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!

[_ Old Earth _] If you reject knowledge because of the messenger dont bother

ex nihilo is about the creation of the cosmos, not animals in particular.

Even mainline Christians accept the creation of the universe ex nihilo. The YE creationist doctrine of life ex nihilo is the false one. If you don't accept this doctrine, good for you. It is an insult to God; who chose to create life from the earth.

Even in your interpretation (which is quite a stretch given that Eve was made (relatively) right away when she was taken from Adam's side as he was in deep sleep) --But even if I give you that leeway, that doesnt prove an old Earth.

It merely shows that you can't be a YE creationist and logically claim to be a Bible-beliving Christian.

Some meanings of Yom (Yahwm)
1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow


Yep. All those things. So those who insist it has to mean a 24 hour day don't understand the usage in the Bible.

Genesis uses YOM which is and has always been one literal unit of time which we call a "day".

See above.

If I am wrong, please show me another scripture which uses yom in the sense you are using it.

Zechariah 14:7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.


Here it represents at least a year.

And as Augustine remarked, it is absurd to speak of mornings and evenings, with no sun to have them.
 
is that constantine quote supposed to trump my Genesis quote? It's absurd to have light and darkness with or without a star (sun primarily called the 'greater light' and the moon the 'lesser light' in Genesis)

Further, Genesis 1:1 covers that.

"In the beginning, (eth) God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Heavens:

???????? shamayim

1) heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky

1) as abode of the stars

2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc

b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

The Heavens and Earth were the first things created in Genesis. Genesis then speaks in detail of the Earth's creation. It doesnt speak much about the rest of the universe.
 
barb, he RECANTED. see the book of city of god, in which he states the yrs of creation.

The City of God was written in 410 right after the sack of Rome by Alaric the Vandal. The Literal Meaning of Genesis was written about five years after that, about 415. He recanted, but he recanted to accept that Genesis did not mean 24 hour days. His last word on the subject was that they represented categories of creation, not periods of time.
 
is that constantine quote supposed to trump my Genesis quote?

Augustine, not Constantine. St. Augustine is a doctor of the Church, considered the greatest Christian theologian in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and was highly regarded as an authority by Calvin, whose theology is based largely on Augustine's works.

Further, Genesis 1:1 covers that.

"In the beginning, (eth) God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Heavens:

???????? shamayim

1) heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky

1) as abode of the stars

2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc

b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

The problem is, a literal reading of Genesis has the sun being created after the first morning and evening, which is logically absurd. It says the Sun and Moon were made on the third day. So logically, it cannot be a literal history.
 
whose say that it was in order, if we take that reasoning to the gospels then theres some serious problems.

and again what is the meaning of the new city of jerusalem in descension to the earht. with the elimation of the sun and moons.

could god not be the very start of time as he created it all.

sirach btw isnt in the bible? even by your church. so that negates agustine whole position.
i''m protestant (pentacostal) and i dont accept the apochprya.

and then what of this to wit science denies (a partcular rights movement) if any be in christ behold he is a new creature. the old things have passed away.

which should we believe, man or god?

one doesnt by default reason god to be real. he has to reveal himself to you, if not you simply wont,cant believe.

what does it all mean. gibberish? the genesis account why mention what men would eat or how sin came to be, or whats the meaning of the tree of life.

if we take the word eritz to mean the same as in kosmos then to the apostles they went to the ends of the flat earth so we shouldnt be saved and the kingdom should have come.


and then theres this verse? for in six days the lord created the earth and all that was therein.

what was moses to believe by that?
 
wikipedia says otherwise.

He apparently published the city of God some years after 410. However, he did not recant his notion that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones. What he wrote in The City of God was that creation seemed to be only a few thousand years old. He also wrote, however, that one should be willing to revise that if other evidence comes forward. He left this warning to those who would add to scripture:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim†(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

He was rather wise, um? This is exactly the damage caused by YE creationism today. It's OK to say "I believe it was this way." But to say " It is God's word that it happened this way" is to put a roadblock before many people who might otherwise come to him, and it sometimes destroys the faith of believers who find that it cannot be true.
 
and wrong sirach isnt in the bible.

if it is show me that the rcc still uses it.
a wise person can be wrong, even solomon who was far wiser then agustine was a fool when he left the lord.
 
barb, you claim the same when you say the god did it by evolution. when and where did he say that one barb.
what if it changes. barb.

i dont pretend to understand how, and creationist that honest admits that what they say is only a theory not fact.

aig and icr admit that.

cant say that with the purporters of evolution.
i never said how he did, just that he states that he did it. the how exactly we dont know.

to be honest i see more compromise in the theistic evo side then the yec side on issues. why evo seems to say like the devil at times, did god really mean that?

thus the reference to those above verses in corinthians and aslo revalation and others.
 
barb, you claim the same when you say the god did it by evolution.

Just as I claim He created matter using protons, neutrons, and electrons.

when and where did he say that one barb.

He showed it to us, when we got smart enough to go look.

what if it changes. barb.

Our understanding of those particles changes from time to time, as we learn more. So far, nothing that would lead us to think He didn't do it.

i dont pretend to understand how, and creationist that honest admits that what they say is only a theory not fact.

In science, nothing is a theory until it's verified by testing.

aig and icr admit that.

Because they don't understand much about science.

to be honest i see more compromise in the theistic evo side then the yec side on issues. why evo seems to say like the devil at times, did god really mean that?

We simply have the humility to recognize that if facts and Scripture seem incongruous, we have misunderstood one or the other.

Thus the reference to those above verses in corinthians and aslo revalation and others.

It's sometimes hard to remember that our understanding of God is not God. Scientists, who are accustomed to revising their understanding when facts warrant it, are more likely to remember that.

Or so I think. That was Augustine's point.
 
that interpretation has nothing to do with the idea of the same day. that is reference to the day of the lord yes, but that day can mean a 24 hr period, i will have to read that verse again.

in our previous diatribes the world kosmos to you dont mean only eritz if it did then only isreal would be saved by that context. see the vs john 3:16

the day of the lord refers to the tribualation

but like the context of kosmos it can mean other things.

no icr admit that what they say is a theory, i guess a phd from cornell and other such has harvard doesnt mean anything.

lovely barb, only a scientist if they believe in evo.
 
that interpretation has nothing to do with the idea of the same day. that is reference to the day of the lord yes, but that day can mean a 24 hr period, i will have to read that verse again.

Yom can mean a number of things.

in our previous diatribes the world kosmos to you dont mean only eritz if it did then only isreal would be saved by that context. see the vs john 3:16

Eretz does not properly translate to Kosmos. "Eretz" is more properly "land."

no icr admit that what they say is a theory, i guess a phd from cornell and other such has harvard doesnt mean anything.

lovely barb, only a scientist if they believe in evo.

Huh? I don't get that.
 
Yes, eretz means Earth/land it is Hebrew. Kosmos means "creation" and is Greek. I don't know why the word "Kosmos" is being used in direct context to (the book of) Genesis. Kosmos can encompass the totality of the handiwork of God.

Yom "can" mean other things, but just because it "can" doesn't mean it does. Even in English if I were to say something inane like "the hope of tomorrow rests in our children." The word tomorrow leaves its natural use for a more broad form. The word tomorrow unless indicated otherwise means TOMORROW.

Day in English can also mean an "age" or span of time. "The day of America's prosperity is coming to an end."
"The day of dial up internet service has come to a close."


The context of Genesis 1 proves the author's intent.

As I said:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day (YOM), and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (YOM).

Let the scripture interpret itself.
 
If you let scripture interpret itself, than you would not assume yom means "day." Without a sun, there can be no morning and evening, since by definition, one needs a sun to have them.
 
The Barbarian said:
If you let scripture interpret itself, than you would not assume yom means "day." Without a sun, there can be no morning and evening, since by definition, one needs a sun to have them.

Who's definition?

Revelation 21:23-25

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.


The scriptures conclude that a "day" is when the overwhelming presence of light falls upon the land. The origin of the light is never specified. The sun is the organ of light in this present age. It is not what defines the day. (The sun is always present, even when the moon has dominion; it is still there, but shut up to your vantage point)

The sun does not define a day. Light defines a day. The sun of an origin of light but not THE origin of light.

This is reinforced from a close reading of Genesis 1 where God called the day light and the darkness day and the light and darkness were the first day.

Everything fits logically. You are reading with preconceived assumptions. Read it for what it says. The Bible calls whales fish and bats birds. the conceits of modern taxonomy would mock the Bible. The fact is, taxonomy isnt authoritative or natural law. It is how we rationalize things. You rationalize day by the sun--and that is the primal conclusion, given Human beings have only known the sun as a source of light and that the sun is a governor ordained by God to reign over the day.

The sun is a steward of God unto the day time, not the very day itself. As the Law was a schoolmaster until the appointed time was to come, and then it was taken away having served its role, so is the sun. It will pass away when it's role is fulfilled and the Lamb becomes the light for an everlasting day.
 
barb, doesnt beleive in the world wide flood thus the reference to it. peter said the world of old stood in waters having been judged.

the word for world was kosmos, so if just the local even then why use that world.
 
Ashua said:
Evidence can be interpreted in many ways and I dont think radiometric dating and the geologic column hold their weight in dung. I have scientific citations to back it up too.
By all means, let's see them. And while we're at it, what is your explanation for the correlation of different dating methods as indicated by the above graphs? Which particular strata do you suggest were laid down by the noachian flood?
 
jasoncran said:
the word for world was kosmos, so if just the local even then why use that world.
That'd the point though - the Greek version already is a translation, not the original. The original term, "eretz" in Hebrew, is not correctly translated as kosmos.
 
Back
Top