" is a 24-hour period that involves the rotation of the earth and the distance of the sun from the earth. Without these in place, calling a 24-hour period a "day" is totally relative and does not have the same meaning as a 24-hour "earth day" when the sun IS in place, when there is an actually rising and setting of the sun, thus, morning and evening.</font>[/QUOTE]Either you or me can't read or you are unwilling to tell the truth about yourself. You said that 24 hour periods existed but were not "earth days" without the sun. That is exactly what I said you said. You denied it, then said it again, then denied it, and then said it again. I understand what you are saying. And I think you understand what I am saying. You are just having a hard time following through with your argument here.
Because that is what the text God inspired said. If it was not 24 hour days, then God lied.
Notice that little word "as" in Peter and Psalms. That little word "as" is not found in the discussion of days in Genesis 1. Instead, the form used (nominative absolute followed by an ordinal number) always refers to a 24 hour day. Never anything else. So it comes down to what God said. When he wanted to say a day was as a thousand years, he assumed you knew what a "day" already was ... 24 hours.
You know that is not what I said.
And said that he himself followed that six day work week. How hard is that? Why do you insist that "day" must have a different meaning in the same context? You want Exod 20 to read: You work six 24 hour days because God worked six long periods of time. That is not what the text says. It makes no sense at all.
I agree, but I don't see how you can. You deny that Gen 1 is accurate becuase you keep insisting that the order found in Gen 2 is accurate. You can't have it both ways. You cannot assert both are true while asserting that one is false (unless "true" and "false" have new meanings). You continually insist that Gen 2 is correct that animals were created after man. Therefore, you must also assert that Genesis 1 is incorrect when it asserts that God created animals before man. He did not create them both before and after.
The English is a translation that makes fine sense. But you were confused by it. Therefore, I pointed you back to what God inspired, the parent document.
I did not lie. You have plainly told us that the Gen 1 order (animals before man) is incorrect because God really created animals after man (cf 2:19). This is not a matter of literal vs. non-literal. It is matter of clear and plain speech. We are not discussing whether the animals are real animals or spiritual things or whatever else. We are discussing the plainly enumerated order of creation.
So if it doesn't matter, why not accept that God told the truth about the order in both 1 and 2 and that your understanding of chapter 2 was wrong? That is the easiest solution. I came to it long ago when I first encountered this issue. Fortunately, it was an easy issue to solve.
How did he get there with an English Bible? What island is he on? Is it tropical or arctic? Does he have sufficient food and supplies??? Why don't you answer all these irrelevant questions as well?????
Your point has been disproven on every single issue you have raised.
Nope ... you know his intention by the words that he used. That is my point. You look for intention in things that cannot be determined (i.e., what might hvae been in his mind). You should be looking for his intention in things that can be determined, like the words that he used. Your attempt to show this as mythopaeic literature falls short of anything besides speculation. My position requires no speculation. It requires only reading the words that he used in their context. More on this shortly.
You are incorrect here. The word YOM, as used in Genesis 1, only ever means 24 hour periods. It never means anything else. If it means long periods of time, or a mere framework, then this is the only 7 uses of it this way in Scripture, that is 7 out of several thousand. If the author intended anything other than 24 hour periods, he would have used different words, based on the objective evidence, rather than a "framework hypothesis." Your position depends on that hypothesis being true even though there is nothing objective to back it up. My position has the objectivity of every single use of YOM in Scripture.
Actually this provides a great opportunity to prove my point. IN 3000 years, that person would have to look back at the word "rose" and particularly how that word was used in connection with "sun." There are certainly enough instances for that person to see that "sun rose" does not refer to a type of flower. Nor does it refer to the movement of the sun. They can very easily tell from its standard usage that it refers to morning, particularly as it revolves around the earth.
You are incorrect here. I am the one approaching it historically. I am trying to get you to do that. I am trying to get you to study the historical use of YOM. I wish you would. When you study this word out in its usage in Gen 1, you will see what I am talking about. The fundamentalist is not anachronistic. You are the one trying to interpret YOM based on modern day principles of theory. I am trying to get you to interpret it on the basis of Scripture. Therein lies the difference. You assume that Scripture cannot mean 24 hour days because of what modern authors say (therefore you ignore the historical context of the usage of YOM). I assert that it must mean 24 hour days because of hte historical context of the author's time period.
I have not presumed a genre entailing anything. I have presumed that words mean things. A text should be understood as it was written. You speculate that it is mythopaeic, in spite of the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that. That is poor scholarship of the worst sort. That is a mockery of dedicated study. You cannot simply assert your ideas onto the text. You must read the text for itself. I do not force inaccuracy on the text. If it your side that is doing that. I am assuming the accuracy of the text.
But this is all speculation. Kline has nothing objective on which to base this ... nothing at all. His is a hypothesis that demands that we ignore the historical context and the historical usage of the words. That is simply unacceptable.
