What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

How to interpert Genesis

Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
13,677
Gender
Male
Reason and logic do work well with the milk of the Word, but it wont hang with the meat of the Word.
So the short answer is that over-intellectuallize is a defense mechanism!
Reason and logic are always used; they can't not be used.

I could claim that the claim of "over-intellectualizing" is a defence mechanism against having to do proper in-depth Bible study and deep thinking and meditation; it is a defence mechanism against having to provide biblical evidence of one's opinion on what they think the Bible is saying. It is anti-intellectualizing, which goes against the great intellectual history of Christianity.

Is it possible to over-intellectualize? Yes, but that is the domain of atheists and other unbelievers. But it is also possible to "under-intellectualize" and over-spiritualize, which is in the domain of believers, such as in these forums.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
10,221
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Reason and logic are always used; they can't not be used.

I could claim that the claim of "over-intellectualizing" is a defence mechanism against having to do proper in-depth Bible study and deep thinking and meditation; it is a defence mechanism against having to provide biblical evidence of one's opinion on what they think the Bible is saying. It is anti-intellectualizing, which goes against the great intellectual history of Christianity.

Is it possible to over-intellectualize? Yes, but that is the domain of atheists and other unbelievers. But it is also possible to "under-intellectualize" and over-spiritualize, which is in the domain of believers, such as in these forums.
SO exactly what are you saying? That the scriptures should be spiritualized to an extent, or that any spiritualization of it is wrong?
 

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
12,972
Gender
Male
SO exactly what are you saying? That the scriptures should be spiritualized to an extent, or that any spiritualization of it is wrong?
Sorry for butting in, but I think as a body of believers we complement each other with our gifts.

Have you ever felt one way but your intellect told you something else? It's not so much about one or the other as it is bringing both into harmony. Which is often easier said than done.

In the same way, I get the idea that as a body of believers, we struggle to harmonize because just like the fall, we look at our differences instead of our oneness.

Intellect, emotion and spirituality are present together in the scriptures, and we each have different gifts that allow us to recognize and live in them.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
10,221
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Sorry for butting in, but I think as a body of believers we complement each other with our gifts.

Have you ever felt one way but your intellect told you something else? It's not so much about one or the other as it is bringing both into harmony. Which is often easier said than done.

In the same way, I get the idea that as a body of believers, we struggle to harmonize because just like the fall, we look at our differences instead of our oneness.

Intellect, emotion and spirituality are present together in the scriptures, and we each have different gifts that allow us to recognize and live in them.
I agree with you. Especially about harmonizing the intellect, emotion and spirituality that is present within the bible. And that we all do have the gifts, some one, some another. The problem doesn't seem to be with the gifts, but with the fruits. Gifts can get a man in trouble when they do not produce fruit.

I'm still not sure what Free meant. To over-spiritualize is bad, or any spiritualization is bad?

Like I've already said, I think that intellectualization is necessary for some of it (the milk), but that some of it can only be gleaned by the Holy Spirit Himself. So that said, is over-spiritualization even possible? I think probably not because it's the Holy Spirit which does that.
 

StoveBolts

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
12,972
Gender
Male
I agree with you. Especially about harmonizing the intellect, emotion and spirituality that is present within the bible. And that we all do have the gifts, some one, some another. The problem doesn't seem to be with the gifts, but with the fruits. Gifts can get a man in trouble when they do not produce fruit.

I'm still not sure what Free meant. To over-spiritualize is bad, or any spiritualization is bad?

Like I've already said, I think that intellectualization is necessary for some of it (the milk), but that some of it can only be gleaned by the Holy Spirit Himself. So that said, is over-spiritualization even possible? I think probably not because it's the Holy Spirit which does that.
Well, you seem to strike a healthy balance, but yes, just as some seem to make bad
Decisions by running off their emotional urges, some do over spiritualism. And yes, I agree about some of the meat being spiritual.

Anyway, take care. It's been good talking to you brother.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Messages
13
The way to interpret Genesis is to interpret it the way Jesus tells us to. In Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9, Jesus says that male and female were created at the beginning of creation; the only way Jesus can be correct when he makes this statement is if the days of creation are normal days like we experience today, and if there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to squeeze billions of years into. If gap theory or day-age theory were true, then Jesus would be incorrect to say that male and female were created at the beginning of creation.

To see this in more detail, check out this apologetics video I made back in march:
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
10,096
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
The way to interpret Genesis is to interpret it the way Jesus tells us to. In Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9, Jesus says that male and female were created at the beginning of creation; the only way Jesus can be correct when he makes this statement is if the days of creation are normal days like we experience today, and if there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to squeeze billions of years into. If gap theory or day-age theory were true, then Jesus would be incorrect to say that male and female were created at the beginning of creation.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mat 19:4 (NKJV) ... He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 (NKJV) ...from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.
What Jesus said was that God created mankind as male and female from the beginning.
That says that mankind was created male and female from the fist humans until to day.
But it does not nail down when they were made.
In fact, Jesus isn't even talking about the "6 days of creation". He's talking about a man and a woman coming together in marriage and becoming "one flesh." You have attempted to make Jesus speak to your point when he had nothing of it in mind.
So, in those passages you quoted, Jesus does not, in fact, say anything about a six, 24-hour day, creation.


And you have misconstrued Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a chronological listing of the events of creation. It is, in fact, the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduces the "story" of creation beginning at Gen, 2:4. In ancient Hebraic literature, the story (or next episode of the ongoing story) is always introduced by a genealogy. You will find some form of genealogy between each successive episode of Genesis.

To see this in more detail, check out this apologetics video I made back in march:
The above being a sample of your "apologetic", I think I'll pass; thank you very much.

I don't have a great deal of interest in this debate. I find it more productive to focus on being the best image and likeness of God as possible which requires humility, much prayer and a lot of help from the Holy spirit. I believe this focus is more important because, if I may use a worn out bromide, "People don't care how much you know; they want to know how much you care." Trying to convince the people of this materialistic society that all the scientists are wrong will lead them to conclude the speaker is a crackpot to, at best, be pitied, but more likely to be dismissed as a babbling fool. When is the last time you were convinced that you needed to change your life because of the words of a babbling fool?

Eggs Ackley

You have failed to demonstrate that Jesus was intentionally verifying that creation took place during six days of 24 hour duration.


So, that's my 2 kopecks.
And, no, I'm not interested in debating with you.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
108
It's a good question, OP

Exegesis can vary wildly depending on who is doing it

For some Jews, there are 4 separate levels of interpretation to the Torah alone ( Pardes ), for others, both Jews, Christians, etc it is taken as a literal account that needs no further study or attempts to find " deeper meanings " ( Which many people are strictly opposed to, perhaps misunderstanding kabbalah as being the same as pardes , when pardes, unlike kabbalah, is strictly Torah ), although personally, I find attempts to simply the Bible for the sake of fast study is like trying to turn it into a Dr Seuss book with little to say, when in fact just a few verses can lead to years of study

I am always sort of shocked when I encounter people who have these steadfast positions of " I have studied the Bible for X number of years , I know more than you, etc " , because I don't really get the feeling that's how it works

There is what amounts to a sort of logical proposition in the scriptures

- Jesus is the Word
- The Bible is God's Word
- Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess

Now, for naysayers and non-believers, they claim the Bible can't be " divine " because in their words:

" It was written by a bunch of nomadic goat herders " ( a favorite of naysayers )

or

" It's the most heavily edited book ever, and is just a manufactured tool of the church to control the masses "

Let's put aside the problem that without God manifesting in the flesh, there is no objective and unarguable definition for what " divinity " actually means, ( I believe when Christ comes there will be no further confusion what divinity means, and it will not be defined subjectively )

The problem is this:

For " every knee to bow and every tongue confess " , all people would have to finally come to the acceptance the Bible IS divine, because we couldn't have something like

~ all tongues confess Jesus is Lord, but 27% still doubt the Bible is divine

or

~ all tongues confess Jesus is Lord, but 1/2 of them still debate exegesis

This leads me to question that if Christ were to manifest in the flesh, in front of us, would he know more about the scriptures than any person on earth ?

Would we have the time to ask questions, or would we be whisked away before ?

I would think most believers would accept that if that were the situation, certainly Christ would have more knowledge of the scriptures in his little toe than all the worlds pastors and rabbis combined

But would they listen ?

Would they not even have the chance ?

It's all very curious, because without Jesus, there is nothing to validate the Bible to the point it's accepted as the truth to non-believers, yet the very nature of the full truth of the scriptures would only be known to Christ

Think about when people taunt Christians and say

" Prove to me the bible is God's word "

or

" Prove to me the Bible is divine "

...and folks are off and running with verses in hand to " prove the Bible is divine " to the non-believer ......yet, ..

...is it actually their place to prove the Bible is divine, or their place to prove the Bible is God's word ?

Even the nature of " proof " and how things are actually proven is debated

Usually the argument to my hypothetical is something like:

" Jesus won't have to prove anything to anybody, people will just know "

or

" Jesus isn't coming in the flesh ( antichrist / apostate, in my opinion )

or

" It's not your place to question "

...but to be honest, I find those to be sidestepping the issue, and that is that if it was anybody's place to " prove " the entire world the Bible is indeed divine, it's none other than Christ

...because if anybody else could do it it would have been done already

Aside from the above, I could also point out that there is a tradition of Mesopotamia that dealt with the literature pertaining to a High Priest, and that is that only a High priest could correctly interpret ( exegesis ) the texts that pertained to him ( Which is more or less what I layed out above )

Everybody else was threatened with a curse, that they would curse themselves by trying to explain the texts ( Which to me sounds almost like a false prophet, but that's just my opinion )

The text would say something like ( Paraphrased ) " If you are not the High Priest, do not attempt to interpret this ephemeris ( Table of astronomical observations ) or you will curse yourself "

And just to put this out there for thought, regarding the hypothetical that only Christ knows the true interpretation of the scriptures:

Some say Jesus is the " star " that we find is given the key to the pit ( some say not ), but the curious thing is this-

In Hebrew, " pit " is : בור , ( bowr ) which is from the root word בור buwr {boor} a primitive root; - declare - to make clear, clear up, explain, prove , which in turn is in the sense of באר bo'r {bore} which ultimately derives from the word באר ba'ar {baw-ar'} a primitive root; - plain , plainly , declare- to make plain, distinct, to make clear, to declare*, *letters on a tablet

In Greek, in the New Testament, however, the " pit " is " bottomless ", αβυσσος ( abussos ) ( Abyss ) which is from a variation of : βυθος buthos {boo-thos'} - deep , the bottom or depth of the sea, which is a variation of βαθος bathos {bath'-os} depth , deepness , deep thing depth, height of the deep sea , metaphorically as deep, extreme, poverty or of the deep things of God

Now I have gotten responses like:

" Word roots mean nothing "

" The Bible isn't a Mesopotamian book "

" There are no Mesopotamian literary traditions in the Bible "

" The Bible's only source is the Bible " ( Have to admit, I didn't grasp that one )

" Hidden knowledge is from demons, you must be in the devil's / Satan's grasp "

etc

...but I find these to sidestep the point, yet again



To be honest, I have yet to talk to another person who is even aware that the author of John 1:1

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God "

..was possibly making reference to a pardes of Genesis 1:1, in that the very first letter of the Bible, in the word that is translated to " In the beginning ", is the letter " beyt ", as the word " beyt " ( or however you would like to transliterate the word ) means " house "

If you do a word / verse study on " beyt " , you'll find it's used to describe anything from a normal house to a temple

If your exegesis is that Christ IS the temple / Tabernacle, literally, then the when you examine the fact that in Hebrew you have letters that serve as definite article ( hey ) or the conjunctive ( vav ) as prefixes to words , you find " beyt " as meaning " in / on / by "

So if you consider Christ to be the House / Temple / Tabernacle of God, and that " beyt " is used to connotative of being " in " something, then it only points to the fact that in the Tanakh, in the Tabernacle, in the Holy of Holies, in the Ark , was where the Word itself dwelt

But if Christ is the Word and the Temple, and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit which was said to be in the Ark itself ( And there is a distinct difference in Judaism between the spirit and the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit ( ruach hakodesh VS ruach ) really only normally indwells a prophet or someone with prophet-like status ), then it only strengthens the pardes hypothesis of John 1:1

Usually people refuse to discuss whether or not Jewish exegesis was known to John at all, which I think is rather illogical, again, my opinion, or they say something to the tune of:

" That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard "

To which my feeling is that it's rather myopic and narrow-minded to assume that the NT authors read everything and interpreted everything ( exegesis ) like modern people tend to do, which in my opinion sells the Bible short, when in fact it is rife with knowledge that will never be gleaned with a glance, but much study

That's my two

:)
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
2,496
Christian
Yes
Reference to a common literary history does not require that the literature be an accurate record of historical events. It only requires that the stories be universally known to the culture.
So, no, multiple references do not necessitate that the stories be literal history.

Genealogies were used in the ancient literature of the near/middle east as transitions between stories and the genealogies were not required to be exhaustive or accurate. (For example, the genealogy which introduces the gospel according to Matthew lists three groups of fourteen ancestors. The "number" of David's name is 14, The genealogy has the purpose of showing that Jesus is the promised descendant of David who would sit on his throne.)
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is, in fact, the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduce the story of "the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Gen 2:4)
That the genealogies are not exhaustive is demonstrated by the story of Cain.
When Cain is condemned to be a wanderer on the earth, he laments to the Lord that whoever finds him will kill him. Who are the "whoever" and where did they come from?
The story also relates that Cain settled in the land of Nod, East of Eden where he "knew" his wife and she bore him a son. No wife is mentioned before that time in any genealogy but there follows the line of Cain and the line of Seth and those two genealogies bring us to the story of Noah.

However, I do agree that a good part of Genesis is, indeed, historical beginning with the story of Abram. But, like all history, it is subject to omissions and literary motifs employed to communicate "the story of us."

A significant change in style of writing occurs when one compares Gen 1:1-2:3 to Gen 2:4ff. Even the name of God changes from Elohiym (Gen 1:1-2:3) to Yahweh Elohiym (Gen 2:4ff)
The change in style reflects two different traditions which have been designated Elohist (or Priestly) and Yahwist. The two styles are woven together with exceptional skill, the most excellent example being the Noaic flood epic which interweaves both traditions seamlessly.

NOAH’S CHIASMUS*
A Noah (6:10a)
B - Shem Ham Japheth (6:10b)
C -- Ark to be built (6:14-16)
D --- Flood announced (6:17)
E ---- Covenant with Noah (6:18-20)
F ----- Food in the ark (6:21)
G ------ Command to enter ark (7:1-3)
H ------- 7 days waiting for flood (7:4-5)
I --------7days waiting for flood (7:7-10)
J --------- Entry to Ark (7:11-15)
K ---------- YHWH shuts Noah in (7:16b)
L ----------- 40 days of flood (7:17a)
M ------------- Waters increase (7:17b-18)
N ------------- Mountains covered (7:19-20)
O -------------- 150 days waters prevail (7:21-24)
P --------------- GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)
O’ -------------- 150 days waters abate (8:3)
N’ ------------- Mountain tops visible (8:4-5)
M’ ------------ Waters abate (8:5)
L’ ----------- 40 days (end of) (8:6a)
K’ ---------- Noah opens window of ark (8:6b)
J’ --------- Raven and dove leave ark (8:7-9)
I’ -------- 7 days waiting for waters to subside (8:10-11)
H’ ------- 7 days waiting for waters to subside (8:12-13)
G’ ------ Command to leave ark (8:16-17)
F’ ----- Food outside ark (9:1-4)
E’ ---- Covenant with all flesh (9:8-10)
D’ --- No flood in future (9:11-17)
C’ -- Ark (9:18a)
B’ - Shem Ham and Japheth (9:18b)
A’ Noah (9:19)

* "Chiasmus" is the name for a literary structure which is similar to the Greek letter Chi (X) having a "crossover point in the center. and parallel events leading up to and away from that point. (Indicated by the letters and the letters with the prime ['] mark. Ex A and A') The point is the turning point of the story. ((Unfortunately, the software does not transfer the text accurately from MSWord to whatever this forum uses.)

Italics indicate the Yahwist tradition.

Normal script indicates Elohist (Priestly) tradition

Notes:
1. The Priestly flood lasts a (Hebrew) year.
The Yawist flood lasts for three weeks after the forty days of rain.
2. In the Priestly account, Elohim tells Noah to leave the ark.
In the Yawist account, Noah takes off the coverings from the ark and leaves.
Everything was made in 6 days and God rested on the seventh day.

Gen 1:24-31 tells us the world was populated before the trespass. In the sixth day men began to multiply. But Cain was born after the trespass in the seventh day. Also the LORD said I will greatly multiply your pain in child birth, suggesting Eve had children before Cain.

That's my take on it. It explains Cain's wife and the land of Nod and who they were who would find him.
 
Last edited:

Papa Zoom

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
8,875
Gender
Male
Everything was made in 6 days and God rested on the seventh day.

Gen 1:24-31 tells us the world was populated before the trespass. In the sixth day men began to multiply. But Cain was born after the trespass in the seventh day. Also the LORD said I will greatly multiply your pain in child birth, suggesting Eve had children before Cain.

That's my take on it. It explains Cain's wife and the land of Nod and who they were who would find him.
Of this I'm pretty certain: God created everything from nothing. From there I'm fuzzy on the details. And actually don't care. It is what it is and my guesses probably make God laugh.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Messages
13
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mat 19:4 (NKJV) ... He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,
Mar 10:6 (NKJV) ...from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.
What Jesus said was that God created mankind as male and female from the beginning.
That says that mankind was created male and female from the fist humans until to day.
But it does not nail down when they were made.
In fact, Jesus isn't even talking about the "6 days of creation". He's talking about a man and a woman coming together in marriage and becoming "one flesh." You have attempted to make Jesus speak to your point when he had nothing of it in mind.
So, in those passages you quoted, Jesus does not, in fact, say anything about a six, 24-hour day, creation.


And you have misconstrued Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a chronological listing of the events of creation. It is, in fact, the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduces the "story" of creation beginning at Gen, 2:4. In ancient Hebraic literature, the story (or next episode of the ongoing story) is always introduced by a genealogy. You will find some form of genealogy between each successive episode of Genesis.


The above being a sample of your "apologetic", I think I'll pass; thank you very much.

I don't have a great deal of interest in this debate. I find it more productive to focus on being the best image and likeness of God as possible which requires humility, much prayer and a lot of help from the Holy spirit. I believe this focus is more important because, if I may use a worn out bromide, "People don't care how much you know; they want to know how much you care." Trying to convince the people of this materialistic society that all the scientists are wrong will lead them to conclude the speaker is a crackpot to, at best, be pitied, but more likely to be dismissed as a babbling fool. When is the last time you were convinced that you needed to change your life because of the words of a babbling fool?

Eggs Ackley

You have failed to demonstrate that Jesus was intentionally verifying that creation took place during six days of 24 hour duration.


So, that's my 2 kopecks.
And, no, I'm not interested in debating with you.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
You're free to pretend that my video doesn't address what you just said, but the fact of the matter is almost everything you just said was refuted in my video. It makes me think that you didn't actually watch it.

If you had actually watched my video, you would have seen me place the creation of Adam and Eve on three different timelines: the Gap Theory timeline, the Day-Age Theory timeline, and the YEC timeline. You would have seen that according to the Gap Theory timeline, Adam and Eve were created 6,000 years ago on a 14-16 billion year timeline, which is almost at the very end of the timeline; you would have seen that according to the Day-Age Theory timeline, Adam and Eve were created a couple billion years ago on a 14-16 billion year timeline, which is not as close to the end of the timeline as on the Gap Theory timeline, but is still nowhere near the beginning. You would have seen that according to the YEC timeline, Adam and Eve were created on day six of a 6,000 year timeline, which would place Adam and Eve's creation virtually at the very beginning of the timeline.

Since Jesus said in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 that male and female were created at the beginning of creation, the only timeline of history that I listed above that allows Jesus' words to be true is the YEC timeline of history. The other timelines are the opposite of what Jesus said, which means that in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be wrong.

Why do you think that quoting the New King James Version of Mark 10:6 changes the dilemma you're in? If the NKJV of Mark 10:6 said "From the beginning of THEIR creation, God made them male and female", then you would be right in saying that Jesus wasn't referring to the six days of creation, and the Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory timelines would become reasonable interpretations of Jesus' words in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. The problem with all this is that the NKJV of Mark 10:6 does not say "from the beginning of THEIR creation, God made them male and female"; it says that "from the beginning of THE creation, God made them male and female". Because it specifically says that God made them male and female from the beginning of THE creation, he can only be referring to the six days of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and we are left with the dilemma that I described two paragraphs earlier.

As far as your objection on Genesis 2:4 goes, Genesis 2:4 is not the introduction to Genesis 2:5-25. Genesis 2:4 is a sign-off point; it says that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created by God, which we call the creation account today.

Focusing on Young Earth Creationism so much has actually helped me be the best image and likeness of God as possible; For the past year and change, I've been arguing all the time with evolutionists and atheists in certain creationism groups on Facebook, and after all this time, a large number of them have said in the group that even though they completely disagree with me on YEC and the Bible, they think I'm really nice, and they think I have a heart of Gold, and they have actually challenged the YECs in the group(s) to be more like me. If YEC was the stumbling block to being the best image and likeness of God as possible like you're saying that it is, then how are enemies of the cross coming to the opposite conclusion?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
10,096
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
You're free to pretend that my video doesn't address what you just said,
I'm not pretending anything. Based on what you have presented so far, I have no interest in seeing more. I reject the "young earth" notion as neither Biblical nor scientific.
I reject the "gap" theory as preposterous.
As far as your objection on Genesis 2:4 goes, Genesis 2:4 is not the introduction to Genesis 2:5-25. Genesis 2:4 is a sign-off point; it says that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created by God, which we call the creation account today.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don't agree.
Focusing on Young Earth Creationism so much has actually helped me be the best image and likeness of God as possible;
YEC has nothing to do with becoming the best image and likeness of God. It is an intellectual construct fabricated in an attempt to lend credence to the six, 24-hour day creation view.
Being in the image and likeness of God has to do with behavior, with action, not with intellection. It is about acting like God in love and mercy.
Whether the universe was created 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago doesn't matter. If it did Jesus would have clearly said so.
What matters is obeying His commands: Love God; Love one another; lover you neighbor; love your enemies.

Paul speaks to arguing about things like how old the earth is at Titus 3: 9 (NKJV) But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

People who are struggling to make sense out of their lives don't care about when the earth was created. Their problems are right here, right now. They want to know if God has an answer. Telling them the universe is only 6000 years old does not help and the Good News is that anyone can have new life in Jesus Christ, not that the world is only 6000 years old.

If you want to focus on things that don't matter, well it's your life. I'll try to do what Jesus said was important: clothe the naked; feed the hungry; give water to the thirsty; shelter the stranger; care for the sick; visit the prisoner. Jesus said that you will go to heaven or hell depending on whether or not you did those things. (Mat 25:31-46) He didn't mention anything about believing in the YEC stuff.

jus' sayin'

iakov the fool
 

Papa Zoom

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
8,875
Gender
Male
I'm not pretending anything. Based on what you have presented so far, I have no interest in seeing more. I reject the "young earth" notion as neither Biblical nor scientific.

I reject the "gap" theory as preposterous.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don't agree.

YEC has nothing to do with becoming the best image and likeness of God. It is an intellectual construct fabricated in an attempt to lend credence to the six, 24-hour day creation view.
Being in the image and likeness of God has to do with behavior, with action, not with intellection. It is about acting like God in love and mercy.
Whether the universe was created 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago doesn't matter. If it did Jesus would have clearly said so.
What matters is obeying His commands: Love God; Love one another; lover you neighbor; love your enemies.

Paul speaks to arguing about things like how old the earth is at Titus 3: 9 (NKJV) But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

People who are struggling to make sense out of their lives don't care about when the earth was created. Their problems are right here, right now. They want to know if God has an answer. Telling them the universe is only 6000 years old does not help and the Good News is that anyone can have new life in Jesus Christ, not that the world is only 6000 years old.

If you want to focus on things that don't matter, well it's your life. I'll try to do what Jesus said was important: clothe the naked; feed the hungry; give water to the thirsty; shelter the stranger; care for the sick; visit the prisoner. Jesus said that you will go to heaven or hell depending on whether or not you did those things. (Mat 25:31-46) He didn't mention anything about believing in the YEC stuff.

jus' sayin'

iakov the fool
I don't want to show off my intellectual prowess being the humble servant I am (hehehe) but I can explain Genesis in 4 words. Just saying ;)
 

Papa Zoom

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
8,875
Gender
Male
I sure hope someone challenges me on the above before I forget what I was going to say......I'd better write it down....


 
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Messages
13
I'm not pretending anything. Based on what you have presented so far, I have no interest in seeing more. I reject the "young earth" notion as neither Biblical nor scientific.

I reject the "gap" theory as preposterous.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I don't agree.

YEC has nothing to do with becoming the best image and likeness of God. It is an intellectual construct fabricated in an attempt to lend credence to the six, 24-hour day creation view.
Being in the image and likeness of God has to do with behavior, with action, not with intellection. It is about acting like God in love and mercy.
Whether the universe was created 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago doesn't matter. If it did Jesus would have clearly said so.
What matters is obeying His commands: Love God; Love one another; lover you neighbor; love your enemies.

Paul speaks to arguing about things like how old the earth is at Titus 3: 9 (NKJV) But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

People who are struggling to make sense out of their lives don't care about when the earth was created. Their problems are right here, right now. They want to know if God has an answer. Telling them the universe is only 6000 years old does not help and the Good News is that anyone can have new life in Jesus Christ, not that the world is only 6000 years old.

If you want to focus on things that don't matter, well it's your life. I'll try to do what Jesus said was important: clothe the naked; feed the hungry; give water to the thirsty; shelter the stranger; care for the sick; visit the prisoner. Jesus said that you will go to heaven or hell depending on whether or not you did those things. (Mat 25:31-46) He didn't mention anything about believing in the YEC stuff.

jus' sayin'

iakov the fool
Actually, it absolutely does matter. In the world's eyes, if you compromise on the creation vs evolution debate, then you should be willing to compromise on everything else the world wants you to compromise on (homosexuality, abortion, black lives matters, muslim immigration, etc). Here's the proof:

 
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
2,496
Christian
Yes
Wickedness was part of the culture back then ie. human sacrifice, idol worship. Can't read the Bible unless you understand the culture?? Wickedness is part of the culture today. Can't read the Bible unless you understand the culture? Sure you can.

The whole world was destroyed in the flood. Can't find the documents that existed before the flood? I wonder why. Probably only Noah and his sons knew what God did before the flood.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
10,096
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
if you compromise on the creation vs evolution debate,
I'm not talking about the creation vs evolution debate.
Creation is not a topic which is open to debate for me.
God created the heavens and the earth and everything that exists, visible and invisible.
If your faith needs a 6000 year old universe to stand then that's your need, not mine.
And not believing exactly as you do is not evidence of apostasy.

Personally, I believe: in one God, The Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen.

I also believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father
Through Him all things were made.

For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven:
By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilot;
He suffered and died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will never end.

I also believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

And I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
And I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
And I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life ever lasting.

That is what the universal church deemed to be essential to the faith.
I figure they knew better than I.