turnorburn
Member
When did time change when did a day go from 1000 5000 10000 years =1 day to 12 hours =1 day?
tob
tob
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution
- Thread starter rthom7
- Start date
turnorburn
Member
Oops' i forgot to ask.. when you explain how and when time changed could you make the explanation easy so a child could understand it?
Thanks..
tob
Thanks..
tob
rthom7
Member
Free,
Jeff Benner is not a scholar. He is an engineer who is "self-taught" in Hebrew.
Yes he is self taught. I am self taught in Hebrew too, before I discovered him. I thought I was the only person in the whole Internet, for years. I became that way because I so appalled at the inconsistent translation of the KJV when I received a Interlinear Hebrew software programme. So know NO scholars have made me their pupil, I become interested in Benner because He believes in Hebrew as I do Schroeder does the same.
I am sorry you dismiss them so lightly. That is your choice. And I respect that.
As for Dr. Schroeder, I'm not sure how he could believe such a thing when a plain reading of Genesis 1:5 alone shows two different meanings of one word.
It seems you are reading what you want in the verse and not what it actually says. It very clearly uses yom to refer to "daylight" as well as a full day.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (ESV)
As I said, the first instance of yom refers only to the light of day, about 12 hours. It cannot be any clearer. And this is very much in line with what Jesus says in John 11:9, "Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world." (ESV)
Do you think that Jesus was wrong, or could it be that he was using a common understanding of "day" to be twelve hours?
So you saying "yom" only refers to the daylight parts of the cycle of ereb and boqer? And the length of "yom" is 12 hours? That's fine if that is your definition of "yom" , I can agree with you.....
. Of course God's rest begins on the seventh day, but to say that if "evening and morning, the seventh day" were used it would mean that it would refer to the beginning of the eighth day, then that throws all the other days into question.
Why would it throw off the other days ?
The result of which, God's resting didn't begin at the beginning of the seventh day, like you state, but rather that it begins half way through the day. And working backwards results in day one being half of day one and the beginning of day two. We lose the first half of day one.
View attachment 6208
Your saying something like model 1, where as the Bible counts time as in model 2.
And the evening and the morning were day one. It lists ereb first, than boqer.
The whole point is that day seven begins but doesn't end; it has not ended. That is one very long yom.
Well why the commandment of a weekly time then ? if "yom" means something else ?
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day
Notice the parallel of times here.
This has nothing to do with Einstein. A plain reading of the text, which is what we are discussing, shows that the six days of creation are clearly being referred to as "the day." This has absolutely nothing to do with the relativity of time but rather attempting to make Scripture fit one's theology rather than letting Scripture inform one's theology.
Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
De 32:7 ¶ Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father,
I am not fitting anything into the text. How does years of time (generation) fit into a day of time ? The "yom" must remain the same.....I think Schroeder explains this well.
I can't help but notice that you appeal to an interlinear translation rather than using the YLT, which you were so adamant that we use. Is it because the YLT also uses the article only for days six and seven? I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway, since the article is clearly shown in both verses.
I try to read the original Hebrew and generally trust no translation including Young, though He is better than the KJV.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has an Index of Articles, Etc., which shows three instances of "the" appearing in Gen 1:31 and two instances in Gen 2:2. That is what we see in the English translations. You'll have to appeal to the actual Hebrew text. From the little bit I just looked up online, it seems that the definite article becomes a part of the word it is being used for, hence why there is no Strong's number appearing for it.
Free I am not a Hebrew expert, but the E Sword is free as a download and lists all Hebrew words.
Rather than nit pick the Hebrew syntax to death, I try to be as a child of child like faith and seek easier meaning......
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
That is easy to read regarding "yom" isn't it ?
Shalom
Jeff Benner is not a scholar. He is an engineer who is "self-taught" in Hebrew.
Yes he is self taught. I am self taught in Hebrew too, before I discovered him. I thought I was the only person in the whole Internet, for years. I became that way because I so appalled at the inconsistent translation of the KJV when I received a Interlinear Hebrew software programme. So know NO scholars have made me their pupil, I become interested in Benner because He believes in Hebrew as I do Schroeder does the same.
I am sorry you dismiss them so lightly. That is your choice. And I respect that.
As for Dr. Schroeder, I'm not sure how he could believe such a thing when a plain reading of Genesis 1:5 alone shows two different meanings of one word.
It seems you are reading what you want in the verse and not what it actually says. It very clearly uses yom to refer to "daylight" as well as a full day.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (ESV)
As I said, the first instance of yom refers only to the light of day, about 12 hours. It cannot be any clearer. And this is very much in line with what Jesus says in John 11:9, "Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world." (ESV)
Do you think that Jesus was wrong, or could it be that he was using a common understanding of "day" to be twelve hours?
So you saying "yom" only refers to the daylight parts of the cycle of ereb and boqer? And the length of "yom" is 12 hours? That's fine if that is your definition of "yom" , I can agree with you.....
. Of course God's rest begins on the seventh day, but to say that if "evening and morning, the seventh day" were used it would mean that it would refer to the beginning of the eighth day, then that throws all the other days into question.
Why would it throw off the other days ?
The result of which, God's resting didn't begin at the beginning of the seventh day, like you state, but rather that it begins half way through the day. And working backwards results in day one being half of day one and the beginning of day two. We lose the first half of day one.
View attachment 6208
Your saying something like model 1, where as the Bible counts time as in model 2.
And the evening and the morning were day one. It lists ereb first, than boqer.
The whole point is that day seven begins but doesn't end; it has not ended. That is one very long yom.
Well why the commandment of a weekly time then ? if "yom" means something else ?
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day
Notice the parallel of times here.
This has nothing to do with Einstein. A plain reading of the text, which is what we are discussing, shows that the six days of creation are clearly being referred to as "the day." This has absolutely nothing to do with the relativity of time but rather attempting to make Scripture fit one's theology rather than letting Scripture inform one's theology.
Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
De 32:7 ¶ Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father,
I am not fitting anything into the text. How does years of time (generation) fit into a day of time ? The "yom" must remain the same.....I think Schroeder explains this well.
I can't help but notice that you appeal to an interlinear translation rather than using the YLT, which you were so adamant that we use. Is it because the YLT also uses the article only for days six and seven? I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway, since the article is clearly shown in both verses.
I try to read the original Hebrew and generally trust no translation including Young, though He is better than the KJV.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has an Index of Articles, Etc., which shows three instances of "the" appearing in Gen 1:31 and two instances in Gen 2:2. That is what we see in the English translations. You'll have to appeal to the actual Hebrew text. From the little bit I just looked up online, it seems that the definite article becomes a part of the word it is being used for, hence why there is no Strong's number appearing for it.
Free I am not a Hebrew expert, but the E Sword is free as a download and lists all Hebrew words.
Rather than nit pick the Hebrew syntax to death, I try to be as a child of child like faith and seek easier meaning......
Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
That is easy to read regarding "yom" isn't it ?
Shalom
rthom7
Member
Barbarian, your a person who never says much....very guarded....
I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and
never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable
that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent
or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to
understand their meaning. Now, things are wholly changed, and
almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.
There are, however, some who still think that species have
suddenly given birth, through quite unexplained means, to new
and totally different forms. But, as I have attempted to show,
weighty evidence can be opposed to the admission of great and
abrupt modifications. Under a scientific point of view, and as
leading to further investigation, but little advantage is gained by
believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an
inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the
old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth. It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in
number and less in force. p477
So from these sentences only by Darwin, what is He saying in your opinion?
Shalom
I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and
never once met with any sympathetic agreement. It is probable
that some did then believe in evolution, but they were either silent
or expressed themselves so ambiguously that it was not easy to
understand their meaning. Now, things are wholly changed, and
almost every naturalist admits the great principle of evolution.
There are, however, some who still think that species have
suddenly given birth, through quite unexplained means, to new
and totally different forms. But, as I have attempted to show,
weighty evidence can be opposed to the admission of great and
abrupt modifications. Under a scientific point of view, and as
leading to further investigation, but little advantage is gained by
believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an
inexplicable manner from old and widely different forms, over the
old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth. It may be asked how far I extend the doctrine of the modification of species. The question is difficult to answer, because the more distinct the forms are which we consider, by so much the arguments in favour of community of descent become fewer in
number and less in force. p477
So from these sentences only by Darwin, what is He saying in your opinion?
Shalom
Barbarian
Member
Hmm... let's take a look. In the last few pages...
I showed you
- Moses himself used the word you use for day to mean all sorts of other things from 12 hours to eternity.
- Why words like "doctrine" and "believe" do not mean "religion."
- Why science is unable to say anything about the supernatural
- Why the word sometimes translated as "science" in 2 Timothy, does not mean "science" as we know it today.
- That Solomon could not know and do all things, as you asserted.
- That ID, by its own admission is a religion.
Sounds like a lot of things to me.
Well, let's lay things out, then. I'm a Roman Catholic, an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. I accept the fact of evolution, and the fact that Scripture is true, even if it isn't always literal.
What's your denomination? Do you think that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in the unity of God? Do you think that a human can become a god?
See above. Is is possible you're not even reading my posts?
But let's see if you are forthcoming about what you believe.
He's arguing that new species don't represent a drastic change from the species they evolve from, but rather show a gradual change as time goes on. This is still an argument that is not wholly settled. Huxley, for example, argued that evolution could go faster, even if it was stepwise, and Darwin acknowledged that the pace of evolution could vary. This has since been verified, but there remain differences of opinion as to pacing and degree of evolutionary change in time.[/quote][/quote]
What you're asking doesn't even make sense. The Bible very clearly uses yom for different periods of time. Your argument is with Scripture and how it uses yom, which has absolutely nothing to with time changing.
There, even a child could understand.
How are you getting that from what I wrote? I have been abundantly clear that yom refers to both a 12 hour period of daylight and a full 24 hour day. That is what we get from one single verse, Genesis 1:5.
I explained it.
Evening and morning, day one; evening and morning, day two; evening and morning, day three; evening and morning, day four; evening and morning, day five; evening and morning, the sixth day; God rested from creation on the seventh.
Evening always precedes the morning in the counting of the days. So your argument, "How else would you summarize the end of a week of time? Except by describing the beginning of the seventh day? If you say evening and morning the seventh day, you have also established the beginning of the eight day in Hebrew counting of time," is trying to put morning before evening, the opposite of the days.
Not that any of this really matters. There simply is no mention of "evening and morning, the seventh day." The seventh day has not ended.
The commandment need not at all be based on day seven not being a literal 24 hour day. The seven days are for us, not God. God doesn't need to rest every seven days. But he did cease creating on the seventh day and has continued to cease from creating; still the seventh day.
Your question is my whole point, which is that yom is very clearly being used to refer to the six days of creation. I don't understand how you cannot see this.
I always use E-Sword but that has nothing to do with whether or not the definite article appears for days six and seven only. For that you must look at the Hebrew itself.
Of course it is. But what you're doing is picking verses which show the use of yom to refer to single days, which I agree with. The problem for you is that yom also refers to 12 hours of daylight, periods of months and years, and an unending period of time (the seventh day).
So this one word alone does away with your argument that Hebrew words have only one meaning. If yom had only one meaning, a 24 hour day, then much of its use in Scripture makes absolutely no sense.
turnorburn
Member
What's this Free "and an unending period of time (the seventh day)." where did you get that, I've been a Christian over 40 years, that's the first time I've heard that. i was taught that God ceased from his work on the 7th day then he rested. Did you read that in a book somewhere?
tob
tob
What I have said is no different than what you were taught. How can you not see that from what I've posted? I've been quite clear.
turnorburn
Member
i was taught that the 7th day is just the same as the first 6 days not an unending period of time, other wise a person could just as well say the first 6 days were extended periods of time that's the difference, and that's what i believe..
tob
tob
Well I have shown how it is somewhat different than the first six days and it is one of the reasons that the length of the other days is in dispute. You can either simply believe what you were taught, or you can do some serious study and thinking for yourself. That goes for all of Scripture. If you simply believe what comes from the pulpit or Sunday school teacher, you could end up in serious error if you don't study and use reason in thinking about such things.
turnorburn
Member
How well i know i used to teach a Sunday school class..
tob
tob
rthom7
Member
Barbarian,
He's arguing that new species don't represent a drastic change from the species they evolve from, but rather show a gradual change as time goes on. This is still an argument that is not wholly settled. Huxley, for example, argued that evolution could go faster, even if it was stepwise, and Darwin acknowledged that the pace of evolution could vary. This has since been verified, but there remain differences of opinion as to pacing and degree of evolutionary change in time.
Ok a good explanation Barbarian, thanks for that.
View attachment 6212
Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same great class or kingdom. I believe that animals are
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants
from an equal or lesser number. p478
I understand from this quote of Darwin, that he believe animals descended like the model on the left...
whereas Creation in Scripture is more like that on the right?
How do you read Darwn's concept of evolution?
Shalom
He's arguing that new species don't represent a drastic change from the species they evolve from, but rather show a gradual change as time goes on. This is still an argument that is not wholly settled. Huxley, for example, argued that evolution could go faster, even if it was stepwise, and Darwin acknowledged that the pace of evolution could vary. This has since been verified, but there remain differences of opinion as to pacing and degree of evolutionary change in time.
Ok a good explanation Barbarian, thanks for that.
View attachment 6212
Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same great class or kingdom. I believe that animals are
descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants
from an equal or lesser number. p478
I understand from this quote of Darwin, that he believe animals descended like the model on the left...
whereas Creation in Scripture is more like that on the right?
How do you read Darwn's concept of evolution?
Shalom
rthom7
Member
Free I am terribly sorry, but you have not made your discussion abundantly clear, maybe I am not seeing things as well as you teach....
I have been abundantly clear that yom refers to both a 12 hour period of daylight and a full 24 hour day.
In this post you also believe "yom" can mean "years", "months" and an "indefinite time period", so how in context would anybody know the meaning of "yom" ?
That is what we get from one single verse, Genesis 1:5.
So let's unravel "yom" in Gen 1 - you mention time always begins with evening (dark period)
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep
Here GOD comes to a place we call earth, and it is void and in chaos....
So we have a process of a Being in space, does this make the earth move in darkness first ?
Then light appears as a process of time
Then God calls the light process "yom"...and He also details morning and evening as "yom" one.
So time begins with the creation of light upon the earth.
I have been abundantly clear that yom refers to both a 12 hour period of daylight and a full 24 hour day.
I can agree with this statement of yours Free. Evening = 12 hours Morning = 12 hours and together we have 24 hours, the "yom" daylight being the most important part.
Evening and morning, day one; evening and morning, day two; evening and morning, day three; evening and morning, day four; evening and morning, day five; evening and morning, the sixth day; God rested from creation on the seventh.
Correct and well said:
Evening always precedes the morning in the counting of the days. So your argument, "How else would you summarize the end of a week of time? Except by describing the beginning of the seventh day? If you say evening and morning the seventh day, you have also established the beginning of the eight day in Hebrew counting of time,"
When Sabbath began, have we not 7 night periods and 7 day periods already declared ? The week of time is fully established..so no need to say evening and morning a seventh day.
is trying to put morning before evening, the opposite of the days. ( I don't follow you here)
Not that any of this really matters. There simply is no mention of "evening and morning, the seventh day." The seventh day has not ended.
When Sabbath begins (daylight) we have had already 7 nights and 7 days, a week of time....so no need to establish evening and morning a seventh day, that would establish the eighth day of the next weekly cycle.
The problem for you is that yom also refers to 12 hours of daylight, periods of months and years, and an unending period of time (the seventh day).
Doesn't Hebrew have words for other time periods ?
month = chodesh 2320
year = shaneh 8141
eternity = 5703
week = shabuwa 7620
day = yom 3117
If you make yom into a period of time as you like why couldn't I find other strange context for other periods of time? We destroy torah this way?
So this one word alone does away with your argument that Hebrew words have only one meaning. If yom had only one meaning, a 24 hour day, then much of its use in Scripture makes absolutely no sense
I find the meaning makes consistent sense with yom.
In English, the word "day" means "24 hours of time " does it not?
So if I said "My love goes out each day for my children, I think of them daily"
Ge 43:9 " let me bear the blame daily"
These statements have similar meaning don't they ?
I don't see why the meaning of "yom" has to change because of a few strange contexts?
Shalom and God bless.
I have been abundantly clear that yom refers to both a 12 hour period of daylight and a full 24 hour day.
In this post you also believe "yom" can mean "years", "months" and an "indefinite time period", so how in context would anybody know the meaning of "yom" ?
That is what we get from one single verse, Genesis 1:5.
So let's unravel "yom" in Gen 1 - you mention time always begins with evening (dark period)
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep
Here GOD comes to a place we call earth, and it is void and in chaos....
So we have a process of a Being in space, does this make the earth move in darkness first ?
Then light appears as a process of time
Then God calls the light process "yom"...and He also details morning and evening as "yom" one.
So time begins with the creation of light upon the earth.
I have been abundantly clear that yom refers to both a 12 hour period of daylight and a full 24 hour day.
I can agree with this statement of yours Free. Evening = 12 hours Morning = 12 hours and together we have 24 hours, the "yom" daylight being the most important part.
Evening and morning, day one; evening and morning, day two; evening and morning, day three; evening and morning, day four; evening and morning, day five; evening and morning, the sixth day; God rested from creation on the seventh.
Correct and well said:
Evening always precedes the morning in the counting of the days. So your argument, "How else would you summarize the end of a week of time? Except by describing the beginning of the seventh day? If you say evening and morning the seventh day, you have also established the beginning of the eight day in Hebrew counting of time,"
When Sabbath began, have we not 7 night periods and 7 day periods already declared ? The week of time is fully established..so no need to say evening and morning a seventh day.
is trying to put morning before evening, the opposite of the days. ( I don't follow you here)
Not that any of this really matters. There simply is no mention of "evening and morning, the seventh day." The seventh day has not ended.
When Sabbath begins (daylight) we have had already 7 nights and 7 days, a week of time....so no need to establish evening and morning a seventh day, that would establish the eighth day of the next weekly cycle.
The problem for you is that yom also refers to 12 hours of daylight, periods of months and years, and an unending period of time (the seventh day).
Doesn't Hebrew have words for other time periods ?
month = chodesh 2320
year = shaneh 8141
eternity = 5703
week = shabuwa 7620
day = yom 3117
If you make yom into a period of time as you like why couldn't I find other strange context for other periods of time? We destroy torah this way?
So this one word alone does away with your argument that Hebrew words have only one meaning. If yom had only one meaning, a 24 hour day, then much of its use in Scripture makes absolutely no sense
I find the meaning makes consistent sense with yom.
In English, the word "day" means "24 hours of time " does it not?
So if I said "My love goes out each day for my children, I think of them daily"
Ge 43:9 " let me bear the blame daily"
These statements have similar meaning don't they ?
I don't see why the meaning of "yom" has to change because of a few strange contexts?
Shalom and God bless.
Most of the time, if not all, the context makes it clear, just like in Genesis 1:5.
All I have given is the way Genesis 1 speaks of a day, nothing more. Of course this brings up another interesting point. Seeing as how each day begins with "And God said" and ends with "there was evening and morning," it strongly suggests that the first day doesn't start until verse 3, which means there is no way of knowing how long the earth was in existence prior to that.
I don't think you are agreeing though, otherwise you would agree that yom has at least two different meanings--a 12 hour period of daylight and a 24 hour day--as this verse shows.
How do you get that? The part above that I bolded has you making the Sabbath the eighth day. But that is incorrect. We have six days of creation; six periods of evening and morning. Then comes the seventh day. If we had seven of these periods declared already, that would mean seven days of creation and the Sabbath would be the eighth day.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and 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.
But none of that is relevant. Each word has to be taken as it is given in Scripture. How other words may be being used differently from yom is is irrelevant to how yom is used. But it does seem as though you are wrong on the above words as well:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/chodesh.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/shaneh-in-pl-only.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ad.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/shabuwa.html
It changes precisely because of the different contexts. Koine Greek is the same.
rthom7
Member
Free
How do you get that? The part above that I bolded has you making the Sabbath the eighth day. But that is incorrect. We have six days of creation; six periods of evening and morning. Then comes the seventh day. If we had seven of these periods declared already, that would mean seven days of creation and the Sabbath would be the eighth day.
View attachment 6215
I take you do not see time counted this way? I have placed your quote in a timeline as above...
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and 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.
I agree, God made the creation in six days and rested the seventh day...that's 7 night periods and 7 day periods. making a Creation Week.
And its a parallel typology to how mankind is to work 6 days and rest 1 day, making the same week of time as God did.
Why do you want to make Creation week of God's handiwork seem longer or different to seven days ?
I believe God did the Creation Week in six literal days and rested the seventh day, because the Scripture says He did.
Shalom
How do you get that? The part above that I bolded has you making the Sabbath the eighth day. But that is incorrect. We have six days of creation; six periods of evening and morning. Then comes the seventh day. If we had seven of these periods declared already, that would mean seven days of creation and the Sabbath would be the eighth day.
View attachment 6215
I take you do not see time counted this way? I have placed your quote in a timeline as above...
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and 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.
I agree, God made the creation in six days and rested the seventh day...that's 7 night periods and 7 day periods. making a Creation Week.
And its a parallel typology to how mankind is to work 6 days and rest 1 day, making the same week of time as God did.
Why do you want to make Creation week of God's handiwork seem longer or different to seven days ?
I believe God did the Creation Week in six literal days and rested the seventh day, because the Scripture says He did.
Shalom
I have no idea what you're trying to show.
That's not what you said. As I had bolded, you first asked, "When Sabbath began, have we not 7 night periods and 7 day periods already declared ? The week of time is fully established." Then you stated, "When Sabbath begins (daylight) we have had already 7 nights and 7 days, a week of time." There is no other way to understand your statements other than you believe in an eight day week, the Sabbath being the eighth day.
I have done no such thing. It really seems as though you are not reading what I am writing. I have made it very clear that the Bible says there were six days of creating and God rested on the seventh.
rthom7
Member
Free,
I have done no such thing. It really seems as though you are not reading what I am writing. I have made it very clear that the Bible says there were six days of creating and God rested on the seventh.
Oh I am sorry...it seems we believe in the same thing, that God created the earth with all the animals and plants in six days and rested on the seventh day. My apologies for not realizing your theology all along.
Shalom
I have done no such thing. It really seems as though you are not reading what I am writing. I have made it very clear that the Bible says there were six days of creating and God rested on the seventh.
Oh I am sorry...it seems we believe in the same thing, that God created the earth with all the animals and plants in six days and rested on the seventh day. My apologies for not realizing your theology all along.
Shalom
rthom7
Member
Darwin writes in Origins of Species 1859:'
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief
that all animals and plants are descended from some one
prototype.
Darwin sees all life from a single prototype. This theory oppose Bible Creation.
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/darwin-marginalia/
Young Darwin’s Marginalia Shows Evolution of His Theory
A trove of books from Charles Darwin’s personal library is now digitized, online and free for all to view. The collection, displaying Darwin’s scrawled-in-pencil marginalia, tantalizingly reveals his thought process as he developed the theory of evolution.
Two of Darwin’s most-respected fellow scientists and mentors, John Henslow and Charles Lyell, had published books when Darwin returned. He immediately immersed himself.
Lyell said species could adapt, but only within narrow bounds.
This posed a problem for Darwin's ideas. On the final page of Lyell’s Principles of Geology Darwin writes, "If this were true adios theory."
http://creation.com/focus-342
Darwin did not like Lyell’s view that there was no evidence for any gradual ‘transmutation’, or changing of one kind of animal into another, or for the transformation of simpler creatures into more complex ones. We know this thanks to the recent online digitization of Darwin’s handwritten comments in 419 books of his personal library. In the margin on page 442 of Volume II of Principles of Geology, next to a paragraph where Lyell said there were "defined limits" to "variation from the original type" of each creature, Darwin hand-wrote: "if this were true[,] adios theory".
Note that Lyell, a deist, rejected the biblical creationist position of variation within a kind and instead promoted the unbiblical ‘fixity of species’. Many of Darwin’s ‘evidences’ for evolution were actually attacks against Lyell’s straw man, not the biblical view (see The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 2).
These words and articles of others show that Darwin opposed Lyell's idea that variation happened only within kinds. Lyell sadly thought all species were fixed and could not changed, a view not seen in Scripture.
But what we see here is evolution as Darwin saw it is contrasted with the Biblical view, that God created the kinds from the beginning as dust from the ground, within a single day, the fishes and birds on one day, the land animals on another day. While speciation allows certain creatures to change, especially since the fall of mankind; it does not allow kinds to develop gradually from some common ancestor. Thus evolution as a term should not be considered as a theological term for describing God's Creation.
Shalom
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief
that all animals and plants are descended from some one
prototype.
Darwin sees all life from a single prototype. This theory oppose Bible Creation.
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/darwin-marginalia/
Young Darwin’s Marginalia Shows Evolution of His Theory
A trove of books from Charles Darwin’s personal library is now digitized, online and free for all to view. The collection, displaying Darwin’s scrawled-in-pencil marginalia, tantalizingly reveals his thought process as he developed the theory of evolution.
Two of Darwin’s most-respected fellow scientists and mentors, John Henslow and Charles Lyell, had published books when Darwin returned. He immediately immersed himself.
Lyell said species could adapt, but only within narrow bounds.
This posed a problem for Darwin's ideas. On the final page of Lyell’s Principles of Geology Darwin writes, "If this were true adios theory."
http://creation.com/focus-342
Darwin did not like Lyell’s view that there was no evidence for any gradual ‘transmutation’, or changing of one kind of animal into another, or for the transformation of simpler creatures into more complex ones. We know this thanks to the recent online digitization of Darwin’s handwritten comments in 419 books of his personal library. In the margin on page 442 of Volume II of Principles of Geology, next to a paragraph where Lyell said there were "defined limits" to "variation from the original type" of each creature, Darwin hand-wrote: "if this were true[,] adios theory".
Note that Lyell, a deist, rejected the biblical creationist position of variation within a kind and instead promoted the unbiblical ‘fixity of species’. Many of Darwin’s ‘evidences’ for evolution were actually attacks against Lyell’s straw man, not the biblical view (see The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 2).
These words and articles of others show that Darwin opposed Lyell's idea that variation happened only within kinds. Lyell sadly thought all species were fixed and could not changed, a view not seen in Scripture.
But what we see here is evolution as Darwin saw it is contrasted with the Biblical view, that God created the kinds from the beginning as dust from the ground, within a single day, the fishes and birds on one day, the land animals on another day. While speciation allows certain creatures to change, especially since the fall of mankind; it does not allow kinds to develop gradually from some common ancestor. Thus evolution as a term should not be considered as a theological term for describing God's Creation.
Shalom
Barbarian
Member
Or just a few.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Because he had no evidence for the origin of life, he admitted that whether it was one or several was speculation. It wasn't until we understood the mechanism of heredity, that we were sure.
It opposes special creationism, but of course that's not the same thing as Bible creation.
That is YE creationism, not Biblical.
That is contrary to the Bible, which does not say that at all.
It is a scientific term for the way new taxa are produced.