NT six literal days

[tragic_pizza]

If God is perfect, and Scripture is the Word of God, then Scripture must be perfect. If it is less than perfect, then God made a mistake, and therefore, God is not perfect. It is either the perfect Word of a perfect God or it is not.

You are setting up a book as God. That is idolatry.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I would have to agree with SBCPreacher on this one.

If Scripture is not God then what is John talking about in John 1:1?

John is writing about the Word made flesh.

And if God is incapable of getting His message out 100% accurately then who gets to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are believable and which parts of Scripture are human error or God error either or? And an even bigger question is why would you want to be believe in or serve a diety that isn't even capable of producing and inerrant text?

Please show me where I have said that God is incapable of anything. One place. One. Show me.

And yes, I joyfully serve the God who inspired Scripture.

 

[SBCPreacher]

You are setting up a book as God. That is idolatry.

You err again. I do not worship the "book." I don't worship the paper and ink. I worship the perfect God who gave us His perfect Word.

Let's see, what is it that you're so quick to say...
Don't put words in my mouth. :tongue3:

 

[tragic_pizza]

You err again. I do not worship the "book." I don't worship the paper and ink. I worship the perfect God who gave us His perfect Word.

Let's see, what is it that you're so quick to say...
Don't put words in my mouth.

I put no words in your mouth. I reflected what you said: the Bible and God must be equally perfect. The only possible interpretation of that idea is that the Bible and God are the same.

Thus, idolatry. You would do well to self-examine on this point rather than attack.

 

[SBCPreacher]

I put no words in your mouth. I reflected what you said: the Bible and God must be equally perfect. The only possible interpretation of that idea is that the Bible and God are the same.

Thus, idolatry. You would do well to self-examine on this point rather than attack.

Since you obviously did not read my post, let me say it again: I do not worship the "book." I don't worship the paper and ink. I worship the perfect God who gave us His perfect Word.

Read. Don't assume. Read.

BTW, if that is the only interpretation you can come up with from what I've said, you need to sharpen your interpretation skills.

 

[J. Jump]

You are setting up a book as God.

Well there are some people within Christendom that would hold the actual book up as God. And that would be idolatry as far as my understanding.

However that is not what was being proclaimed to you. Instead of asking for clarification it was actually you that went on attack and made an attacking statement.

If you didn't understand what was being said then all you simply need to do is ask for clarification. We are not setting up a book as God. However the words that God spoke are God. They are One in the Same.

John is writing about the Word made flesh.

Well that was certainly part of it, but John also establishes the fact that the Word is God and God is the Word. The Word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among man for a time.

Please show me where I have said that God is incapable of anything.

Here is your quote:

Saying Scripture must be perfect is saying Scripture must be God.

It seems to be pretty clear that you are saying that Scripture either one doesn't have to be perfect or that Scripture isn't perfect.

Now if you think Scripture is inerrant that is an awfully funny way of saying it. So for clarification are you saying God is capable of making a perfect text and just chose not to? What purpose would that serve?

I reflected what you said: the Bible and God must be equally perfect. The only possible interpretation of that idea is that the Bible and God are the same.

You are making a presumptuous connection that only you are seeing. You are equating the Bible with the physical book. And no one has said the physical book of the Bible is God. However the Words of Scripture are God.

Now we could get into a translation debate with this next statement . . . and that only holds true to the "original" Words in whatever langauge they were given in. The rest of what we have today are the translation of those Words and are not 100% accurate.

Hope that clarifies for you.

 

[J. Jump]

The Gap reason exists solely for the reason that at that time believers had no way to answer the so-called scientific views of the popular Darwinian views of the time. So they came up with the Gap Theory where they could shove all that evolutionary garbage, and be done with it. The trouble is, that it contradicts the word of God.

Actually this isn't true regarding the Gap Theory as some call it. Yes there are some that believe what you have stated, but the Gap Theory was not created to fix a problem.

The idea of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 goes way back. For literary evidence one just need to look at the Septuagint which translates the two texts with evidence of a gap.

And here's why Genesis 1 can not be speaking of the actual creation of the earth, because in 1:2 we find the earth in a state of darkness and void. In Isaiah God tells us He did not create the earth in this state.

The essence of what is being said is that God created something that wasn't perfect and then worked on it until it was. So how can a perfect God make something that is imperfect?

The amazing thing about Scripture is that it leaves us with only one possible answer. And the only possible answer that makes any sense in this text is that God created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1 and then something happened between 1:1 and 1:2 that left the earth in a ruined condition. From the second half of 1:2 through the seven days we see work of redemption on God's behalf with a rest on the seventh day.

This is exactly why God makes such a big deal concerning the six days of work and a seventh day of rest. This is a sign of God once again redeeming a fallen creation and He will work for six days (six thousand years) and He will rest on the seventh day (1,000-year reign of Christ).

 

[tragic_pizza]

Well there are some people within Christendom that would hold the actual book up as God. And that would be idolatry as far as my understanding.

Indeed.

However that is not what was being proclaimed to you. Instead of asking for clarification it was actually you that went on attack and made an attacking statement.

I reacted to what was said. It is not my fault if people lack the ability to be articulate enough to say what they actually mean, if it is different.

If you didn't understand what was being said then all you simply need to do is ask for clarification. We are not setting up a book as God. However the words that God spoke are God. They are One in the Same.

Excuse me? So the standard for God is that every word is not simply from God, but is God? Wow. That means that the Bible, being the Word of God, is God.

Thus, idolatry.

Well that was certainly part of it, but John also establishes the fact that the Word is God and God is the Word. The Word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among man for a time.

The Logos became flesh. Look it up.

It seems to be pretty clear that you are saying that Scripture either one doesn't have to be perfect or that Scripture isn't perfect.

Now if you think Scripture is inerrant that is an awfully funny way of saying it. So for clarification are you saying God is capable of making a perfect text and just chose not to? What purpose would that serve?

The purpose of Scripture is clear. Inerrancy is not neccessary, but infallibility is. Scripture is infallible.

You are making a presumptuous connection that only you are seeing. You are equating the Bible with the physical book. And no one has said the physical book of the Bible is God. However the Words of Scripture are God.

Oh, my. The Bible contains Scripture, which is God, but isn't God? That's the most convoluted method of thinking I have heard since my conversation with the Moonies.

Now we could get into a translation debate with this next statement . . . and that only holds true to the "original" Words in whatever langauge they were given in. The rest of what we have today are the translation of those Words and are not 100% accurate.

Cop out.

Hope that clarifies for you.

Nope.

 

[J. Jump]

Nope.

And I think it's pretty clear why now. Don't know what your agenda is. Don't care to know what your agenda is, but you obviously have one. So that is enough for me to end our conversation.

You obviously want to read what you want to read into people's words regardless of what was said and I don't have time to deal with that. I don't think that warrants what some people have said about you, but you clearly don't want to have an orderly conversation.

 

[DHK]

Actually this isn't true regarding the Gap Theory as some call it. Yes there are some that believe what you have stated, but the Gap Theory was not created to fix a problem.

I believe it was. But you are entitled to your opinion.

The idea of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 goes way back. For literary evidence one just need to look at the Septuagint which translates the two texts with evidence of a gap.

The Septuagint doesn't teach that; your interpretation of it does. Besides that the Septuagint isn't inspired. It is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and like all translations is prone to mistranslations and error. What does the Hebrew actually say? That is what defines the question.

And here's why Genesis 1 can not be speaking of the actual creation of the earth, because in 1:2 we find the earth in a state of darkness and void. In Isaiah God tells us He did not create the earth in this state.

Isaiah doesn't really say that, does he? The KJV has a weak translation of that particular verse that you haven't given a reference to. Give the reference and we will look at it in more detail.

The essence of what is being said is that God created something that wasn't perfect and then worked on it until it was. So how can a perfect God make something that is imperfect?

That is akin to blasphemy. God never created anything that wasn't perfect. That is where the Gap Theory fails miserably. God is a perfect God, and when he looked on all his creation he saw that it was very good. There was never anything that God created that wasn't perfectly good, including the heavens and the earth.
"In the begiinning God created the heaven and the earth." That is just a summary statement of what is to follow.

The amazing thing about Scripture is that it leaves us with only one possible answer. And the only possible answer that makes any sense in this text is that God created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1 and then something happened between 1:1 and 1:2 that left the earth in a ruined condition. From the second half of 1:2 through the seven days we see work of redemption on God's behalf with a rest on the seventh day.

Obviously, as I just mentioned, that is not the only possible answer. Verse one is a summary statement of what is to follow. Most paragraphs start off with a topic sentence, a statement that introduces the topic that is to follow. That is true in this case. The verse two follows with how God began to create the earth. There is no gap. That is just imaginary. It contradicts too much Scripture. There was no death before Adam. Scripture plainly states that, and yet you contradict it.

This is exactly why God makes such a big deal concerning the six days of work and a seventh day of rest. This is a sign of God once again redeeming a fallen creation and He will work for six days (six thousand years) and He will rest on the seventh day (1,000-year reign of Christ).

God doesn't make a big deal about a gap. It is never mentioned in the rest of the Old Testament. It is never mentioned in the New Testament. It is never mentioned at all. The entire Bible is silent on such a monumental event. If such an event happened it would be mentioned somewhere in Scripture, but it is not. It is just imaginary. All other major events of the OT are referred to somewhere else in the NT. This so-called gap is not. The reason--it never happened.
And BTW, God only speaks of one redemption, one race. You are reading into Scripture something that is not there.
There is no dying on the cross and provision or redemption for any other race; be they the Martians, Plutonians, other outer space aliens, or so-called pre-Adamic race. They don't exist. God so loved "the world" (this one). And that is the knowledge that we must go on.

 

[J. Jump]

I believe it was. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Right back at ya.

The Septuagint doesn't teach that;

I believe it does. But you are entitled to your opinion

your interpretation of it does.

It's not left up to interpretation. You just go with what it says. Most modern-day translators translate the first word "And," however the Septuagint translates the first word "But," detecting not a connection of the two vereses, but a disconnect of the two verses. That's not interpretation that's just what it says.

Besides that the Septuagint isn't inspired. It is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and like all translations is prone to mistranslations and error.

DHK the same thing can be said of modern-day translators. So you want us to believe that folks in 1611 were smarter than the Hebrew scholars that translated the Septuagint? Of course it isn't inspired. But neither is modern-day translation so your argument here is moot.

What does the Hebrew actually say? That is what defines the question.

Now something that we can agree upon. And that is the part that leads to confusion. There are if I'm not mistaken three different ways the word can be translated in the Hebrew langauge and all them of them are accurate translation. However context and the rest of Scripture well tell us which one is correct in this particular case. And the only one that fits with the rest of the way Scripture is laid out is But and not And.

Another translational issue in 1:2 is "was" and "became." The same Hebrew word is translated "was" in 1:2, but is "became" in several other places in chapter 1.

So the language in and of itself is not going to answer the question because was and became are both correct. Again however the rest of Scripture tells us which one is correct. And that would be became.

Isaiah doesn't really say that, does he?

Okay you're right. It was the Holy Spirit through Isaiah that said it. That should be better .

The KJV has a weak translation of that particular verse that you haven't given a reference to. Give the reference and we will look at it in more detail.

Actually I don't see how that is the case. Here is the verse:
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.

God said He didn't create the earth in the form it was in in verse 2. Call me crazy, but I believe what He says.

That is akin to blasphemy. God never created anything that wasn't perfect.

THANK YOU! That's my whole point. God did not create the earth a waste place. He said He didn't and it's impossible for Him to do so. Therefore verse 2 can not be the starte of a more detailed account of creation. It's impossible. Another reason we know the language to be "But" and "became."

God is a perfect God, and when he looked on all his creation he saw that it was very good. There was never anything that God created that wasn't perfectly good, including the heavens and the earth.

Exactly. Again you prove my point. Notice that at the end of verse 2 God does not say that the earth in this condition is good. That's because it wasn't good. It wasn't in a state that God created it in.

Obviously, as I just mentioned, that is not the only possible answer. Verse one is a summary statement of what is to follow. Most paragraphs start off with a topic sentence, a statement that introduces the topic that is to follow. That is true in this case. The verse two follows with how God began to create the earth. There is no gap. That is just imaginary. It contradicts too much Scripture. There was no death before Adam. Scripture plainly states that, and yet you contradict it.

Again see the statement above. Verse 2 can not be the beginning of how God created the heavens and the earth because if it is so then His first step was not a perfect step and therefore an impossibility.

And nowhere have I said that death entered into the gap. I have not contradicted anything. I have never said that anything died in this gap. You are placing me into the "Gap Theory" folks. And yes there are some serious issues with some of their thinking. But just because someone tries to cram untruth into a Scriptural Truth, doesn't make that Scriptural Truth untrue.

That is the argument that most try to make against the actual teaching of a gap inbetween these two verses. I'm sorry some folks messed with Scripture, but Truth is still Truth.

God doesn't make a big deal about a gap.

You quoted me, but you didn't read what I wrote. I never said God made a big deal out of the gap. God made a bid deal out of the six days of work and the seventh day of rest.

If such an event happened it would be mentioned somewhere in Scripture, but it is not.

Says who? You? By what authority do you say that?

And BTW, God only speaks of one redemption, one race.

Well if you are talking about one redemption of that one race I would agree. There is only one race that will be redeemed.

There is no dying on the cross and provision or redemption for any other race;

And again you a putting one in my mouth that I never said. I never said there was redemption for another other race of people. You need to stick with what is actually said .

 

[tragic_pizza]

And I think it's pretty clear why now. Don't know what your agenda is. Don't care to know what your agenda is, but you obviously have one. So that is enough for me to end our conversation.

You obviously want to read what you want to read into people's words regardless of what was said and I don't have time to deal with that. I don't think that warrants what some people have said about you, but you clearly don't want to have an orderly conversation.

I have no agenda that I know of. I reflected back what you said, and that is that.

 

[J. Jump]

I reflected back what you said, and that is that.

Not only did you not do that. You even ignored the clarification that was given to you. You clearly have your own ideas and are insistent on them and so be it. You are wrong. That's not what we said and it's not what we believe. Why you won't accept that I don't know, but again you are entitled to "think" whatever you want to.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Not only did you not do that. You even ignored the clarification that was given to you. You clearly have your own ideas and are insistent on them and so be it. You are wrong. That's not what we said and it's not what we believe. Why you won't accept that I don't know, but again you are entitled to "think" whatever you want to.

What clarification? That there is some magical division in terms between the Bible and whatever nebulous thing "Scripture" then is?

Ridiculous.

 

[J. Jump]

What clarification? That there is some magical division in terms between the Bible and whatever nebulous thing "Scripture" then is?

Ridiculous.

And you wonder why you get the reaction that you get from some folks. It shouldn't come as any surprise. When you respond in such manner to folks more often than not you are going to get the same back in response to you.

As for me I'm done.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If you had followed this thread from the beginning then you would have realized that the very reason the idea of Genesis one was suggested to be poetry was to allow for the theory that creation was NOT a literal six day creation.

I did follow it from the beginning.

However, the claim was made that it is not poetry, when it is.

If your view is righteous, why do you need to lie about it to win the debate?

Many KJVOs do the same thing. (Although I think their position is in grave error.) They make many, many false claims to "prove" that they are right.

Why not argue from the standpoint of truth?

That's what I did.

The SDA's do not believe in the eternal damnation of the wicked. The story of the rich man and Lazarus teaches the eternal damnation very vividly. This story is very much different than any parable, and should not be taken as a parable. Yet the SDA's claim it to be a parable. Because it is a parable they now can claim that eternal punishment is not really eternal punishment and Jesus really did nnot mean that because it was only a parable not to be taken literally in that aspect.

Well, the SDA's are in error if they don't believe in the everlasting punishment of the unsaved.

But, since eternity is not in view in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (which I agree is probably not a parable, but may be), they have the wrong error in the story.

However, even if it is a parable, we are always given enough information to interpret a parable. For example, in the parable in which the man sowed seed in the field, we are told that the seed was sown in a field. In Matthew 13:38, we are told that the field is the world. So, we can then look further to see what it means.

Just because it's a parable doesn't mean it's not true.

The amillennialist doesn't believe in a thousand year millennial reigin of Christ. Even thought the term "thousand years" is mentioned five times in Revelation 20, the amilllennialist will claim that it doesn't mean a thousand years because the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols and therefore the phrase "thousand years" can be taken symbolically as well. It is not literal.

And yet, most Baptists ignore the warnings concerning the Millennial reign, and say, "Won't it be wonderful when we all get to rule and reign?!"

Thus in the same way if the Genesis one is poetical then it doesn't have to mean six literal days, for it is only poetry.

That's not the only reason that it doesn't have to mean six literal days.

But, there are also Scriptural reasons for thinking that it does mean six literal days.

Should we therefore then ignore what is there, or make up stuff, or twist and distort, or should we look at what is present and compare Scripture to Scripture?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Are these all things in which you "merely have opinions" but the Bible has no actual statement?

And yet, you reject a simple and straighforward biblical statement that once you are saved, you are saved forever, and cannot lose that, no matter what.

Now, I would say that if it were simple and straightforward, we would not be having this conversation. But, my above example proves that to be an untrue idea. Even simple, straightforward statements in the Bible are disbelieved, much less ones that are a bit more clouded, such as Genesis 1.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet, you reject a simple and straighforward biblical statement that "once you are saved, you are saved forever, and cannot lose that, no matter what".

How about an "actual" Bible statement??

I think I know one --

Fallen and yet hoping to be “grafted BACK in again” into the vine of Christ!

Rom 11
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness[/b]; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23And [b]they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.




24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Now, I would say that if it were simple and straightforward, we would not be having this conversation. But, my above example proves that to be an untrue idea. Even simple, straightforward statements in the Bible are disbelieved, much less ones that are a bit more clouded, such as Genesis 1.

Well as this list above shows - you are in fact disbelieving these texts -- but my question is about what you actually DO believe - as in the six day Creation infortion GOD gives -- you claim that it is easy to see it in the text but this could just be your own imagination.

So the question "remains" -- where exactly does EXEGESIS enter into your equation?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I did follow it from the beginning.

However, the claim was made that it is not poetry, when it is.

Because a claim is made that Genesis one is poetry does not make it poetry. This is absurd. No one has presented viable evidence for the first chapter of Genesis to be poetry. I also find it ridiculous for posters to be arguing from a standpoint of Genesis one sounding poetical in the KJV when Moses did not speak the KJV. What kind of argument is that!! How many of you are so well versed in Hebrew that you can tell that this is Hebrew poetry? No one that has made the claim that this is Hebrew poetry has been able to back it up. It is a novel claim without any evidence.

If your view is righteous, why do you need to lie about it to win the debate?

I resent being called a liar. Where did I lie?

Many KJVOs do the same thing. (Although I think their position is in grave error.) They make many, many false claims to "prove" that they are right.

Yes, that is what is being done here. People are making a false claim that this poetry. This claim was never made before. It is novel. Now for some odd reason people are swallowing hook line and snker like gullible little fishes. Why? There is no evidence, and none has been presented, except the findings of one man, whose work has been discredited.

Why not argue from the standpoint of truth?
That's what I did.

I do; but I can't say the same for you; especially when you resort to calling others liars.

Should we therefore then ignore what is there, or make up stuff, or twist and distort, or should we look at what is present and compare Scripture to Scripture?

In your theory you are making up things that are nowhere else found in Scripture. You have to account for that.

 

[BobRyan]

That isn't true. He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours, not whether it was a literal creation. You guys need to open your eyse and ears and recognize that your continual condemnation on this issue is the reason I suggested that it isn't worth the battle to fight and prove a literal 24 hours. NOBODY HAS DENIED THAT GOD CREATED. IF I'M WRONG, SHOW ME THE POST WHERE SOMEONE DENIED THAT GOD CREATED.

You can not "deny the DETAILS in the ACCOUNT that God gives" and then claim to believe it "while rejecting it"!!

It just does not work that way,.

in Christ,

Bob