NT six literal days

indeed. And as has been pointed out - the chiastic structure of Gen 1 and 2 is not found in the LAW of God -- nobody calls Exodus 20 "a hymn" where the details are to be ignored and the lesson is merely "God thinks we should do what He says when He tells us to do something but He is not actually saying anything more than that in the Ten Commandments". Rather God has given DETAILS in the code of law - and as it turns out one set of those details is a SUMMARY of the Gen 1-2 Creation event that literally matches the "inconvenient details" of Gen 1 and 2.

So even if one were to try to give credit to the wild notion "chiastic structure means not really true" -- even THAT hollow argument would run aground when they got to Exodus 20:8-11

in Christ,

Bob

 

Maybe in your world

But you don't have to play by the same set of rules? You have asserted that the text is not poetry, yet you provide no evidence except that you believe it and some other people believe it. I would hardly call that evidence that your position is correct.

Nobody asked you to prove poetry. You are being asked to "prove" your stance to be true.

You shouldn't and against no one has asked you to.

Says who? You? By what authority do you have to set the defaults?

Sure it does. So-called orthodoxy doesn't win just because it's orthodox. If that were true the Pharisees would have been correct. They held the "orthodox" view in those days. But orthodox was proved to be far from true. The idea that you don' have to "prove" your own beliefs is just silly.

Basically what that boils down to is you are supposed to believe me because I say so attitude.

You are right about that. But I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. No one has asked you to prove poetry is correct. That woud just be silly.

 

Yes, but not for the reasons you suppose. If you deny that the word "made" in that context means create, then logically you must deny that God created anything at all.

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.
--He MADE all things. (created)

Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because that on it he rested from all his work which God had created in making it. (Darby)
The Lord made all things. It means he created them. The word created gives us more detail in telling us how--bara--out of nothing. It is something man cannot do. That gives more credence to the view why bara is used in verse one, a summary verse introducing the Creation with a more detailed description of how he made it to follow.

 

Good post DHK -- the Made-vs-Created argument that was attemtped was a "distinction without a difference" as we see the text itself argues no such variance between MADE and CREATE in the way God MADE things in each evening-and-morning sequence.

 

When someone comes on the board and says: I heard that this could be poetry.
No one else has ever heard of this before. It is his duty to prove it if he believes it. It is not my duty nor anyone else's duty to prove that it isn''t "That would just be silly," as you say. And yet you say that is what I must do

 

No one has to deny that God created anything because we can see the difference between made and created. Why would the Holy Spirit choose a totally different word when He could have used the same one. That makes ZERO sense.

Let me show you the problem with this statement.

God said - He made all things.
DHK said - made means created.

I think I'll just stick with what God actually said if you don't mind.

I love it when people prove my point for me. This verse shows there is clearly a distinction between creating something and making something.

God created and made. Those two aren't the same thing.

Well again just for the sake of argument let's just say this is true. So you think God messed up in step no. 1? Because verse two shows us a picture of a waste land that was dark and void. Why would a perfect God that is able to speak perfection into existence from the very get go start with a dark wasteland?

Again that makes ZERO sense.

The argument for six days of creation fails at every turn. They are not six days of creation, but it is the first story of redemption which is what all of Scripture is about. It gives us the first details of God's redemptive work and His process of redemption.

Again this is why so much importance is placed on the six days of work and the seventh day of rest. God is at work again. He will work six days and He will rest on the seventh.

If these are six days of creation what has God been creating for six days (which can't be an allusion to another six 24-hour days)?

 

Again another incorrect statement on your part. There have been "several" peolpe that have heard about this before.

Yes that's EXACTLY what you must do. You say that it's not poetry and that people should stop believing it is poetry. Well if that's the case then it's on you to prove that its not poetry, because if you don't all you are saying is stop believing what you believe now, because I say so. Sorry that just doesn't work for everyone. Unfortunately it was worked for WAY too many people in Christendom.

To many folks believe what their pastors tell them, because they are the pastor and as such they must be right.

If you want someone to believe the way you do you have to do more than say believe me because I say so, or believe me because there are a lot of other peolpe that believe like I do.

 

JJump says: There is a T-Rex buried under your house.

DHK says: There is not, You must prove to me that there is a T-Rex there

JJump says; No, I don't. You have to prove that there isn't one.

DHK says the standard orthodox position throughout all of history is that houses are not built on top of T-Rex.'s. You prove to me that there is a T-Rex under my house.

JJump says: Pharisees were orthodox too! Where did that get them? You need to prove your position that there is no T-Rex under your house. Why should all the people just believe what you say!!!

--And so your logic keeps going in circles. I don't have to defend your position, in order to defend mine. And that is what you are asking me to do.

 

This is getting pathetic on your part. Why on earth would you bring up something like that, as if anyone has been considering another creation account? Time to sit down and relax that someone else can interpret the AMOUNT OF TIME God took for himself to create. That is the original debate, and there is room within orthodoxy to have differences. Tragic, nor anyone else ever denied that Genesis 1 was untrue, or fairy tail, or that another creation account completely unbiblical should be considered. For you to bring other religions views are silly, as if to suggest this is what a person may be considering by not believing in a literal 24 hour period. You continue to add things to create more arguments to try and make yourself look like you've proven a point that nobody really asked you about. This is why I've originally encouraged my fellow believers to be careful, that this is not a hill worth dying on. The different rabbit trails you have attempted to take this down has proven my point. I, for one, am going to take my own advice.

 

AS DHK pointed out this is a "distinction without a difference" since the word FOR CREATE IS USEd in Gen 1 for the things made on each day!!

Why do you simply cast about you for an excuse and when it does not hold water look for something else?

WHAT IS the RIGH way to SAY that God created all life on earth in SIX days IF by saying JUST AS HE DID!!??


In the 7 DAY Creation week "account" God does not say that He "MADE but did not CREATE" all life in those 6 days .. RATHER God said

Thus you have attempted a "distinction without a difference"
in Christ,

Bob

 

My suggestion would be to sit back, carefully read the posts, and try again. I have never denied the details, then claiming to believe it. I have, from the beginning of the literal 24 hour days that this thread began, said that I agree with a 24 hour view. I disagree with anyone who says it is some sort of day-age blah blah whatever they call it. My point is that I believe there is room for interpretation on THE AMOUNT OF TIME GOD TOOK TO CREATE. Is there room for difference on anything you believe?? I think this is one of those areas, AGAIN, THAT AREA IS CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF TIME...NOT WHETHER OR NOT GENESIS 1 IS TRUE, OR GOD CREATED...where we can have differences and remain Biblical Christians.

to be blunt, you've got issues if you can't allow room for disagreement. I agree with you on the interpretation of Genesis, but me and you are far apart with the way you act....better yet, the way you react when someone disagrees. You guys may be "old in the faith", but some are acting like kids when they stomp their feet and insist that someone must agree with them. I try and picture this if it were in person, and it makes me want to laugh. If we were to read our posts outloud as a script, some of these posts would sound pretty hilarious, and not be taken seriously.

 

Let us suppose for an instant that these texts are NOT the way for God to say that HE ACTUALLY created all life on this world in six days...

in that case the question to be answered by the objective thinking reader is "what WOULD have been the right way for God to say that He actually created the world in Six days"...

in Christ,

Bob

 

You continue to miss my point.

You and I and everyone else can still serve, fellowship, accept a brother or sister in Christ because they doubt that the creation account from Genesis 1 happened in a literal 24 hours. Not that they deny it happened at all....but that they question whether it was a literal 24 hours. You don't need to try and convince me, I agree with you that it was a literal 24 hours. Other believers who question it shouldn't be questioned spiritually because of it.

 

And this has nothing to do with anything I said, but thanks for playing anyway.

 

Thank you, DHK, for a wonderful laugh. You set up some very humorous straw men when you get fired up...

 

REALLY? That's absurd.

 

Brother with all due respect you need to learn to read a little better. I don't know how many times in my one post that I said no one is asking you to defend "their" position. What I said and continue to say is that you can't expect people to change their views and believe what you believe just because you say so.

If you are going to point out someone's error, because you believe Truth is on your side, then you need to give evidence of that Truth. And saying believe me because I say so and I don't have to defend what I believe isn't going to fly.

You don't have to defend my views in order to explain, prove or defend your own. That's not your job and I have NEVER asked you to do that. That doesn't make any sense to do so.

But again just because you claim to have orthodoxy on your side doesn't inheritantly make you correct. There are a number of "orthodox" views today that aren't anywhere close to the Truth of Scripture. For that matter people can't even agree on what's orthodox and what's not. Just take the C/A debate. Both groups think orthodoxy is on their side.

My whole point is you can't expect someone to drop what you call error without doing one of two things, either one you prove there stance is without a doubt incorrect and they will just have to search for themselves to find the actual Truth, or you are going to have to defend what you consider to be Truth with more evidence than I said so and so does a whole group of people over here in my corner.

Hope that clarifies what I've been trying to say.

 

Couple of questions for you. One why do you think God used two "different" words that you say mean the same thing in the same sentence. What purpose does it serve to say the same thing with two different words?

Secondly I will ask you the same thing that I asked DHK (which is still yet to be responded to) and that is if in fact Genesis 1 is talking about creation the entire way through do you really think God messed up on His first step when the earth was formless, void and dark? Wonder why a God of perfection was start with imperfection when all He has to do is speak perfection into existence?

And then I wonder why He said in Isaiah that He didn't do it that way?

Okay I guess there are three questions. If God created in six days and then rested on the seventh day what is He creating now? He said He was going to work again six days (can't be a literal six 24 hour days this time) and rest on the seventh. What is He creating in this six-day period?

 

That is true. I don't understand your post. I can debate J.Jump's position simply because this is a debate forum. Iron sharpens iron. Or we can close all the threads in this forum and agree to disagree with everyone, and have no reason to debate anyone. I don't believe in the Gap Theory or in any offshoot of it. I am not calling my brother a heretic because he does. But I can show him where it disagrees with Scripture--the purpose of debate. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

you're right...debate away.