Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[Revmitchell]

which is why on the other thread I showed how a simple word can be misconstrued by how its interpreted from tassel to hem.

Again what you showed is your lack of understanding of that word. The hem is the tassel. They are one and the same.


Note* For those of you who wish to once again show up on my blog and use vile words to describe your distaste about my views of science. Do not bother. I know who you are and where you come from. I can track everyone who visits my blog.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No? You seem to deny a literal six day creation.



Really name them. And tell us who is making said discoveries. It would not be liberal scientist who wish to discredit anything the Scriptures say would it?
And if the literal 6 day account is brought into question then why not any other miracle in the Bible? Say the salvation of sinners maybe?



Then you believe in a Creation account as the Scriptures declare it to be?

Not in the way you think it.

Here are some questions that bring about questioning Genesis 6

No recent lunar vulcanic activity.

Age of rocks using radiometric dating

The bacteria phlegelum a developement from a syringe type prosbuctus than an motor

Mars had it own flood?

just to name a few.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again what you showed is your lack of understanding of that word. The hem is the tassel. They are one and the same.

Tassel in our context means something entirely different than Hem. The greek word is the same but culturally we can determine that it was Jesus' tassel that he was required by law to wear. Again they are not the same thing the same word is used to describe either but can be understood better in the cultural context of the day not our modern day. Oi Vey!

 

[Revmitchell]

Tassel in our context means something entirely different than Hem. The greek word is the same but culturally we can determine that it was Jesus' tassel that he was required by law to wear. Again they are not the same thing the same word is used to describe either but can be understood better in the cultural context of the day not our modern day. Oi Vey!

You are wrong.

Commentary by Barnes

Touched the hem of his garment - This garment was probably the square garment which was thrown over the shoulders. See notes at Mat_5:40. This was surrounded by a border or “fringe;” and this “fringe,” or the loose threads hanging down, is what is meant by the “hem.” The Jews were commanded to wear this, in order to distinguish them from other nations. See Num_15:38-39; Deu_22:12.
Mark says that “the woman, fearing and trembling,” came and told him all the truth. Perhaps she feared that, from the impure nature of her disease, he would be offended that she touched him.

Commentary by Clark

The hem of his garment - The ציצית tsitsith, or fringes, which the Jews were commanded to wear on their garments. See Num_15:38, and the note there.

Commentary By Gill

and touched the hem of his garment; which was the ציצת, or "fringes", the Jews were obliged to wear upon the borders of their garments, and on it a ribband of blue; see Num_15:38 in both which places Onkelos uses the word כרוספדין, the same with κρασπεδον, used here, and in Mar_6:56 and rendered "hem". The Jews placed much sanctity in the wear and use of these fringes; and the Pharisees, who pretended to more holiness than others, enlarged them beyond their common size; but it was not on account of any peculiar holiness in this part of Christ's garment, that induced this poor woman to touch it; but this being behind him, and more easy to be come at, she therefore laid hold on it; for it was his garment, any part of it she concluded, if she could but touch, she should have a cure. However, we learn from hence, that Christ complied with the rites of the ceremonial law in apparel, as well as in other things.

(x) Ib. Issure Bia, c. 6. sect. 7, 8. & in Misn. Nidda, c. 4. sect. 7.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are wrong.

Clark and Gill seem to agree with me. But I can get a commentary to say they were tassels

the Jews were obliged to wear upon the borders of their garments, and on it a ribband of blue

Oblidge by the Law as I've said. Different conotation to corner of a garment like the the first quote.

 

[4His_glory]

Not in the way you think it.

Here are some questions that bring about questioning Genesis 6

No recent lunar vulcanic activity.

Age of rocks using radiometric dating

The bacteria phlegelum a developement from a syringe type prosbuctus than an motor

Mars had it own flood?

just to name a few.

So now that we can question the Creation account, why not question any other part of the Scripture that we so choose? Fact is if we can deny creation, we open the door up for denial of the rest of God's Word. Which is the clear intent of many who deny a literal 6 deny creation, even the Hebrew grammatical structure of the passage does not allow for anything other than a 6 day creation.

As to your examples:
Radioisotope dating has a tract record of not being accurate. The others I will confess I have never looked into.

 

[Revmitchell]

Clark and Gill seem to agree with me. But I can get a commentary to say they were tassels Oblidge by the Law as I've said. Different conotation to corner of a garment like the the first quote.

You would have to pull out selective words to come to that conclusion.

 

[Palatka51]

I'm sure the Rev is a good man. But we're talking about science and creation and how the genesis account is interpreted. And as far as miracles I don't deny them.

And creation is not a miracle? Isn't that exactly how God does things? Something to think about while you are..... "Thinkingstuff". :type:

5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7Be not wise in thine own eyes:

 

[HankD]

Is God so small He could not have created a day that is billions of years?

Is God so big He could not have created a day that is 24 hours?

Personally, I for one am not questioning anyone's faith that believe the "days" of Genesis 1 are "epochs" or metaphorical or even allegorical.

I just don't believe there is reason to reassign the "YOM"s of Genesis 1 to something other than a 24 hour day. God doesn't need a Timex to know when 24 hours has past.

I'm a software architect, I create software, thats my job. One of the first things that I do is create a Functional Specification which gives a narrative description of the functions which the software will perform.

The functional descriptions do not need to be in the order of execution of the final program. In fact I can often develop the functions separately and test them with what are called prototypes with supplied artificial parameters.

Then, finally, I put them all together in the order they are to be performed and run a Unit Test.


Why couldn't God do this, the one who created me and gave me the mind to also be creative?

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

Science has come up with dozens of theories concerning origins.
They change with every generation and have changed even within my life time and are changing even as we speak.​

Look, God existed for eternity past, then He created time, space and matter. Is it no wonder that the universe has the look of eternity about it considering the One who made it?​

We look at the universe which appears to be billions of years old and then at the Bible which says it was created in six days then like Nicodemus
we ask "How can these things be?"​

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.​

HankD​

 

[Grasshopper]

HankD]Is God so big He could not have created a day that is 24 hours?

He could have used anyamount of time He wished.

Personally, I for one am not questioning anyone's faith that believe the "days" of Genesis 1 are "epochs" or metaphorical or even allegorical.

Nor do I, I have no problem with anyone who believes either side. I think both views have merit.

I just don't believe there is reason to reassign the "YOM"s of Genesis 1 to something other than a 24 hour day. God doesn't need a Timex to know when 24 hours has past.

Nor do I believe that God is deceptive in His creation. I believe the Bible and "true" science are in complete harmony. Perhaps someday the truth will be known and you may very well be correct. But for know I still have honest questions.

I'm a software architect, I create software, thats my job. One of the first things that I do is create a Functional Specification which gives a narrative description of the functions which the software will perform.

The functional descriptions do not need to be in the order of execution of the final program. In fact I can often develop the functions separately and test them with what are called prototypes with supplied artificial parameters.

Then, finally, I put them all together in the order they are to be performed and run a Unit Test.


Why couldn't God do this, the one who created me and gave me the mind to also be creative?

For me the question is not what God could or could not do, but what did He do.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

Science has come up with dozens of theories concerning origins.
They change with every generation and have changed even within my life time and are changing even as we speak.​

Why was there no evening of the seveth day?

Look, God existed for eternity past, then He created time, space and matter. Is it no wonder that the universe has the look of eternity about it considering the One who made it?​

We look at the universe which appears to be billions of years old and then at the Bible which says it was created in six days then like Nicodemus
we ask "How can these things be?"​

So you agree that the universe appears to be billions of years old? What do you see as the evidence of this appearance? Science?

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.

But I thought we did know, a literal 6, 24 hour day, creation.​

 

[Grasshopper]

So now that we can question the Creation account,

Who is questioning the creation account? Perhaps some our questioning your account of the creation.

why not question any other part of the Scripture that we so choose?

That doesn't happen?? This board would not exist if we all agreed on what scripture says.

Fact is if we can deny creation, we open the door up for denial of the rest of God's Word.

Who denies creation?

Which is the clear intent of many who deny a literal 6 deny creation,

I cannot be held responsible for what atheists believe.

Much of your post is strawman arguments you have created.

Old earth advocates in the Christian community believe God created the Universe and did it in 6 literal days.

The question is what is meant by "days" and what role does science play in this equation. The same God who created the universe is the same God that gave us science and all its laws. To me the two will agree with each other eventually. The real question for me is what is true science and what is not. I think both sides try to mold scientific laws and discoveries to fit their view.

 

[Palatka51]

For me the question is not what God could or could not do, but what did He do.

It is simple faith, period!!!
Genesis 1

1. 3 And God said,
2. 6 And God said,
3. 9 And God said,
4. 14 And God said,
5. 20 And God said,
6. 24 And God said,
7. 26 And God said,

I do not think that there should be any issues with what God has spoken.

 

[Marcia]

You're asking for my real belief with regard to creation? I don't want to limit God. He could have done it any way he chose. .

No one is talking about limiting God. We can't limit God. God tells us some specifics, however, about creation, and I think it's very reasonable to believe them.

But I don't think a litteral translation of the creation account is necissary to believe it. I think the important bits of information are related there such as God's supremacy, man's relationship to God, the value of man to God, Man's fall, and promise of redemption. So ultimately I don't know how God did it. Just that he did.

If God took millions of years to create the world, he could have said that. No one here who rejects or questions the literal 6 days of creation has been able to answer why God just didn't say he created the world over a long period of time, or it was many years. There are plenty of Hebrew words and expressions for that, but God did not say that. He said 6 days in Gen. 1 and 2, and repeats it twice in Exodus.

Your definition of Verbal Plenary Inspiration as follows:


Is not accurate with the words used which mine are direct definition. However, using your definition it doesn't really define what you mean by it with regards to dictation or not. You have said that you don't believe in dictation and in the above definition agrees with my analysis of David. David had no clue he was writing about the crucifixtion but God was and inspired David to write it just that way so he could prophesy about his son. Canon just means rule. You could say the compilation of the bible is also inspired and selection of books is inspired.

So since God did not dictate the creation story is it really necissary to believe it literally? It seems to me that to that if you believe in dictation equates inspiration that you must believe in the 6 days even if evidence suggest otherwise. However, if you don't believe in Dictation you're not limited to it

I used the term Verbal Plenary Inspiration specifically because it differs from the Mechanical Dictation theory:

The Mechanical Dictation theory
of inspiration says that God gave
precise words to His Biblical authors
to record in Scripture. It is also
referred to as ‘Verbal Inspiration’.
2
This theory paints a picture of God
being like a manager dictating to his
secretary. The ‘secretary’ is required
to copy down exactly the very words
used by the one dictating the
message. Passages such as- “Every
word of God is flawless; he is a shield
to those who take refuge in him. Do
not add to his words, or he will
rebuke you and prove you a liar.”
(Proverbs 30:5-6) seem to support
this theory. This view regards the
Biblical authors as having no input into the text at all. This
seems to run contrary to the Biblical text itself where the
emotions, personalities and events of the Biblical authors are
noted. ____end excerpt
Source:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...tion+theory+on+bible&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The dictation theory is closes to what I know as channeling in the New Age.

The plenary inspiration view is that God gave the revelation to the authors but still used their own personalities and individual styles. This would have no effect on the truth of anything being written, and certainly words such as "day" or "days" in Genesis would still be from God. It does not allow room for the author to bring in his own ideas or take on things.

"Inspired" in regard to the Bible is not like what we mean today when we say "I was inspired by the accident to write a poem." It is that the words are "God breathed."

 

[Grasshopper]

It is simple faith, period!!!
Genesis 1

1. 3 And God said,
2. 6 And God said,
3. 9 And God said,
4. 14 And God said,
5. 20 And God said,
6. 24 And God said,
7. 26 And God said,

I do not think that there should be any issues with what God has spoken.

God said:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:


So I guess were all preterists. Yet somehow I have a feeling that those who scream literalism the loudest would dispute my claim.

 

[Marcia]

So I take it most people on this site do not believe the earth is around 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old based on your interpretation of Genesis? Or that the Universe is closer to 14 billion years old?

My main issues with evolution are that there could not be death before sin, that man did not evolve from another species, and that the world was created in 6 days, not over millions of years or thousands of epochs .

 

[annsni]

1. God did create a "day" before the sun. Nobody disputes this.

2. Is God so small He could not have created a day that is billions of years?

Nope. He could do anything He wants - except He told us there was "evening and morning, the first day". That says a lot.

 

[Revmitchell]

A day that is a billion years?


What will they think of next? A frog that is an alligator, a worm that is a snake, or a man that is a God. Wait Joseph Smith already did that last one.

 

[Grasshopper]

Nope. He could do anything He wants - except He told us there was "evening and morning, the first day". That says a lot.

Yep, but is that a literal morning with the sun appearing over the eastern horizon? Oops, the sun wasn't created till the 4th day.

We keep going around in circles.

 

[Marcia]

Your suggesting that if science and the bible disagree the bible is right. The problem with your assertion is that you equate the rightness of the bible as it agree's with your intepretation of it. You choose the literal intepretation of creation. So if science determines it as not probable you assume that the science is wrong rather than question your interpretation of it. Mabye God doesn't want you to take it that way

I know you were addressing Rev Mitchell, but I want to comment on the science vs. Bible issue.

I do not think there is any conflict between true science - that is, science as correct interpretation of our surroundings and of how they work -- and the Bible. God created the universe and therefore, all its laws such as the law of gravity, operate according to how God made things. True Science and the Bible are in agreement.

But science is also interpretation and conjecture and theory. It can be faulty because scientists are men and can make mistakes or be biased. Therefore, we have theories of evolution, for which there is no solid evidence.

When a scientific theory or conjecture conflicts with the Bible, as we have here, then I go with the Bible. In this case, the Bible is quite clear about the world being created in 6 days. There is no room there or any indication for another interpretation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep, but is that a literal morning with the sun appearing over the eastern horizon? Oops, the sun wasn't created till the 4th day.

We keep going around in circles.

No you go around in circles:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

End of story