NT six literal days

I asked first.

 

:laugh: Seems like no one wants to answer either of our questions. :laugh:

By the way I think there is only one creation account and that is found in Genesis 1:1. As far as the heavens and the earth go that is.

 

And there lies the difference between us. You believe that the Bible is "theologically true," but not historically and scientifically true. I believe that it is entirely true. I believe its history is just as accurate as its theology. I believe that the events in the first 11 chapters of Genesis happened just as the Bible says. I believe that God not only gave us a perfect theological guide, but He gave us a perfectly accurate account of history.

I believe that it ALL is true - theologically, historically and scientifically. Now, as I said before, I am truly sorry that you don't believe that the Bible is completely, entirely accurate and true.

 

There is only ONE chronological sequence for Creation that is called "the account". We find it in Gen 2 but it is conclusion to the Gen 1-2:3 7 days.

Only the "Seven day ACCOUNT" gives time units. And IT is the one referenced in Exodus 20 "For in SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED... and rested the SEVENTH day".

 

And because you "believe the Bible is ENTIRELY true" even in the Gen 1-11 facts GOD gives -- you have a BASIS for the Gospel because you have the truth about the Creator, the origin of man and the fall of man.

Without that truth - there CAN be no Gospel at aLL!

you can not "Redeem the misguided hominid back to his cave-dwelling paradise"

 

In Gen 1 we are told that God created everything.

In Gen 1:2 THROUGH Gen 2:4 we are told that God created EARTH, Sun and Moon and ALL that is in them - in 7 literal days.

I have no problem saying that God also created other stars and planets at other times that "fit into that gap" between 1:1 and 1:2.

But erasing the clear facts of "evenings and mornings " -- 7 days in Gen 1 and in Exodus 20:8-11 summary of Gen 1-2 is a gross abuse of the text.

 

#1. Did they know what a DAY was????:sleeping_2:

#2. 2Peter 1 says that GOD is the author of the text? Does GOD know what a DAY is?? Or was this at a time before He figured that out??:BangHead:

 

Question -- who is the author of the above?

God?

Or "pre-scientific ignorant men"??

Given your answer -- which one of them "did not know what a day is"???

 

First account: Genesis 1:1 could be called a preface, so let's say Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 is the first account. Some scholars suggest that this is a creation hymn, by the way. The second account would be, then, Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 2:25 would be the second account. One possible purpose of the second account might have been as a kind of "how the elephant got its trunk" story, explaining why men and women marry and have children.

A note to the group in general: I will not respond to baseless accusations against me, slanderously asserting that I do not believe Scripture to be true, and that I do not believe Scripture to be the Word of God. Should anyone want to discuss the facts of the text, we can discuss the facts of the text; however, I will not waste my time trying to defend myself against people who cannot be bothered to challenge their own preconceptions.

 

Duplicate post. Hit the wrong button - sorry

 

Bob you have changed the wording here in Exodus 20. Exodus 20 does not say that the LORD "created," but rather that the LORD "made." Created and made are two different words.

Maybe you weren't addressing this to me, but since I'm the only one you quoted and then responded to I am assuming that you are intending this for me.

However you must not have been reading my prior posts very carefully, because I have said on at least one (possibly more) ocassion that the days are literal 24-hour periods. There is no other possibility that exists.

But just because the days are literal 24-hour periods, doesn't take away from an unknown gap of time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

 

Here we go again.

So God should have explained scientific theory to people who had no language for scientific theory. Brilliant.

 

Actually, you came into this thread with teeth at the ready. In short, you started it with your post.

The people who have tried to have decent conversations with you are the ones wasting their time.

 

Thank you.

 

Mr. Pizza,

Let's talk just for a moment about history.
1. You were not there when the world was created.
2. I was not there either.
3. God was there, and He has given us a written record of that history.

Now, I choose not to believe those who contradict God's account of His own creation process. None of them were there. The were not eye witnesses. The only eye witness was God Himself, and He left a written record for us to know exactly what happened.

We will each make a choice who to believe about this historical account. As for me, I'm going to believe God.

 

This issue is not a hill worth dying on.

Everyone knows that just because you don't accept a literal 6 days doesn't mean you deny God's word...you just have a different interpretation of "day". This is not an essential.

Also, just because you believe that it does mean a literal 24 hour day doesn't mean you are foolish to believe something "prescientific", or however you want to label it. It just means that you believe God actually created in a 24 hour period each day. (I happen to be in this camp)

This is not worth dividing over. You can still be in the realm of orthodoxy by believing either one. When it gets dangerous is when you take out that God literally created out of nothing, or that Genesis 1-11 wasn't literal, those kinds of things. Let's have a big group hug.

:1_grouphug:

 

Whether you agree with them or not, you're confusing two different things.

The gap theory is talking about the period of time between when he created everything and when he began the recreation of the earth. It's an unspecified period of time, and little is said about it in Scriptures, other than that's when Satan fell. It doesn't say there were or were not other beings, plants, or whatever on the Earth.

Then, in the creation account, he begins the process of making the earth as we know it. The day-age theory is what talks about it being more than a literal day.

I personally believe it was 6 literal days, for reasons similar to what J. Jump has posted. But, the literal translation of Scripture does not require this.

As to what happened before these events, it's all just speculation, but we can base speculation on evidence that we are given without having to twist and distort simple things. There is also some interesting wording in the creation account in regards to water dwelling creatures, which are our oldest "living fossils". I would not base doctrine on it, but with the wording used and the evidence we have, I can give you an opinion that does not contradict Scripture or science.

 

While God does not mention pre science in his Bible, after all when would there be a time where there was no knowledge of God for in the beginning was the word etc. I did find prescience in a JF&B commentary...

O Timothy--a personal appeal, marking at once his affection for Timothy, and his prescience of the coming heresies. ​

...and I do believe that it is quite possible that Paul had the prescience to warn folks about heresies such as the one you are promoting.

For this He also provided instruction in His word...

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" - 1 Timothy 6:20​

 

Now that the hug is over ...

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. " - Martin Luther​