Interpreting Genesis One

Link does not work this end at the moment.

Lol, there you go, a myth discredited

Read a great poem once about Eve being taken from man's side and not his head or feet, I will see if I can find it.

Thanks

David

 

However, I DO like a nice barbeque spare rib now and then!

 

Somebody made a nice poem from this but I cannot find it

It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man ... to signify the social union of man and woman; for the woman should neither use authority over man, and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet.

I like roast meat too btw, roast chicken, lamb and pork chops too

David

 

FYI: Popular Reading List

WARNING: The following books are not approved by "Answers in Genesis". :smilewinkgrin:

These first three books deal strictly with the text of Genesis

GENESIS 1-4: A LINGUISTIC, LITERARY, AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY [link]
by C. John Collins
Paperback / 318 Pages / Presbyterian & Reformed Pub Co / February 2006 /
ISBN 0875526195


READING GENESIS ONE: COMPARING BIBLICAL HEBREW WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION [link]
by Rodney Whitefield
Paperback / 169 pages / R. Whitefield Publisher / May 20, 2003 /
ISBN: 0972878203


GENESIS UNBOUND; A PROVOCATIVE NEW LOOK AT THE CREATION ACCOUNT [link]
by John H. Sailhamer
Paperback / 257 pages / Multnomah Pub / April 1996 / ISBN: 0880708689


These books attempt to integrate our present scientific data with the biblical text.

A MATTER OF DAYS: RESOLVING A CREATION CONTROVERSY [link]
by Hugh Ross
Paperback / 303 pages / Navpress Publishing Group / June 2004 / ISBN: 1576833755


CREATION AND EVOLUTION: RETHINKING THE EVIDENCE FROM SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE [link]
by Alan Hayward
Paperback / 240 pages / Wipf & Stock Publishers /January 2005 / ISBN: 1597520616

Rob

 

I for a long time went along with this idea, which I had seen expounded in Mickelson & Mickelson's Understanding Scripture. I later heard it was the Catholic view (so I figured this would be the one you concluded with. Since it does remove the conflict with science, that would also explain why the RCC began teaching evolution in its schools in the 50's, from what I heard).
But Bob, while not directly addressing this view directly, is right that the literal use of the six day creation in the Ten Commandments does seem to rule it out as well. The theory is similiar to the "Revelatory" one you mentioned, and thus it runs into a similar problem with literal use of the term "six day"

 

When the option "Believe what God said" is offered in contrast to man-mae-speculation -- we get the ancient "predictable" response...

:applause:

But of course that non-response from Deacon deserves it's own picture --
:tonofbricks:

Oops! That's right - the story of Jericho is "also" in the OT - probably should ignore that one as well!!

:type:

Read the post "in detail".

Moses writes Exodus 20.

Moses writes Gen 1-2:3.

SAME author, SAME story SAME context.

And the EQUIVALENCE made between the 7 day week at Sinai and the 7 day week in Gen 1-2:3 is impossible to ignore, to gloss over to obfuscate with more "story telling".

Better to simply accept the Word of God on this one.

As unpleasant as that is going to be for some on this board when it comes to the work of Christ our Creator and Savior.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong again.

In Dan 9 we have "the 70 weeks" (a prophetic statement about Daniel's FUTURE) equaling 490 days - and those 490 prophetic days outlining the centuries future to Daniels day - starting with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem -- being 490 literal years.

Why is it that Bible facts are so illusive for some on this board?

In Christ,

Bob

 

How sad that these empty ideas carry so much weight in some Christian circles.

#1. The NT does NO SUCH damage to the concept of Time. In fact Christ AFFIRMS the prophetic statement of 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb -- NOT A ZILLION YEARS in the tomb!!

How in the world can NT saints get so befuddled as to make the statement quoted above??? It is absolutely amazing!

#2. The NT is FILLED with OT quotes - AFFIRMING the text as authorotative and as "scripture". Try reading Eph 6:1-5 and getting around that fact. Try reading James 2 and trying to avoid that obvious fact. Try reading Romans 7 and slipping past that fact. Try reading Romans 3 and getting around that Bible fact!

Why in the world are some Christians so bent on "Story telling" instead of simply accepting the Word of God -- aLL 66 books of it?!!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Nonsense, our days are days as we experience them but to God they are nothing.

Open your eyes.

David

 

What is everyone's view or explination of pre-historic animals?

How about carbon dating the earth?

 

Its a big one for me.

What Peter says about time as we experience it helps me no end, what I would expect from an Apostle.

From what Peter says about time I have no problem with the dinosaur problem, look at crocodiles etc etc...

I believe that nature tooth and claw lay outside of Eden...

All things exist for Christ, Paul talked about 'understanding all mysteries' God is real and we must submit to Him. Even if we cannot fathom all.

David

 

Pre historic animals is an oxymoron. Dinosaurs lived with man, as the "behemoth" and "leviathin" in Scripture show.

Carbon dating has been done on live animals, and has shown them to be thousands of years old! Very reliable...

 

To God, not bound by time...yes. To man there is a huge difference between a day and a thousand years. Why would God speak to man...in terms of time...in terms only God understands? A day is a day.

 

So which doctrine are you backing up here Webdog?

 

So when Christ said He would be in the tomb 3 days "God is so vague on time that we can not really trust that it would be 3 days"????

You seem to think that your argument is answering the point. OR maybe you don't. From the one that actually raised the point - I believe Christ was correct about the 3 days. The NT NEVER makes the case "don't believe God when it comes to time -- it could translate to anything under the sun".

Hmmm. "Believe what God said" in both NT and OT!! What a concept!!

Yep - my Bible has 66 books. Not just 27 (or 23 if you are also dumping the 4 gospel writing about events before the Cross).


In Christ,

Bob

 

Good points. And yet those who employ the smoke screens that you have debunked above - still have nothing to use "as substance" for ignoring God's Word in Gen 1-2:3.

Exodus 20:8-11 summarizes those 7 literal days and SHOWS us that they are in fact exactly equivalent to the week at Sinai.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.



As has already been shown NOBODY argues that the sun was made a zillion years after Plants.

Sun - Day 4.

Plants - day THREE.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan, how do you deal with pre-historic findings?

They either had to exist before man which is the foundation of the gap theory or they had to exist with man.

Do you subscribe to the cave man or to Adam being an Ape? Please give your thoughts?

 

God says that the Creation "account" is the "account" of how and when the earth and all life on earth was created and He shows that it happens in 7 days -- and in the form "evening and morning".

No scientist argues for 5000 years of night followed by 5000 years of day in 7 sequences.

No scientist argues that the sun came into being a zillion years after plants.

Adam was not a Cave man. All of that came about after the flood. But preflood dinosaurs are found and they show life that existed at the time of Adam. No animals existed on earth 5 days before Adam.

 

The problem is really quite simple. Take Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 summarizing Gen 1-2:3 and do honest solid Bible exegesis on the TEXT!

Don't try to "shoehorn it into atheist darwinism" just take the text and interpret it correctly without worring about "How God will fair when comparing His Word to atheist darwinism".

Step two is to look at "Solid science fact" and differentiate that from science fiction.

Science understanding and boundaries will constantly change - are you really willing to hold the gospel hostage to that kind of changing model?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Posted by Inquiring Mind:

I think this can be resolved by realizing that in pagan beliefs at the time, sun and moon gods were prominent, and God was clearly showing that the sun is not needed for light. Since we read in Revelation that no light is needed in heaven because Christ himself is that light, we can see that God can create a world that has light without using the sun.

The Gen 1 account is a slap in the face to the pagan deities and belief in them.

Since morning and evening is referred to before the sun was created, morning and evening could just be the 24 hr. rotation of the earth around the sun - therefore the 6 days are literal 24 hr. days (this is what I believe despite many arguments to the contrary on this Board and a hardcore evolutionary education when younger, which I had before I was a Christian).

The "light" of daytime is referred to in v. 3 - it says that God created or made "light" and does not mention the sun, which clearly means He can give light without the sun. Why is that so hard to believe?

I do not find the creation of the sun on the 4th day to be a problem at all in the account.