GENESIS..CHAPTER 1-11

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Alex, Mar 24, 2002.

  1. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello to all:

    In a previous post which is still locked after one reply I will try again. The following is a pase of the orginal plus some additional data.

    >>This has been debate for eons and probably will continue. The first four days have no bibical proof that they were 24 hour days. When the Moon and Sun were created, then yes. But even then it could have been a much longer time than we humans can imagine.

    God has NO time to deal with like we clock observers. So with this in mind, could God's creation have actually been in what we would call, millions of years? It would not really matter as it would still have been Adam and Eve and down to us.

    I do not believe that either view would send one to hell. Yes, with God's awsome power, it could have been in a second but was He in that much of a hurry? Some believe that if you do not believe in 6, 24 hour days, you are hell bound. I think not.<<<

    It was a surprise or a revelation that in our Baptist church this PM, out Preacher just happened to discuss this topic along with others.

    He said that the first 11 chapters of Genesis could not be dated to a specific beginning of Creation. After thinking and reading some of these scriptures, I found, to my opinion, that he is right.

    Not only the first four days are hard to give a time frame to, but it seems that an unknown period of time elapsed after Cain and Abel were born. They indicate there were MANY other people that were living in other places, again with no mention of time.

    I had one reply before my original post was locked. This person merely said there were literaly 6, 24 hour days because after each day God said there was a morning and an evening. A morning in God's eyes OR in human eyes? This person also mentioned that to go any farther back would allow Creation to be Evolution. Going back hunrdeds of thousands of years DOES NOT mean creation via Evolution!

    Just for thoughts, couldn't creation of animals have been far in the past as opposed to the creation of man? To allow a longer time frame than 6,000 years would then match bibcally what we now know about fossils and why the people who lived after animals were created did not mention ANY of the strange ones that have long been extinct. In my opinion, this belief will not change your salvation through Jesus Christ.

    God Bless...............Alex
     
  2. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    Hi, Alex. Yes, it's the Don you remember.

    Couple of minor things to consider. Genesis 1 is the ONLY passage in the Bible with the modification of "the evening and the morning were the ___ day." No where else in the Bible is a day defined like this.

    Second, "an undetermined time after the birth of Cain and Abel" is somewhat incorrect. Gen 5:3 tells us that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Since Seth was the third child, we can pretty much determine a time frame regarding Cain and Abel, seeing as how Genesis 4:25 seems to indicate that Seth was born after the Cain and Abel incident.
     
  3. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Nothing will change your Salvation in Christ Jesus period.

    Alex what you are asking for is a theory called the Gap Theory. It can be found in the Creation/Evolution forum on the BB and here is the link http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000046

    You should know about it in case its brought up and you can defend your belief.

    Here is a question for consideration: How old was Cain when he slew Abel?... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    [ March 24, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  4. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, Don....Glad to see to again on the MB's!!

    I won't reply to what you said,YET as I keep loseing where my replies and post end up. I accidently found this one but still haven't found a response to Star who I think also was on my MB.

    I'll try to see why you view it in a different way.

    Have a great week and hope to see you on here again. My MB URL is posted above my post......been a long time since anyon has posted there. Maybe you can tell me where I went wrong as I do not know, except, this site seems to have it all!

    God Bless............Alex
     
  5. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, tyndale1946.

    Ok on the URL's. I didn't say I completely believe it this way. In fact, within the last 6 months I believed in a 6 day, 24 hour creation but as I believe also in Science to a certain degree, this view made more sense. Since everything was created in place and in an instant, it would not have to be much older than 15-25000 years for all of the OLD species to have died away BEFORE the creation of Adam and Eve.

    God Bless............Alex
     
  6. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    tyndale1946:

    Sorry I didn't mention your question...I had overlooked it and will have to scratch a little to answer that!

    God Bless.........Alex
     
  7. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    To what degree do you believe in "science?" True science requires observation. Science cannot deal with origins. When it does, it reaches into the realm of metaphysics, which is not science, but religion. We tend to label it as "scientism." Science is knowledge gained by observation, and classified accordingly. It in no way conflicts with the Bible.
    DHK
     
  8. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    Because I tend to take the Bible pretty literally. If it says Adam was 130 years old, I accept that. Then, if you follow the rest of the lineage in chapter 5, and do some math, you can come up with a pretty specific number.

    The only way the Bible supports an old earth theory, or a gap theory, is by ignoring Adam's age at the time of Seth's birth. Or saying that the first 5 days were different time periods than the 6th and 7th days. Or that Adam didn't start counting birthdays until some other point in the creation story.

    But there's no scriptural support for any of those.

    We've become so focused on science being correct and without error, that we've decided that the Bible just can't mean what it says.
     
  9. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    If anything died prior to Adam and Eve the bible is a lie, Jesus is not the Savior, and the gospel is garbage.

    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
     
  10. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, that's quite a strong statement. So, if it turns out that Paul was simply using a rabbinic metaphor there (of a kind that was not unusual), you would pitch your Christianity? I'd like to think my faith has a firmer foundation.

    Joshua
     
  11. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only way the Bible supports an old earth theory, or a gap theory, is by ignoring Adam's age at the time of Seth's birth. Or saying that the first 5 days were different time periods than the 6th and 7th days. Or that Adam didn't start counting birthdays until some other point in the creation story.</font>[/QUOTE]Hello, Don: Don't know why I couldn't get just a part of your reply....had to cut out a lot as it took the whole thing. Might not work at all but here goes&gt;&gt;

    I can see where there are ages back to Adam EXCEPT for Cain and Able. However this has nothing to do with TIME before Adam, such as the first 3 days.

    What about verses 1 and 2? Some creation had been done PRIOR to the normal. How long was this time period BEFORE God said, " Let there be light?"
    Also, this light, was not from the sun as the sun/moon were created later. After God created this light, how much time elapsed before He created separated the light from the darkness?

    In my reading, I found that the sun and moon was the first actual day as man would use this as a Solar(24 hour) day. So we are back to square one, but now narrowed down to the first 2 days as day one and two did not have this Solar time frame yet.

    God Bless............Alex
     
  12. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    BROTHER GLEN: In reference to your question about how old was Cain when He slew Abel I found that in the Ryrie Study Bible, they do not show how long they lived so in turn I can not say when this happened. Why are all the other's ages known except for Cain and Abel and also Eve? Since Cain was the "first murder", it seems that more would have been know of him, especially his life after God put a curse on him.

    But the main debate is on the time lapse of creation as opposed to the normal view of 6,000 years. I can easilly believe this but I do have some problem with the first verses in Genesis.

    God Bless...........Alex
     
  13. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    Actually, no, we're not.

    The same exact phrasing is used in verses 4, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31: the evening and the morning were the ___ day.

    Is God a liar? Did He say the evening and the morning were the first day, but intended that phrase to have a different meaning for the fifth and sixth days? Then why did He use the same exact phrase for both?

    You can see a difference in the way God inspired this account in Genesis 2:4 -- These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....

    God KNEW that we would try to argue the point of how long a day was. In Genesis 2, the word day clearly means a time period. In Genesis 1, we could talk till we're blue in the face about whether a day was 24 hours or some immeasureable time period...but we'd still ALWAYS come back to the fact that God told us "the evening and the morning were the ___ day."

    We could discuss till we're blue in the face that there was no real evening and morning in the first two days, because the sun and the moon hadn't been created yet; but by doing so, we'd have to say that God lied to us, because He was the one that gave the author the words "the evening and the morning were the first day."

    Is it a salvational issue? In a way, very deeply so. If God lied to us in these first few verses, then how much of the rest of the book is actual truth?

    As I said before, we've become so reliant on science being infallible--when the only infallible, reliant fact about science is that the theories and "known facts" are constantly changing--that we HAVE to come to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

    Why is there not more information about Cain, Abel, and Eve? Because they were not central to the rising of God's people. In fact, after the Flood, none of their lineage existed.
     
  14. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, Don:

    Thought I would paste Strongs definition of the FIRST day. Seems to have many meanings including a literal unknown time. Maybe you can help me with this. Maybe we can't rely on the writings of those(including sermons)about any things pertaining to the Bible as our Baptist Preacher believes in more than 6,000 years while the one before him did??

    3117 - Hebrew

    3117 yowm yome

    from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

    God Bless................Alex
     
  15. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    Exactly, Alex. That's why we have to read around the particular word to determine what it means. For instance, "day" in Genesis 2 refers to an unspecified time period. "Day" in Genesis 17:11 refers to a specific day of the month.

    Don't just stop with "yom": Look up "ereb" (evening) and "boqur" (morning) as well. Then come up with your own explanation as to why God would inspire the author to write this, specifically mentioning "evening" and "morning," after each day of creation.
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no need to "pitch my faith" as you have. I know the bible is true and all that disagree with it are liars. But then, we all know you really don't mean what you say, you are just using metaphors.
     
  17. Alex

    Alex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well. Don, I will give on the 6 days of Creation starting from verse 3 and on as probabily being 6, 24 hour days. But, as you said yourself, on verse 1 and 2, we could debate and never be able to prove one way or the other pertaining to how long in human time it was before God actually created the first day. At the prayer meeting tonight, I ask two persons with a random choice of each, and both immediately said there is no valid support for a literal 6 day creation. I really do not think we are hell bound to believe either way.

    This post was to see how many believed in either way, and why. So, far, you are the only one to answer and I thank you for this.

    I guess I still need someone to show me why verse 1 and 2 is part of the first day of creation. To include 1 and 2 would then give me a better reason to say it was a 6 day creation and did not go beyond this for hundreds of thousands of years.

    On one post, a statement was made that if any animals died before the creation, then all is false in the Bible. I am not a scholar but I do not remember God saying that animals would not die before the sin of Adam and Eve. In the same sense, they live and die as we do, but have no eternal life.

    Well, enough for now. To all: HAVE A GREAT EASTER AND REMEMBER WHAT IT IS FOR.....

    God Bless..............Alex.
     
  18. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    (1)
    I misunderstood you, Alex; my apologies. Why do verse 1 and 2 get included with the first day of creation?

    Perhaps for the same reason verses 6 and 7 are considered part of the second day: There's no distinction made separating verses 1 and 2 from verse 5. Just as verses 6 and 7 are "included" in the second day, verses 1 and 2 are "included" in the first day.

    (2) Actually, there is a distinction regarding animals, and that's what Doc Cassidy was trying to show you. Before sin, there was no death. If there was no death, then animals did not die. (see Genesis 2:17)

    (3)
    What? "God said it" isn't good enough for them? I assume they meant, human scientists haven't found any support for a literal 6 day creation? Why don't you ask them the question again, couched in that manner?

    And remember something Jesus said: "(Matthew 12:39) But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas...."

    If we're seeking human-approved proof of a literal six-day creation, well, we're seeking a sign....While I'm not trying to downplay science, I want you to understand: five years ago, the age of the universe was guesstimated at 20 billion years. Three years ago they revised the guesstimate to 15 billion years. Six months after that, they revised the guesstimate to 12 billion years.

    The trend is that the universe is younger than originally thought....

    See Alex, I believe in a God who is capable of ALL things...including doing exactly what the Bible says He did.

    You may not see it as a salvational issue; I reiterate that I do, for these reasons: 1) If the Bible is God-inspired, but God didn't do what He inspired the authors to write, then God is a liar; 2) If God couldn't create the heavens and earth and everything in it in six days, then God isn't capable of doing everything, and is not a god to be relied upon.

    You have a great Easter, too!

    [ March 28, 2002, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Don ]
     
  19. Will

    Will
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2000
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alex,

    You are so correct that this is not a salvation issue. Anyone that tries to make it one has so twisted and perverted the Gospel that they seriously need to look at their own salvation. Not one of the writers of "The Fundamentals" believed in a young earth. For people to now claim belief in it is a salvation issue is truly sad, but then again there are people who now claim KJV onlyism. How pathetic.
     
  20. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    I'll take that to mean that I'm pathetic and sad, that I've perverted and twisted the Gospel, and that I need to look at my own salvation.

    Thanks for your concern.

    Of course, all I've said is that the Bible is either true, or it isn't....

    [ March 28, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Don ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...