NT six literal days

[ccdnt]

Genesis is poetry and theology, not science.

Will you show by the original languages - syntax, grammatical constructs, context, etc. - why the creation account in Genesis was meant to be understood as poetry?

Also, I would be interested to see your rebuttal to the points made in this article:

Did God really take six days?

 

[ccdnt]

Well we really don't know how long it took God to create the earth, because He doesn't tell us. We are just told:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Verse 2 and continuing is talking about something else.

Are you referring to the Gap Theory here (which I have seen thoroughly rebutted)?

 

[ccdnt]

One would expect a prescientific peoples to accept the account.

The account came from God. Are you trying to argue that He is "prescientific"?

 

[tragic_pizza]

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

No, I wasn't referring to the six-day folk here, but to those who wrote the Scriptures. It was a prescientific culture - a historic label, not a pejorative one.

I say this is not a hill worthy dying on...yet I tend to lean more towards a literal six-days. I would say we begin to miss the entire point of the first few chapters if we put too much time into this debate.

Well, of course. It irks me, though, that so many people make this the "Holy Grail" of faith - as if one must believe in Christ and worship Scripture as God before one can be "saved."

 

[tragic_pizza]

I said nothing about your eternal destination. I'm just saying that I believe that God's Word is true - all of it, every single word. I'm sorry that you don't.

[slanderous statement deleted]

I believe that Scriptures are the Word of God. You cannot prove that I don't, and I demand an apology for your slander of me.

 

[tragic_pizza]

The account came from God. Are you trying to argue that He is "prescientific"?

Don't put words in my mouth, child. Learn some history, then get back to me.
[The above is unwarranted. Learn debate; not name-calling.]

 

[dan e.]

No, I wasn't referring to the six-day folk here, but to those who wrote the Scriptures. It was a prescientific culture - a historic label, not a pejorative one.

Well, of course. It irks me, though, that so many people make this the "Holy Grail" of faith - as if one must believe in Christ and worship Scripture as God before one can be "saved."

Gotcha.

Here's something interesting....once the Sun had been created, isn't it safe to assume that our 24 hour day was in affect as far as the earth rotating around the sun? If everything was "up and running", wouldn't that be an observation supporting a 24 hour day? As far as before the sun and earth were created, before day 4, I think, than who knows how long each "day" was?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Tragic, you are a hateful dude. Why do you even come here ? You got a lot of nerve demanding apologies the way you act around here. I think the chip on yer shoulder is starting to weigh you down.

I would say, after years of reading your posts, that you pick & choose what scripture you believe, and lambaste those who don't agree with you as beneath you.

And it appears that you only come here to make baptists look bad. And in trying, you come off as a tantrum throwing bully.

 

[SBCPreacher]

You are a liar.

I believe that Scriptures are the Word of God. You cannot prove that I don't, and I demand an apology for your slander of me.

I have been called many names by rude people before. This does not bother me - I jsut consider the source.

Nothing I have read from you leads me to believe that you consider the entire Word of God to be true. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. So if you would be so kind, please tell me, do you believe that the entire Word of God is true? Every word?

 

[veracious]

The Lord Jesus quoted the OT many times. He talked of Jonah, Noah, Moses, Elijah. He quoted scripture many times from the OT, so it seems that Jesus validated the OT as truth. I think we can trust that if it says God created the world in 6 days, that He really did.

I agree totally!

Moses believed that it was six literal days.
So did God when He gave the Ten Commandments.

There you have two witnesses. Case closed.

 

[ccdnt]

...child...

Why do you feel the need to resort to name calling?

Learn some history, then get back to me.

I have learned history. To what history are you referring? I believe that God is the author of the Bible. Yes, He used humans to write the Bible, but they were inspired by God. What they wrote, God wanted them to write...hence, it is the Word of God. If God says He created in six days, then that is what I believe.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I have been called many names by rude people before. This does not bother me - I jsut consider the source.

Nothing I have read from you leads me to believe that you consider the entire Word of God to be true. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. So if you would be so kind, please tell me, do you believe that the entire Word of God is true? Every word?

Yep.

The difference between you and I is that I don't have to force Scripture into being historically and scientifically true to be theologically true.

And I do not have to slander other fellow Christians in the process of making my point.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Why do you feel the need to resort to name calling?

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

I have learned history. To what history are you referring?

OK, let's see how muich you know about history. How did humanity learn about itself and pass on its lore through the ages. Tell me, what happened between the time that the earth was created and someone wrote it down? How did the histories and genealogies get passed along?

I believe that God is the author of the Bible. Yes, He used humans to write the Bible, but they were inspired by God. What they wrote, God wanted them to write...hence, it is the Word of God. If God says He created in six days, then that is what I believe.

So you believe the first creation account? What about the second one?

 

[ccdnt]

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Not trying to...just asking a question. I did not say what you were doing; I asked if that is what you were doing. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. Asking a question already knowing what the answer will probably be is not necessarily putting words in someone's mouth. Rhetorical questions can be useful to make a point.

OK, let's see how muich you know about history. How did humanity learn about itself and pass on its lore through the ages. Tell me, what happened between the time that the earth was created and someone wrote it down? How did the histories and genealogies get passed along?

What does any of your questions have to do with this?

So you believe the first creation account? What about the second one?

You ask a leading question that presumes that there are two creation accounts - I assume you refer to the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts. Your question is irrevelant since there is only one creation account.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you referring to the Gap Theory here (which I have seen thoroughly rebutted)?

Not entirely. People that hold to the Gap Theory believe that everything they can't explain fits into the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. However, the gap is not there to place what they consider to be unexplainable things.

There is an unknown gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

If this has been thoroughly rebutted then please explain how that is so, because this is the framework that the rest of Scripture lies on.

I'll be awaiting your response.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Not trying to...just asking a question. I did not say what you were doing; I asked if that is what you were doing. It was somewhat of a rhetorical question. Asking a question already knowing what the answer will probably be is not necessarily putting words in someone's mouth. Rhetorical questions can be useful to make a point.

Whatever.

What does any of your questions have to do with this?

Simply showing that you don't know as much history as you say you do. For example:

You ask a leading question that presumes that there are two creation accounts - I assume you refer to the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts. Your question is irrevelant since there is only one creation account.

Wrong. Have a nice evening.

 

[ccdnt]

If this has been thoroughly rebutted then please explain how that is so, because this is the framework that the rest of Scripture lies on.

I'll be awaiting your response.

I can provide you with link(s) to articles that I think have rebutted this, but most likely you will disagree.

 

[ccdnt]

tragic_pizza,

I actually had answered some of your questions when I realized that what you asked did not matter anyway and I took them off. I can gather from the "history" questions you asked what you are setting up here but I really do not see the point in going in that direction since you will probably just disagree with what I say.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Perhaps, in the spirit of honest debate, somebody could explain to me where I could find two different biblical creation accounts ?

 

[J. Jump]

Perhaps, in the spirit of honest debate, somebody could explain to me where I could find two different biblical creation accounts?

In that same spirit of honest debate, could somebody show me where God said He "created" the heavens and the earth in six days?

I can provide you with link(s) to articles that I think have rebutted this, but most likely you will disagree.

Why don't you just take a crack at showing why and how there is no gap between 1:1 and 1:2.