The smoking gun, of the Earth’s age

[RAdam]

Not at all. They wrote what they knew. God used their styles to show more. I am certain that if Job actually believed the world was placed on a pillar but being destraught in his emotion and said it supported by nothing and God holds it there. Job still believed in the pillar. Certainly Job wasn't thinking gravity and space as we understand it. But God took his terms and used it to reveal a truth. But here is the point. JOB SAID IT FROM WHAT HE WAS THINKING. GOD DID NOT DICTATE IT TO HIM. In otherword it was Job who said it and the spirit gave his words life. There needs to be no patch it still is a cooperation unless you want me to believe God took pen to paper and wrote the whole scriptures himself. God and Man. God orchestrating Man and inspiring him to write. that is cooperation.

That is the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard. Job said something that nobody in the world believed in because he was distraught? Good grief you have quite an imagination. How about a biblical explanation? The Spirit, who inspired him, revealed a great truth to him. Yep, that never happened. Oh, wait a minute, that's exactly how Peter said it worked.

You've taken an unbiblical stance on how the bible was written. The bible shows the errors of what you are saying and it shows them clearly, yet you keep advancing your ridiculous theories. No wonder you have such a hard time taking scripture at its word.

 

[matt wade]

Click USER CP

Click Edit Ignore List

Add Member to your list...
(type) Matt Wade

Click OKAY

DONE!

It's easy!

Fine by me. BTW, if you don't believe in a literal account of creation in Genesis, then you are at odds with your own church.

http://www.metrobaptisttc.org/articles_of_faith.htm

 

[RAdam]

Do not play coy with me! You're saying I used no scripture and the whole synopsis was imagination. When in fact I've shown the literary aspect of refrain like refrains in psalms. The creation account has a musical tint to it with a standard refrain as can be seen literarily.

Since we understand that Moses is responsible for writing the Torah or Pentatuch it is also understood that he obtain the genesis account via oral tradition. Which partly was compiled and partly given by God. Because of these events I made a comment that since we can see a standard musical refrain in the liturature of the creation account that I made a side comment about hebrew children in Egypt singing this stuff as Our children would sing Father Abraham.

your insult came in when you suggested that my noted "imagined" view of children was my method of making the determination about the literary style of writing and organizational method or that I just invented it. Or that I don't use evidence to make a conclusion. That is insulting. Instead of arguing the context of my argument to form a disagreement as a debater would you simply charge me with imagination. That is insulting. The fact is you weren't there and niether was I but it seems there is reasonable supposition that the creation account can be looked at more than one way by literary review of the text.

The bolded type is wrong. I've seen this advanced before, but it is ridiculous. The scripture did not come from oral tradition. It came from God. You said part came from man and part from God. What you said goes against the scripture. Paul said all scripture came from God. The scripture itself proves you wrong. You need to change your position and do so now.

You got your feelings hurt because I said you imagined what you wrote. You claim I insulted you. Grow up. You said something that is not supported by any scripture. Therefore, what you said is based solely upon your imagination. You have no grounds whatsoever to claim that Genesis 1 is a song. But, seeing the way you disregard what scripture says about itself, I'm not surprised that you take such a stance.

 

[RAdam]

If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, you believe in the wrong God. How can one be saved when they believe in the wrong God?

For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid.

I believe fully in the days in Genesis 1 being 24 hour days. I believe that is taught and I believe you have to disregard much scripture in order to conclude anything else. However, God's people won't be lost if they come to some other conclusion. It is ridiculous to say that someone who believes in something other than 24 hour creation days is not born again and saved to heaven. You really need to reconsider such an unbiblical position.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard. Job said something that nobody in the world believed in because he was distraught? Good grief you have quite an imagination. How about a biblical explanation? The Spirit, who inspired him, revealed a great truth to him. Yep, that never happened. Oh, wait a minute, that's exactly how Peter said it worked.

You've taken an unbiblical stance on how the bible was written. The bible shows the errors of what you are saying and it shows them clearly, yet you keep advancing your ridiculous theories. No wonder you have such a hard time taking scripture at its word.

RAdam believe what you will. Job was written like an ancient version of a play by the way and Job was distraught and his statements about God, and the meaning of life were flavored by it. If you want to believe he had a special revelation and was jumping for joy in his ashes go right ahead. But at Least I have the context of the passage. God did reveal a great truth to Job and nothing I've said denies that. Only in your 2way system of belief do you believe that. But it doesn't deny the fact that 1) Job said it. and 2) God used Job distress to make his word known or his point. Cooperation. Do you honestly believe God dictated everyword Job said? because that is what you are arguing for. I've taken a very biblical stance. I take the word in the context of when it was written by whom it was written under the inspiration of God. you've taken the stance that the bible has to agree with you before you read it becuase God dictated every jot and tittle of it to robotic men dictaphones who did not use their minds or abilities for the will of God. How sick is that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The bolded type is wrong. I've seen this advanced before, but it is ridiculous. The scripture did not come from oral tradition. It came from God. You said part came from man and part from God. What you said goes against the scripture. Paul said all scripture came from God. The scripture itself proves you wrong. You need to change your position and do so now.

You got your feelings hurt because I said you imagined what you wrote. You claim I insulted you. Grow up. You said something that is not supported by any scripture. Therefore, what you said is based solely upon your imagination. You have no grounds whatsoever to claim that Genesis 1 is a song. But, seeing the way you disregard what scripture says about itself, I'm not surprised that you take such a stance.

Its been proposed by men of education and literarry understanding of the bible. Its not ridiculous in any sense of the word.
BTW you're the one hurling insults. I didn't start that you did. Which means you need to grow up a bit and deal with things logically. as a matter of fact I what I've said is based on my studies and some very good insites from bible commentators not my imagination. Which you've proven by saying you've heard it espoused before. So its clear what your intent was. You're attempting to be coy.
Also note the bolded in my statement is believed by a greater majority of bible scholars than your view. Since you're in the minority I wonder at its validity.

 

[matt wade]

For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid.

I believe fully in the days in Genesis 1 being 24 hour days. I believe that is taught and I believe you have to disregard much scripture in order to conclude anything else. However, God's people won't be lost if they come to some other conclusion. It is ridiculous to say that someone who believes in something other than 24 hour creation days is not born again and saved to heaven. You really need to reconsider such an unbiblical position.

Would you say the same if someone denied the virgin birth of Christ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You may say that all you like. I believe in Jesus words throughout the entire book of John, not juse 6:51 and 6:53. I know how to take things in context.

There is no additional context to the Genesis account that would tell us that it is anything but a literal 7 day period. The only way to come to the conclusion that it is not a literal 7 day period is by disregarding what it plainly says.

Question for you, since Crabby wouldn't answer, do you believe God instantly created Adam and Eve as fully developed human beings?

(oh, and btw, in my last post it should have said "We are at not at odds with each other. You are at odds with God.".)

I know how to take things in context as well. And its clear that in John 6 Jesus wants his flesh eaten literally. (see how that works)
BTW I believe there was a real Adam and a real Eve that were created as fully developed human beings.

 

[RAdam]

Its been proposed by men of education and literarry understanding of the bible. Its not ridiculous in any sense of the word.
BTW you're the one hurling insults. I didn't start that you did. Which means you need to grow up a bit and deal with things logically. as a matter of fact I what I've said is based on my studies and some very good insites from bible commentators not my imagination. Which you've proven by saying you've heard it espoused before. So its clear what your intent was. You're attempting to be coy.
Also note the bolded in my statement is believed by a greater majority of bible scholars than your view. Since you're in the minority I wonder at its validity.

I've read those supposed men of education make such statements and it was just as ridiculous when they proposed it. To say Moses used oral traditions is just plain ridiculous. To say part of the bible came from man and part from God is disproved by the bible itself. I don't care how much education you have, you cannot get around that.

Apparently you are the greatest mindreader of all time. You know exactly what Job believed despite what he declared. Now you know what my intent was. My intent was to stated what you were doing. You took the first chapter of Genesis and made it into a song children sang. You did so without a single bible verse to back you up. Therefore I said it came from your imagination. You've yet to prove me wrong, by the way. My intent was to state that you made a stance without any scriptural support. It is something you imagined, you created in your own mind, and have no support for. Please, give me a scripture that supports you. If not, grow up and get over it. I wasn't insulting you beyond shining light on how you had no scriptural support.

 

[RAdam]

Would you say the same if someone denied the virgin birth of Christ?

Yes. I think that denying the virgin birth is bad, but what you or I believe won't set aside the will of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I've read those supposed men of education make such statements and it was just as ridiculous when they proposed it. To say Moses used oral traditions is just plain ridiculous. To say part of the bible came from man and part from God is disproved by the bible itself. I don't care how much education you have, you cannot get around that.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't have validity. I don't get quantum physics but it doesn't mean I should disregard it.

Apparently you are the greatest mindreader of all time.

This is what I'm talking about. Just this time its clothed in sarcasm.

You know exactly what Job believed despite what he declared. Now you know what my intent was. My intent was to stated what you were doing.

Certainly I can make the same sarcastic claim of you here.

You took the first chapter of Genesis and made it into a song children sang.

No I didn't make it any thing. I suggested by the literary style that it has a musical refrain (which if you study ancient history you would know was a common method for memorization) that it could be such a Psalm like device to explain creation clearly (like you would to a child). What I did say was that I believe because of its stylistic writing that it breaks creation down into organizational bits represented by a day because of that refrain thus day 3 is more explitive of the day 1 account , and day 4 is the same for day 2 etc.... Then I suggested that I used my imagination to imagine children singing this creation song in Egypt where the gods held more sway over the nation than the hebrew God. But I made a clear diliniation between what I imagined and what I gathered from the passages.

You did so without a single bible verse to back you up.

I used the text itself.

Therefore I said it came from your imagination.

and since I made a clear diliniation I found this to be an insult.

You've yet to prove me wrong, by the way.

You've yet to prove me me wrong with the creation account.

My intent was to state that you made a stance without any scriptural support.

I know what your intent was and it was invalid because I used the text itself.

 

[RAdam]

I've yet to prove you wrong on the creation account? Hardly. The same man that wrote the first chapter of Genesis said that in six days God created the heaven and the earth and rested the seventh. Moses didn't break down the creation into days to help children understand it. He did so because he was moved by the Spirit to write it that way. The reason the Spirit moved him to write it that way is because God created the universe in 6 days. You can refuse to believe that if you want, but I'll let scripture interpret scripture rather than placing something onto the text that isn't there.

How is sarcastically stating what you are doing insulting? Really, I refuse to buy it. You've been in enough discussions on here that I don't buy the thin skin.

The text of Genesis 1 is clearly historical in nature. It is not written like a psalm. It is not poetry. It is not music. It is a simple historical account of how God created everything.

 

[RAdam]

By the way, on the idea of Moses getting Genesis 1 from tradition:

Abraham was called out of Ur of the Chaldees. He dwelt in Mesopotamia. He lived amongst the Chaldeans, or what we would ultimately refer to as Chaldeans. The Chaldeans did have a tradition of history, which some refer to as the Chaldean Genesis. However, this tradition only bears very faint shadows of what we have in the bible. It is, rather, a hightly corrupted and grotesque tradition which shows that men had at one the truth, or some form of the truth, but had over time changed the truth of God into a lie. They had corrupted what they had originally and what remained bore little of the original truth. Had Moses written by tradition he would have written either Egyptian tradition (seeing that he was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians) or these Chaldean traditions. But, what Moses wrote was utterly unlike both those traditions. What Moses wrote was clearly far above both sets of traditions. Moses wrote something that no man on earth believed at that time. It must have come from God.

Then we go to the bible and find that the bible tells us exactly that. That all scripture came from God. That holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That what had been prophesied didn't come by the will of man, but rather the Spirit in them did testify before of the things of Christ.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Would you say the same if someone denied the virgin birth of Christ?

That is MUCH, MUCH different that not believing in literal 24 hour days or a 144 hour period of creation.

Take a deep breath and count to 10.

 

[matt wade]

That is MUCH, MUCH different that not believing in literal 24 hour days or a 144 hour period of creation.

Take a deep breath and count to 10.

No, it isn't. Both are factual events in the Bible. Why is it such a big deal for you that people believe that the virgin birth is factual? Take those reasons and apply them to creation. Now you know how I feel.

 

[preachinjesus]

It is a dangerous thing to base one's salvation of what they do or do not believe theologically. The heresy of gnosticism teaches that one is secured in salvation via the attainment of knowledge or specific doctines.

Christianity doesn't teach this, rather we are saved grace through faith in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. Salvation for Christians is not about theological knowledge.

Now this is not to say Christians shouldnt attain to right belief. Part of sanctification is holding correct doctrines.

To say Christians must hold XYZ doctrines before salvation is to subvert New Testament teaching.

 

[matt wade]

It is a dangerous thing to base one's salvation of what they do or do not believe theologically. The heresy of gnosticism teaches that one is secured in salvation via the attainment of knowledge or specific doctines.

Christianity doesn't teach this, rather we are saved grace through faith in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. Salvation for Christians is not about theological knowledge.

Now this is not to say Christians shouldnt attain to right belief. Part of sanctification is holding correct doctrines.

To say Christians must hold XYZ doctrines before salvation is to subvert New Testament teaching.

I don't believe that a certain knowledge saves a person. Jesus Christ saves a person. But would you think that a person that thinks that God did not create the world, that the world is here by sheer chance, and that evolution is completely true (that we evolved from a single celled organism) is saved? Is a person that believes only in Jesus and his resurrection saved or is there more to the belief than that? I believe there is more to the belief and I'm sure you do as well.

 

[Jedi Knight]

6 24 hour days!!! :jesus:

 

[Mexdeaf]

No, it isn't. Both are factual events in the Bible. Why is it such a big deal for you that people believe that the virgin birth is factual? Take those reasons and apply them to creation. Now you know how I feel.

A person who denies that Jesus was born of a virgin denies that he was the Son of God. But a person who denies a 6-24 hour day Creation and believes in the Gap theory or that it took longer does not deny any essential facts about Christ or salvation.

But if you want to foolishly damn all the people who you disagree with to hell, go right ahead. Your opinions (and that's what they are) have no standing with God anyways.

I personally hold to 6-24, but as I said earlier there are many men of God who do not and have not.

 

[matt wade]

A person who denies that Jesus was born of a virgin denies that he was the Son of God. But a person who denies a 6-24 hour day Creation and believes in the Gap theory or that it took longer does not deny any essential facts about Christ or salvation.

A person that denies the literal creation account denies that God is God. Is that not as bad as denying that Jesus is the Son of God?