Part 3, Earth Millions of Years Old?

The first few chapters of Genesis was written from an ANE perspective, which has a lot of mythical material to it.

But the issue comes down to the Hebrew behind "days." We shouldn't be arguing about the English word "days."

We need to wrestle with the Hebrew "yom."

 

Marcia, for the moment I adhere to the literal, but I'm not opposed to a mythical idea because of the ANE element.

Too many great evangelicals are on both sides of the issue for me to be dogmatic.

Besides, I've not studied this matter through thoroughly.

I'm parroting at this point.

My name is TCGreek, not TCHebrew. :laugh:

 

'day' in English

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day

Also, I also like to talk about the one the main dictionaries seem to like to omit:

16. The 48-hour time period in which a particular named 'day' exists on the World somewhere. Example: Since the time the sun rose West of the International Date Line On 27 Mar 2008 until this is posted on BB, 42 hours have passed. Even so there is left 6 hours of the day: Friday 27 Mar 2008.

 

So why do we have solid evangelical scholars who differ?

 

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Genesis One:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Bible Prophecy:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

 

Now, I like your line of approach: Neither loose nor dogmatic. :thumbs:

 

I did get it. This is why I asked it this way...

I'm not saying you believe it but allow it.

Again, ......What allows a non-literal meaning? If you had no text other than the Bible you would believe it or not but there is no reason it would believed to be a myth in and of itself, unless you believe all of the Bible is but a myth.

Case in point..

I think you will find that you are drawn to allow others to hold to a myth based on other information apart from the Bible.


One would only will force a "myth" if an outside source is also believed to be true that would lead them that way.

Lets say that one believes the Big Bang idea to be true. If so that one would be forced to make it fit within the Bible view in order for the Bible to be true as well, being the Bible does not talk about the Big Bang. Does it not come down to what drives you? Does the Big bang drive you, or the Bible?

 

I definitely lean towards a young earth point of view. I looked into some of the day-age theories, and I had a very close mentor of mine who believed the day-age theory. But, none of them made sense to me. It seems like God went "out of His way" to emphasize that the creation was complete in seven literal days.

 

Indeed you are right. It is as if God knew some would want to change the meaning back when he wrote it, therefore he spelled it out for them. Still some deny.

He divided the two environments by daylight and no daylight (darkness). Now if we were to wonder how this was done by God we need only to look at what we know to be true. How do we get the daylight environment at times and other times we have darkness?

The Bible says...

A simple child science site says...

Both science and the Bible agree that it is the Sun that gives us daylight.

But just how did God have it so that part is light and part is dark.

Answer...One major light source that does not move, and simply spin the earth.

One spin is one day.

When the earth spins 360º which cause the earth to be dark followed by light, because the light source is not changing, you have one day.

That is also what the Bible teaches...

For anyone to read anything other than the day which we know it to be,and to which the Bible says is one day is adding to the text and adding to what we all know is one day

You would not believe anything other than when we already know is a day, unless you force what you see as a higher power on the text in order that the text matches your higher force. The text by itself stands only

Where do you place your higher power?

What do you make fit your logic?

Do you change the Bible to match your source?

 

We are addressing Genesis 1. What does the resurrection of the Messiah have to do with this?

 

again.....
What allows a non-literal meaning of Genesis 1?

 

The possibility that Moses may have employed some ANE elements (maybe you should research the experts).

 

Then you place your authority not in the text, but in what someone has said about the text. The text alone would never give you that understanding. You have plae your faith in something other then the Bible.

Now lets look at the experts.

Jeffrey H. Tigay Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. says this...

Richard Hess professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages, Denver Seminary says....

David Toshio Tsumura professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminay....

Want more experts?

 

Consider this Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:32-33 (KJV1611 Edition):
Giue none offence, neither to the Iewes, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God:
33 Euen as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine owne profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saued.

The Gentiles, here are unsaved folks.

Who (the Bible Readers or the Lost) are claiming the following?

Caution: error statement follows:
If you can't believe (exactly like I do) Gen 1&2;
then how can you trust Romans 10:9-10?
Caution: error statement precedes.

Answer is: some Bible Readers.
The Lost look at a statement like above and figure:
Must have taken God more than one 24-hour-day to create the Sun. Them Bible Readers must be 4,000 Million (4 Billion) years short of a Creation. So what they say about Jesus dying for my sin must be PHONY also. The lost go away lost -- because the 'selected Bible Readers' fail to understand God enough to explaine God to the Lost. The lost have not profited by such logic and only the pride of the error prone 'certain Bible Readers' keeps them from seeing the error of what they do -

By contrast, consider the implication of my Trailer/Signature.

All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.

By Axiom, Genesis 1 & 2 are the Inerrant and Perfect Written Word of God. If what some alleged 'Bible Reader' says that Gensis 1 & 2 means is in error, then it is NOT GOD WHO IS WRONG - it is that individual alleged 'Bible Reader' that is wrong.

Sorry folks, the simple fact that the Night Sky is Black indicates a Creator (not to mention a Big Bang ). But there are too many stars in that Night Sky for the night sky of Earth to be only 5,783 years old.

However, the imagery of God doing the work of creating the Earth in six time periods and using the 7th to rest -- this imagery shows we we in-God's-image-folk should also work 6 'days' and take the 7th 'day' for God-type rest. The image is about multi-millions of year long aeons - the weekly celebration of the Creative God is in 7 actual 24-hour-days.

But hey, different strokes for different folks, eh?

But do try to avoid deliberately disobeying the commandment of Our Lord & Savior, Messiah Jesus, found in 1 Corinthians 10:32-33.

And ye 24-hour-day creation folks had better explain why God's 7th day has alerady been 5,783 years long and counting

 

If you are only interested in the redemption story, then you must hold to the literal understanding of Gen. 1+.

Jesus died for our sins, according to the scriptures. Why? Where did sin come from? Gen. 1 explains were we came from. Gen. 3 explains how sin entered into the world.

Romans 5 directly links the fall of man as recorded in Gen. 3 to the redemption of man found in Jesus Christ. There is your direct link to redemption.

If Adam is a myth, then the explanation of scripture of how sin entered into the world, why it kills us, and why Jesus had to redeem us from it is just a myth as well.

peace to youraying: