[_ Old Earth _] In Six Days

[Sparkey]

My thoughts regarding what may or may not be understood have been centered on the very pointed question that God demanded of Job. It would serve us well to remember the question as if it were posed to each of us: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

Declarations such as, "It MUST be a 24 hour period," are not found in my mouth. Neither are statements like, "A Day MAY NOT be considered to be a day, else it is a terrible sin."

 

[felix]

My thoughts regarding what may or may not be understood have been centered on the very pointed question that God demanded of Job. It would serve us well to remember the question as if it were posed to each of us: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

Declarations such as, "It MUST be a 24 hour period," are not found in my mouth. Neither are statements like, "A Day MAY NOT be considered to be a day, else it is a terrible sin."

I agree with what you are saying and I am not disputing with you. However, when many good Christians ignorantly say, the earth is only 6000 years old when the Bible doesn't say that is sending a wrong message to others (most secular unbelievers) who think more rationally. This can even cause them to see Bible as a fable rather than a historically true account. This is my true concern.

 

[Sparkey]

The essence of what we are forging here is the job of a peacemaker. Keeping ourselves on task is no small matter.

 

[Barbarian]

The notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, is a stumbling block for unbelievers only if they think that such a belief is an essential part of Christian faith. It is not. It certainly is a belief held by many Christians, but many more of the world's Christians don't hold to it.

Not a salvation issue. Nor does it harm people unless they think that one has to believe so to be Christian.

The same goes for old Earth Christians.

 

[felix]

Not a salvation issue. Nor does it harm people unless they think that one has to believe so to be Christian.

Except they become skeptical and slowly start loosing faith on either seeing or studying the scientific observations themselves.

The same goes for old Earth Christians.

But old earth not only agrees with the Bible, but also agrees with all scientific observations (not necessarily scientific explanations).

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Sparrowhake, yes Mr Sarfati believes in a literal Six Day, 24 hr time frame for creation. He is a firm believer in it. As am I. Felix you say I don't believe that God created time. But in my post I said I do! I don't understand how I can say I do, its there to see and you say I don't?? Did you read where I said that I do? How Hebrews is scripture proof that the days of creation were not Six Days as is written in Genesis baffles me, other than that some other type of meaning has been read into it by yourself. In Mathew Henry's commentary it says "He illustrates and confirms it. From God's finishing His work of creation, and so entering into His rest. He will cause those who believe to finish their work, and then to enjoy their rest. From God's continuing the observance of the Sabbath. Their is a more spiritual Sabbath remaining for the people of God than that into which Joshua led the Jews." We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ and history from then till now. Adam was created within the creation week. When those genealogies are added up and the history as well we have a pretty good idea that the Earth is roughly 6000 yrs old. As far as creation goes. You said God "thought" and created it "immediately". But in the NKJV it says God "said" let there be light and that God spoke as He created. There is no implication that anything was made by "thought and immediately". How do you come to the conclusion using the NKJV that it was thought and immediate? I have the NKJV and the KJV and neither convey that concept.

 

[felix]

Felix you say I don't believe that God created time. But in my post I said I do! I don't understand how I can say I do, its there to see and you say I don't?? Did you read where I said that I do? How Hebrews is scripture proof that the days of creation were not Six Days as is written in Genesis baffles me, other than that some other type of meaning has been read into it by yourself.

I know you believe but what I think is, you don't fully understand it's implications. Which is why I said to think a moment with God outside the realm of time. You might expect God looking at us doing all activities. No. That is not the way God will view. From his view, he will view everything ever happened and everything that will ever happen and everything that is happening all before Him. According to God, He already did rested on the 7th day which is the rest with Christ. However, Christ is fully human as well (apart from being fully God). Christ on earth was bound by time and died for us 2000 years back. When Christ ascended to heavens to be seated on the right hand of God, He is not bound by time. However, when He comes, He will dwell among us, which is the 7th day. But from God's perspective, that is already over and completed. Even all eternity is something that is already over for God - We simply cannot understand God's power with our futile minds but I try my best to explain to fellow Christians.

We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ and history from then till now. Adam was created within the creation week. When those genealogies are added up and the history as well we have a pretty good idea that the Earth is roughly 6000 yrs old. As far as creation goes. You said God "thought" and created it "immediately". But in the NKJV it says God "said" let there be light and that God spoke as He created. There is no implication that anything was made by "thought and immediately". How do you come to the conclusion using the NKJV that it was thought and immediate? I have the NKJV and the KJV and neither convey that concept.

Adam was created 6000 years ago - not Earth. Earth has a dateless past. The "thought and immediately" is a phrase to explain that He wasn't sitting around doing nothing for an eternal past and finally created His creations very recently. The focus of the phrase was intended not on how God created but rather how He wasn't sitting around simply doing nothing for an eternal past. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Sparkey]

When those genealogies are added up and the history as well we have a pretty good idea that the Earth is roughly 6000 yrs old.

This subject, the Timelines of Bishop Ussher, deserves a thread to itself. There are many non-Scriptural sources considered while trying to construct such things. There are only two genealogies that may be "added up" to my knowledge, those that give ages of the father when the child was born. Look at the New Testament genealogies for instance. How old was Joseph when Jesus was born? Do we know? Continue that line of thought to understand that there is more to it than what was stated above.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Felix, sorry but in your thread number 73 after I had stated openly that I believe God created time you again say that I don't believe He did. Read it, no 73.
I have taken time to consider how one may come to the doctrine you follow. I wonder, as an aside, what church or religion this is from? I have never heard of it before and would ask you please what church teaches this?
Anyway. I have read and re-read the scriptures on this and cannot see where Hebrews 4 is referring to anything else other than the future rest we will have from our earthly labours as Christians, by following the gospel, believing in Christ as saviour and then being rewarded in Heaven with a spiritual rest from those labours here on earth. I look at passages such as 2 Peter 3 v 8 and wonder if this too is a reason for the doctrine. But see this scripture text as follows, that God is sometimes seen as slow to act by some in that they don't see instant fulfilments of His promises as v 9 says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promises as some men count slackness..". Peter saying this is possibly using the term in v 8 as a reference to Psalm 90 v 4 where it says "for a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" Here the term thousand years is used almost poetically as it is then followed by "as a watch in the night" which is but a few hours. The term thousand years is being used to show that God is not bound by time as we are, not to show that when He says 1 day that He really means a thousand. The way in which Genesis 1 is written and structured is done so to show it is all meant as literal, historical. If God wished to say thousand there He would have. But this last point for me seals it. In Romans 3 v 2 we read how the "oracles" of God were committed to the Jews "...because that unto them were committed the oracles of God". The oracles, scriptures of the Old Testament. The Jews, their biblical scholars, scribes whichever term you wish to use, have all believed that Genesis 1 is literal history, that 1 day there is our 1 day. Your text proof, Hebrews, is from the New Testament. So are we to believe that the God who furnished the Jews with these "oracles" left them without understanding that in Genesis 1 the days were not literal, as you say, but only gave enlightenment thousands of years later to others after they had died in ignorance that the day was really a thousand years? That all that time they had no scripture proof otherwise and had been furnished with an insufficient account of creation that was not shown correctly until thousands of years later? Where now yourself and others who believe this doctrine can now quote from Hebrews to show this? Hebrews 4 is not a scripture proof that the world was not made in Six literal days and the use of it to do so is to take it entirely out of context and deny the true Biblical account. That the Jews had not the evidence to show them otherwise than that which they had, that they wrongly interpreted creation!?

 

[felix]

Hello Felix, sorry but in your thread number 73 after I had stated openly that I believe God created time you again say that I don't believe He did. Read it, no 73.
I have taken time to consider how one may come to the doctrine you follow. I wonder, as an aside, what church or religion this is from? I have never heard of it before and would ask you please what church teaches this?
Anyway. I have read and re-read the scriptures on this and cannot see where Hebrews 4 is referring to anything else other than the future rest we will have from our earthly labours as Christians, by following the gospel, believing in Christ as saviour and then being rewarded in Heaven with a spiritual rest from those labours here on earth.

Try reading again... I think you didn't read properly.

Heb 4:4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh [day] in this way: [ "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"];
Heb 4:5 and again in this [place:] [ "They shall not enter My rest."]
Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains that some [must] enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience
..
Heb 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

The author of Hebrews is plainly speaking about the 7th day.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Felix. I have read Hebrews many times since becoming a Christian decades ago and it has never changed in its meaning to be what it is being implied to be now. No, sorry but I cannot believe that the Jews had it wrong for thousands of years and the only proof for what you say was delivered after all that time thousands of years later. I cannot believe that God said one thing in Genesis (which was written and structured historically), had them believing Six days and then showed it was something else thousands of years later when they had all died believing in the wrong interpretation. Those Jews to whom it was given to believed it was Six days. Again I have never heard of that doctrine before and wonder where it comes from? What church teaches this to its followers? Could I possibly ask you which church or organisation that is which you are a member of Felix?

 

[felix]

Hello Felix. I have read Hebrews many times since becoming a Christian decades ago and it has never changed in its meaning to be what it is being implied to be now. No, sorry but I cannot believe that the Jews had it wrong for thousands of years and the only proof for what you say was delivered after all that time thousands of years later. I cannot believe that God said one thing in Genesis (which was written and structured historically), had them believing Six days and then showed it was something else thousands of years later when they had all died believing in the wrong interpretation. Those Jews to whom it was given to believed it was Six days. Again I have never heard of that doctrine before and wonder where it comes from? What church teaches this to its followers? Could I possibly ask you which church or organisation that is which you are a member of Felix?

Then believe atleast on Jesus that the Father had never rested yet.

(John 5:17) But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Felix. God rested on the seventh day as an example for us to also rest on the seventh day or one in seven. For our own rest and to honour Him and worship Him. There have been plenty, many thousands of days since then though, since the creation of the world. Many days have passed during the course of this thread. I have no doubt that God has been doing much since creation but why should I suppose that because God has been doing things that it means the seventh day never happened but is to happen as a future event? Why wouldn't God do anything after the seventh? You still don't address how the Jews believed it was literal Six days for all those years and how God never furnished them with proof to believe otherwise till ages later with Hebrews! Why would God do that to those to whom He committed the Oracles Of God? Like I said, I have never heard of this doctrine and wonder where it comes from out of curiosity? Which church or religion is this from please Felix?

 

[felix]

Hello Felix. God rested on the seventh day as an example for us to also rest on the seventh day or one in seven. For our own rest and to honour Him and worship Him. There have been plenty, many thousands of days since then though, since the creation of the world. Many days have passed during the course of this thread.

God rested on the 7th day NOT as an example for us BUT He instituted the week of 7 days for us based on how He created the heavens and earth and rested on the 7th day.

I have no doubt that God has been doing much since creation but why should I suppose that because God has been doing things that it means the seventh day never happened but is to happen as a future event? Why wouldn't God do anything after the seventh?

You still haven't understood what it means to God when He created time. I can assure you that.

Let me give you a clue: Even before God said, "Let there be light (on day 1)", "Christ's Millennial kingdom and final judgment was already over". If you can understand this, you will understand what I mean. You still think God just as a human being "bound by time" going from one point to another.

You still don't address how the Jews believed it was literal Six days for all those years and how God never furnished them with proof to believe otherwise till ages later with Hebrews! Why would God do that to those to whom He committed the Oracles Of God? Like I said, I have never heard of this doctrine and wonder where it comes from out of curiosity?

Do you know how many times did God separated light from darkness in Gen chap 1? TWICE. You will know this only when you read the scriptures without your traditional teachings interfering.

Which church or religion is this from please Felix?

The one true Church of Christ, who believe exactly what the Bible says, not influenced by futile human teachings but who allow Holy Spirit to speak through the Scriptures, the revealer of secrets.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Felix. Are you saying it is the "Church of Christ"? Mormon?

 

[felix]

Hi Felix. Are you saying it is the "Church of Christ"? Mormon?

There is only "ONE" true Church of Christ where members from different denominations form "living stones" with Christ as High Priest to God.

I believe Mormonism is a cult.

 

[Free Christian]

I see. No, what I believe is not traditional teachings. I at first did think that you were not getting this teaching from a Church or Religion but was not 100% sure which is why I asked if it was the other. The doctrine I believe in has roots, traceable roots throughout the ages. Even the early Jews believed it as I stated. To whom were given the Oracles of God. Not traditions of men but the Given Word of God. The practice of being able to trace the roots of your belief is Biblical, we see this in the Bible itself where we are given genealogies and so on so as to be sure we have a solid grounding. That we can see the tree by its roots. The doctrine proposed here by yourself has no traceable roots back through the ages where it is seen as a doctrine or belief of true Godly Christians. At least, I can find none in the writings of such. We are given this practice of doing so, so as to safeguard ourselves from false doctrines and false teachers telling us things which have no Christian History. This teaching has no Christian history. It has none in the Old Testament, none throughout the ages from those who have gone before us which can be traced. That I view God as just a human being bound by time, wow, is an entirely false statement and your words only as any of my posts clearly show my reverence for God and His Divinity. For some reason you imply and state things people believing which they clearly do not. On that note I strongly feel I must end this here now in regards to my posting where I am continually told how I falsely see my Creator. Take care Felix.

 

[felix]

I see. No, what I believe is not traditional teachings. I at first did think that you were not getting this teaching from a Church or Religion but was not 100% sure which is why I asked if it was the other. The doctrine I believe in has roots, traceable roots throughout the ages. Even the early Jews believed it as I stated. To whom were given the Oracles of God. Not traditions of men but the Given Word of God. The practice of being able to trace the roots of your belief is Biblical, we see this in the Bible itself where we are given genealogies and so on so as to be sure we have a solid grounding. That we can see the tree by its roots. The doctrine proposed here by yourself has no traceable roots back through the ages where it is seen as a doctrine or belief of true Godly Christians. At least, I can find none in the writings of such. We are given this practice of doing so, so as to safeguard ourselves from false doctrines and false teachers telling us things which have no Christian History. This teaching has no Christian history. It has none in the Old Testament, none throughout the ages from those who have gone before us which can be traced. That I view God as just a human being bound by time, wow, is an entirely false statement and your words only as any of my posts clearly show my reverence for God and His Divinity. For some reason you imply and state things people believing which they clearly do not. On that note I strongly feel I must end this here now in regards to my posting where I am continually told how I falsely see my Creator. Take care Felix.

So, your traceable roots goes back to a bunch of jews (scribes and Pharisees who are the teachers of the law) who Jesus called as "hypocrites", "whitewashed tombs", "inside are full of dead [men's] bones and all uncleanness", who not only rejected Christ but also crucified Him?

My roots are just on the Scripture and as I explained it doesn't require any "roots" because Scripture is plain and simple and speaking for itself.