The Biblical Timeline Backbone - 37 Events from Creation to New Jerusalem

[Carry_Your_Name]

Again, I quoted the verses and highlighted the relevant bits which support what I said. You have yet to do so and instead only say that I’m “rejecting the literal meaning of the text.” Why is that?

And, what of the problem for your position that Psa. 90:4 presents? Is a thousand years equal to 24 hours or equal to 4 hours? It can’t be both if you’re making an equation out if it. By choosing just 24 hours and ignoring 4, you are, by your own reasoning, rejecting the literal meaning of the text.

This only shows your own ignorance. In Jewish culture, a 24 hour day starts and ends at 6 pm, these two comparisons are taken towards the end of the day past and the beginning of the day to come. It doesn't stop at one night watch, in the next verses Moses drew comparison with a sleep (NKJV) or a dream (ESV), then grass which grows at morning (6 am) and fades at evening (6 pm), that obviously follows the night watch no matter which of the three watch is taken. Therefore, a thousand years equal to 24-hour "yesterday" or "4 hour night PLUS the following sleep/dream (the other 8 hours, 90:5) PLUS the next grass growth cycle (12 hours from morning to evening, 90:6)". There's no more "or" in 90:5-6 to indicate separate comparisons. "24 hours or equal to 4 hours" is a false delimma.

I asked for a translation, not the verse which is what we were already discussing. Feel free to actually post the verse, from any translation. Then show me how it says what you say it says.

I've already provided an answer and explanation, you reject it, that's your problem.

Evidence?

Barnabas' epistle.

The Premillennialism of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas was written around 100 A.D. and is attributed to one Barnabas. Tradition identifies the writer as an Alexandrian Jew living during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. His name…

appleeye.org

I literally gave you the definition of a simile. You can search the Internet and find it yourself if you don’t want to believe me. So, what is it that you don’t understand?

You definition is irrelevant. There is NO simile in this passage. God is precise and specific when it comes to numbers. You're doubling down on your private interpretation.

Again, feel free to actually post the verses and show exactly how they say what you say they do. I have done it, why haven’t you?

Again, I've duly explained. You ignored the context and you presented a false delimma. From "night watch" to the end of 90:6, it is one integral comparison without separation or division.

Lol! I’m the one being “so combative and argumentative”? Project much? I’m simply pointing out and trying to get you to understand that these are figures of speech, not equations and so shouldn’t be used as such. I have given support for my position, which you dismiss without actually addressing.

I've pointed out your error of reducing God's prophetic word to a "simile" in your own opinion. I've also given my support, which you dismissed. You've accused me of your crime - ignoring the context, and now you accuse me of projecting? Lol yourself.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's relevant to the topic as several members, including yourself, have made claims about the timing of things based on falsely using figures of speech as equations. It should have been a very quick discussion, but such is life.

It is you who reject the literal meaning of the text by spiritualizing it as a "figure of speech". Ps. 90 is Moses's prayer, it is dead searious, it's anything but a "figure of speech".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your charts don't actually explain much, they just show dates, which seem to rely on the problematic idea that one thousand years is a day.

The issue still remains with Hosea 5:15-6:2 that it was a call for the Israelites to return to God then, and if they did, he would revive them. But, as you state, they "were not revived, raised up, or living in His sight." What exactly is it about those verses that you think are prophetic, rather than just a call to return to God so that "he may heal us"?

The whole book of Hosea is a prophecy book, the broad narrative is prophetic. God is eternal, He is not bound by time, his prophecy is his schedule which is not contingent upon or impeded by any human action. Again, it is your disbelief that reduced "he WILL heal us" to a mere possibility of "he MAY heal us".

 

[Free]

This only shows your own ignorance.

See, combative and argumentative, and a personal attack.

In Jewish culture, a 24 hour day starts and ends at 6 pm, these two comparisons are taken towards the end of the day past and the beginning of the day to come. It doesn't stop at one night watch, in the next verses Moses drew comparison with a sleep (NKJV) or a dream (ESV), then grass which grows at morning (6 am) and fades at evening (6 pm), that obviously follows the night watch no matter which of the three watch is taken. Therefore, a thousand years equal to 24-hour "yesterday" or "4 hour night PLUS the following sleep/dream watch (the other 8 hours, 90:5) PLUS the next grass growth cycle (12 hours from morning to evening, 90:6)". "24 hours or equal to 4 hours" is a false delimma.

Psa. 90:4 clearly states “a watch in the night.” There is no continuity to verses 5 and 6 with “a watch in the night.”

I've already provided an answer and explanation, you reject it, that's your problem.

This is a very dishonest answer. You provided a citation, not the actual text, which is what I was clearly asking for.

You definition is irrelevant. There is NO simile in this passage. God is precise and specific when it comes down to numbers. You're doubling down on your private interpretation.

You haven’t shown otherwise.

Again, I've duly explained. You ignored the context and you presented a false delimma. From "night watch" to the end of 90:6, it is one integral comparison without separation or division.

No, it isn’t. Not that it would matter, since you’re basing this all on a simile.

I've pointed out your error of reducing God's prophetic word to a "simile" in your own opinion.

It is a simile, by definition, which I provided.

I've also given my support, which you dismissed.

No, you haven’t.

It is you who reject the literal meaning of the text by spiritualizing it as a "figure of speech". Ps. 90 is Moses's prayer, it is dead searious, it's anything but a "figure of speech".

There is a simile, which is a figure of speech. What is it that you don’t understand about similes?

The whole book of Hosea is a prophecy book, the broad narrative is prophetic. God is eternal, He is not bound by time, his prophecy is his schedule which is not contingent upon or impeded by any human action. Again, it is your disbelief that reduced "he WILL heal us" to a mere possibility of "he MAY heal us".

It is conditional, as I clearly pointed out. Please do try and keep what I say in context.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

See, combative and argumentative, and a personal attack.

No, that's an honest and fair assessment. You don't understand God's prophecy, thereby you spiritualize it into a "figure of speech".

Psa. 90:4 clearly states “a watch in the night.” There is no continuity to verses 5 and 6 with “a watch in the night.”

Yes there is continuity, you're in denial.

This is a very dishonest answer. You provided a citation, not the actual text, which is what I was clearly asking for.

Go check out the citation yourself and draw your own conclusion. Since you asked for a translation, the "actual text" comes from your preferred translation.

You haven’t shown otherwise.

Yes I have, from "a watch in the night" to the end of 90:6 is ONE integral comparison, not separate ones, there's no more "or".

No, it isn’t. Not that it would matter, since you’re basing this all on a simile.

There's NO simile, you're basing all your argument on a false presupposition.

It is a simile, by definition, which I provided.

No it's not. Any definiton thereof is irrelevant to the text.

No, you haven’t.

Yes I have, and you've dismissed it. I read the text as what it is and follow ancient Jewish wisdom without my personal interpretation.

There is a simile, which is a figure of speech. What is it that you don’t understand about similes?

What is it that you don't understand there's NO simile?

It is conditional, as I clearly pointed out. Please do try and keep what I say in context.

God's prophecy is not conditional. The consistent context is your refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.

 

[Free]

No, that's an honest and fair assessment. You don't understand God's prophecy, thereby you spiritualize it into a "figure of speech".

What is it that you don't understand about figures of speech? Seriously. It is very important that one understands them or one can end up interpreting Scripture incorrectly and be led into error.

Go check out the citation yourself and draw your own conclusion. Since you asked for a translation, the "actual text" comes from your preferred translation.

I already provided the text, which proves my assertion.

You stated: 'What is plainly stated is "one day with the Lord for a thousand years"'

I replied: "Where? Provide one translation that says that."

The obvious meaning of which is: provide the text from just one translation that supports your assertion. So far you have failed to do so and are still unwilling to do so, likely because you know there is no translation that supports your claim. Hence your other baseless claim that there is no simile.

Since you seem to enjoy being purposefully difficult and argumentative, I'm going to provide the text one more time and then I'm out. I've had enough of your arrogance, dishonesty, and needless aggression in this discussion. I have better things to do with my time then try to debate someone who shows little interest in truth.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (ESV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night. (NKJV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night. (NASB)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night. (HCSB)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your eyes are like yesterday when it passes, or like a watch in the night. (LEB)

Simile.

Now, provide just one translation that says "one day with the Lord for a thousand years," or that actually says "a thousand years are one day." Same goes for 2 Pet. 3:8.

Yes I have, from "a watch in the night" to the end of 90:6 is ONE integral comparison, not separate ones, there's no more "or".

No, it isn't. Notice that verse 4 is about God and his relation to time, particularly his patience, which is exactly Peter's point in 2 Pet. 3:8. Verse 5-6 are about people, which is a continuation from verse 3, and the point of which is in verse 7. Verse 3, 5-7 are not talking about God's relation to time, but God's judgement on people.

No it's not. Any definiton thereof is irrelevant to the text.

Yes, it is. I gave the definition and showed how the text fits the definition exactly. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Saying "Not it's not" is not a refutation.

Yes I have, and you've dismissed it. I read the text as what it is and follow ancient Jewish wisdom without my personal interpretation.

That's entirely based on similes as well.

What is it that you don't understand there's NO simile?

There is no need to be childish. That has no place on these forums. It's a serious question. There clearly is something you don't understand about similes and how they're used.

God's prophecy is not conditional. The consistent context is your refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.

Hos 5:15 I will return again to my place, until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face, and in their distress earnestly seek me.
...
Hos 6:1 “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
Hos 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (ESV)

As I said, it's conditional and for that time. The point of which is that if they "return to the LORD," he will quickly revive them.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What is it that you don't understand about figures of speech? Seriously. It is very important that one understands them or one can end up interpreting Scripture incorrectly and be led into error.

It is very important to understand the concept of a false presupposition. I'm the one who takes this particular portion of the Scripture as what it is, you're the one who ignores the context and presents a false delimma. Scripture doesn't contradict itself with your supposed 24 hr. vs 4 hr. problem, you do.

I already provided the text, which proves my assertion.

You stated: 'What is plainly stated is "one day with the Lord for a thousand years"'

I replied: "Where? Provide one translation that says that."

The obvious meaning of which is: provide the text from just one translation that supports your assertion. So far you have failed to do so and are still unwilling to do so, likely because you know there is no translation that supports your claim. Hence your other baseless claim that there is no simile.

I have, 2 Pt. 3:8, any translation you prefer. So far you have failed to acknowledge that. I based my argument on what the text plainly states, what's baseless is your own claim of "simile". You're the one who has no interest in God's prophecy since you dismissed it as a "figure of speech".

Since you seem to enjoy being purposefully difficult and argumentative, I'm going to provide the text one more time and then I'm out. I've had enough of your arrogance, dishonesty, and needless aggression in this discussion. I have better things to do with my time then try to debate someone who shows little interest in truth.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. (ESV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (NIV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night. (NKJV)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night. (NASB)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by, like a few hours of the night. (HCSB)

Simile.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your eyes are like yesterday when it passes, or like a watch in the night. (LEB)

Simile.

Now, provide just one translation that says "one day with the Lord for a thousand years," or that actually says "a thousand years are one day." Same goes for 2 Pet. 3:8.

Neither "like" nor "as" constitutes simile, but a shift of perspective - from a thousand years in man's sight to how it's viewed in God's sight. "Simile" is your own private interpretation, and once again you ignore the following verses.

No, it isn't. Notice that verse 4 is about God and his relation to time, particularly his patience, which is exactly Peter's point in 2 Pet. 3:8. Verse 5-6 are about people, which is a continuation from verse 3, and the point of which is in verse 7. Verse 3, 5-7 are not talking about God's relation to time, but God's judgement on people.

Yes it is, 90:4-6 are all about God's relation to time. If 3, 5-7 were all about people, then why not put 4 after 7? After "return, O children of men," why not continue with "you carry them away"? Why interject with a so called "simile" in regard with God's relation to time?

The truth is, everything between the "for" in 90:4 to the next "for" in 90:7 expands from 90:3 to describe how quicly time passes in God's sight, Moses made two comparisons, "yesterday" is one, "a night watch (4 hrs)" PLUS "sleep (other 8 hrs)" PLUS "grass from morning to evening (12 hrs)". Consistently, the subject after the "for" in 90:4 is "a thousand years" - not an eternality, but very specifically, one thousand years, and it continues until the "we" following the next "for" in 90:7.

Yes, it is. I gave the definition and showed how the text fits the definition exactly. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Saying "Not it's not" is not a refutation.

I've provided ample evidence which you refused to acknowledge. And all you have shown is your arrogant attitude and lack of understanding in bible prophecy.

That's entirely based on similes as well.

"Simile" is your own private interpretation which the bible forbids.

There is no need to be childish. That has no place on these forums. It's a serious question. There clearly is something you don't understand about similes and how they're used.

If you were being serious with God's words through his own prophet Moses, you wouldn't have rendered it as a mere "simile" and Moses, who led Israel to freedom and gave God's eternal law, as a loquacious poet with such vague and supposedly contradicting "similes".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As I said, it's conditional and for that time. The point of which is that if they "return to the LORD," he will quickly revive them.

As I said, God's prophecy is NOT contingent upon human action. As a matter of historical fact, it's not an "if", but a fact that Jewish people all over the world are spiritually returning to the Lord and physically returning to their homeland. The final revival in 6:2 refers to the resurrection of not the Lord himself, but his people, it's the very mystery Paul told in 1 Cor. 15:51-53:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

Your charts don't actually explain much, they just show dates, which seem to rely on the problematic idea that one thousand years is a day.

The issue still remains with Hosea 5:15-6:2 that it was a call for the Israelites to return to God then, and if they did, he would revive them. But, as you state, they "were not revived, raised up, or living in His sight." What exactly is it about those verses that you think are prophetic, rather than just a call to return to God so that "he may heal us"?

I believe that Hosea 5:15-6:2 is indeed prophetic. It is also referenced in the 'times' portion of the 'time, times and an half' found in Daniel 12:6-7.

The site contains a number of articles, charts, diagrams and timelines that contain the relevant scripture references. Coupled with the scriptures themselves, it should become clear that the timeline plots are consistent with scripture.

Not trying to cause confusion, rather, trying to share findings from scripture that glorify God for what He has revealed over the course of time.

 

[Free]

I believe that Hosea 5:15-6:2 is indeed prophetic. It is also referenced in the 'times' portion of the 'time, times and an half' found in Daniel 12:6-7.

But, that would be forcing Daniel 12:6-7 onto Hosea 6:2 and making a connection where there isn't one.

The site contains a number of articles, charts, diagrams and timelines that contain the relevant scripture references. Coupled with the scriptures themselves, it should become clear that the timeline plots are consistent with scripture.

Not trying to cause confusion, rather, trying to share findings from scripture that glorify God for what He has revealed over the course of time.

For sure, but there are also a number of assumptions that are made, such as the earth being about 6,000 years old and that one day is a thousand years. Those greatly affect how prophecy and timelines are interpreted, which in turn affects several doctrines.

 

[miamited]

For sure, but there are also a number of assumptions that are made, such as the earth being about 6,000 years old and that one day is a thousand years.

Hi Free

While I agree that the 'day is a thousand years' is based on an assumption that it would be referring to the length of time that this realm exists before God brings it all to a close. The 6,000 years existence of this realm up to this point is merely an accounting of the years as they passed, according to God's testimony. From the day that He created Adam until now. Then believing that God did create this realm of existence in 6 rotations of the earth (day), added to the accounting of years found in the Scriptures it is not rocket science and not an assumption that God's word is fairly clear that this realm of His creating has existed for about 6,000 years. That is a given fact for those who believe that God's word is true in all that it accounts to us regarding the history of this realm of His creating.

According to the Scriptures, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. If one believes what the Scriptures say, that in 6 days (rotations of the earth) God created everything that exists and began the human race with a man He named Adam, then the creation was 130 years old + 6 days. Then we go to the next child in God's accounting of the progeny of men. Seth was 105 years old when he had a son named Enosh. So now, the earth is 130 + 105 + 6 days, or 235 years of chasing around the sun. You continue through the ages of father to son until you come to Noah and then we find another accounting of the progeny of Noah. But throughout all of this, God does give us an accounting of the years that this creation of His making, the universe and mankind, has existed. So, I don't find that the accounting of the creation being about 6,000 years old as being an assumption. It is specifically and literally what God's word tells us in His accounting of days since He first commanded the earth to exist in a starless void universe. Then He built the earth to sustain mankind and all of the other creatures of His marvelous and wonderful creating abilities. And then He created the universe. Literally, as I understand it, flung all of the heavenly lights and planets and asteroids and other bodies that exist in the universe across the heavens in one of those 6 days (one rotation of the earth). Days have always and forever been accounted as one rotation of the earth upon its axis.

And honestly, when I see these new and high definition pictures that have been captured by the Webb telescope, for me, it just makes God's power and love and provision for His creation to endure for as long as He needs it to endure to serve His purpose of culling out from the earth a people who love Him and honor Him and want to live as He has asked us all to live, just that much more awesome. There will be, what the Scriptures refer to as a harvest of fruit from the earth. That's what this existence that we live now is all about. God has created a realm of existence, and He created man and put him in it. It didn't take Him trillions of years to get it just right. It took him the span of time that we account as 6 days, again a day is a rotation of the earth and always has been, to build this realm in which we exist.

One day we're going to watch it all be rolled up like a scroll and a new heaven and a new earth created again in just a matter of moments, although we aren't actually told how long that will take, But I'm confident that if He can do what He's done to create this realm of existence in six days, He can do it again in 6 minutes if that's His will. And if we also believe that there won't be any sun or moon, it will be a somewhat easier task the next time. Friend, God merely speaks and commands things to be and they become. Revelation 4:11 tells us: You are worthy our Lord and God to receive all glory, honor and power. You created all things. By your will they were created and have their being. That's what God's word tells us about how God just creates things that seem so impossible to us in mere moments.

So, yes on whether or not this existence will go on for 7,000 years, on that being an assumption that is not based on clear evidence of the fact. But no, on the creation having existed for about 6,000 years. That 'fact' is pretty well accounted for the reader of the Scriptures fairly clearly.

 

[Free]

Hi Free

While I agree that the 'day is a thousand years' is based on an assumption that it would be referring to the length of time that this realm exists before God brings it all to a close. The 6,000 years existence of this realm up to this point is merely an accounting of the years as they passed, according to God's testimony. From the day that He created Adam until now. Then believing that God did create this realm of existence in 6 rotations of the earth (day), added to the accounting of years found in the Scriptures it is not rocket science and not an assumption that God's word is fairly clear that this realm of His creating has existed for about 6,000 years. That is a given fact for those who believe that God's word is true in all that it accounts to us regarding the history of this realm of His creating.

According to the Scriptures, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. If one believes what the Scriptures say, that in 6 days (rotations of the earth) God created everything that exists and began the human race with a man He named Adam, then the creation was 130 years old + 6 days. Then we go to the next child in God's accounting of the progeny of men. Seth was 105 years old when he had a son named Enosh. So now, the earth is 130 + 105 + 6 days, or 235 years of chasing around the sun. You continue through the ages of father to son until you come to Noah and then we find another accounting of the progeny of Noah. But throughout all of this, God does give us an accounting of the years that this creation of His making, the universe and mankind, has existed. So, I don't find that the accounting of the creation being about 6,000 years old as being an assumption. It is specifically and literally what God's word tells us in His accounting of days since He first commanded the earth to exist in a starless void universe. Then He built the earth to sustain mankind and all of the other creatures of His marvelous and wonderful creating abilities. And then He created the universe. Literally, as I understand it, flung all of the heavenly lights and planets and asteroids and other bodies that exist in the universe across the heavens in one of those 6 days (one rotation of the earth). Days have always and forever been accounted as one rotation of the earth upon its axis.

And honestly, when I see these new and high definition pictures that have been captured by the Webb telescope, for me, it just makes God's power and love and provision for His creation to endure for as long as He needs it to endure to serve His purpose of culling out from the earth a people who love Him and honor Him and want to live as He has asked us all to live, just that much more awesome. There will be, what the Scriptures refer to as a harvest of fruit from the earth. That's what this existence that we live now is all about. God has created a realm of existence, and He created man and put him in it. It didn't take Him trillions of years to get it just right. It took him the span of time that we account as 6 days, again a day is a rotation of the earth and always has been, to build this realm in which we exist.

One day we're going to watch it all be rolled up like a scroll and a new heaven and a new earth created again in just a matter of moments, although we aren't actually told how long that will take, But I'm confident that if He can do what He's done to create this realm of existence in six days, He can do it again in 6 minutes if that's His will. And if we also believe that there won't be any sun or moon, it will be a somewhat easier task the next time. Friend, God merely speaks and commands things to be and they become. Revelation 4:11 tells us: You are worthy our Lord and God to receive all glory, honor and power. You created all things. By your will they were created and have their being. That's what God's word tells us about how God just creates things that seem so impossible to us in mere moments.

So, yes on whether or not this existence will go on for 7,000 years, on that being an assumption that is not based on clear evidence of the fact. But no, on the creation having existed for about 6,000 years. That 'fact' is pretty well accounted for the reader of the Scriptures fairly clearly.

You are also making a couple of assumptions. First, that Gen. 1:1-2 are included in the days of creation.

Notice that each day in Gen. 1 begins with "And God said." However, in the first two verses, it is simply stated that "God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void." Only in verse 3 do we see "And God said." That could suggest that God created everything, including the earth, and it was some unknown length of time before he started doing the actual work needed to bring about life on the earth, which he did in 6 days.

Second, that the genealogies in Scripture are complete.

"Conclusion

Understanding the Genesis genealogies requires a systematic understanding of the nature, style, and purpose of genealogies in the Bible. Even a cursory study of Biblical genealogies shows that Biblical genealogies are very different from their modern counterparts. Looking closer, we find that Biblical genealogies are commonly telescoped by leaving out less important names and that it is usually impossible to tell if a genealogy is complete simply by looking at it. While genealogies are typically skimmed over or ignored by most people, the Genesis genealogies have generated controversy because of their supposed connection to the age of the universe and the creation of man. The interpretation that the
Genesis genealogies are telescoped and that Adam and Eve were created a few tens of thousands of years ago is no less a literal interpretation of scripture than Ussher’s interpretation. Many prominent conservative theologians (see
below) support this position."

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/the-genesis-genealogies

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/debatable-genesis-genealogies-and-the-age-of-the-earth/

 

[donadams]

Concerning the timeline contained within scripture, only 37 events are needed to calculate the duration of time from creation to the new Jerusalem. This 'backbone' acts as a type of checksum whereby the events of the biblical timeline are kept in synch.

The file can be found at https://7049biblicaltimelineresearch.org/biblicalTimelines.html and is an easy to follow list of scripture references, and their duration, that transitions from one event to the next.

New Jerusalem came 2000 yrs ago! Gal 4:26 holy mother church!

 

[miamited]

Hi Free

Notice that each day in Gen. 1 begins with "And God said." However, in the first two verses, it is simply stated that "God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void." Only in verse 3 do we see "And God said." That could suggest that God created everything, including the earth, and it was some unknown length of time before he started doing the actual work needed to bring about life on the earth, which he did in 6 days.

And yes, I've heard that argument before. And on the surface, it sounds like it might carry some water, but...

What would be God's purpose to create the earth and let it sit alone for hundreds or thousands or millions or billions of years? God created the earth. Spoke it into existence for the sole purpose of creating a place where a creature of His creating called man could live. He didn't create the earth just to throw it out there and see what happens. The opening in Gen. 1 is merely the purpose statement of what the following information was going to be talking about. In the beginning God created the earth and it was without form and void. It was covered in water, but there was not dry ground visible on the earth when it was created and the Spirit hovered over the earth. That is all part and parcel of the opening of the account of God's creative work to build this created realm in which we live. But then if we go by your possible explanation one has to ask why?

Why would God spend some huge amount of time between when He created the body of molten and solid rock that spins in space without any plant or animal life on it? And without any other heavenly bodies surrounding it? Why? And then of course, we have to deal with all that God tells us about the creation event and He's really pretty clear in giving the law unto Moses that He created the heaven and the earth in six days. His words not mine. So this idea that He created the earth outside of the six days of the Genesis creation account doesn't hold water on that basis alone. Whether or not you can come up with some idea as to why He might have created the earth to just sit all alone for thousands or billions of years. According to the Genesis account, God didn't create the heavenly bodies until day 4. So you're going with the earth just spinning around in space without any of the other heavenly bodies for billions of years because you don't think God is precise enough in explaining in the Genesis account that all of those first 2 verses are merely an introduction to what the following testimony would be discussing? And I can only wonder what you think about God's saying in the law that He did create, and specifically mentions the earth, during the six day creation event.

The earth on day one and the heavenly bodies on day four, allow God to be true and honest in the law when telling us:

For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the EARTH, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.


So yes, the question that first comes to my mind with your explanation is simply why? Give me a reason to believe that God made a mistake or scribes have made an error or the writings have been changed that God didn't really create the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them in six days. Just a glimmer of a possible explanation for why God would say that to Moses, but it apparently isn't true according to your understanding. You believe that God just created the earth and it spun around happy and carefree with, I guess, water sloshing around on the surface for some untold number of years... and then He took six days and made all those stars out there in a mere blink of an eye. I find that particularly difficult to see as the intent of what God has written to us throughout His testimony of what He has done in creating this realm in which we live.

 

[Free]

Hi Free

And yes, I've heard that argument before. And on the surface, it sounds like it might carry some water, but...

What would be God's purpose to create the earth and let it sit alone for hundreds or thousands or millions or billions of years?

You would have to ask him. He very well could have his reasons.

God created the earth. Spoke it into existence for the sole purpose of creating a place where a creature of His creating called man could live.

Of course.

He didn't create the earth just to throw it out there and see what happens.

Nor is that implied from anything I stated.

The opening in Gen. 1 is merely the purpose statement of what the following information was going to be talking about.

That is one interpretation. I gave another possible, legitimate interpretation.

But then if we go by your possible explanation one has to ask why?

Why would God spend some huge amount of time between when He created the body of molten and solid rock that spins in space without any plant or animal life on it?

Why not? Just because God doesn't spell things out doesn't mean it must have happened some other way.

And without any other heavenly bodies surrounding it? Why?

That is another assumption.

And then of course, we have to deal with all that God tells us about the creation event and He's really pretty clear in giving the law unto Moses that He created the heaven and the earth in six days. His words not mine. So this idea that He created the earth outside of the six days of the Genesis creation account doesn't hold water on that basis alone.

If what I have stated is correct, and it is a legitimate possibility, then Ex. 20:11 simply affirms it.

Whether or not you can come up with some idea as to why He might have created the earth to just sit all alone for thousands or billions of years. According to the Genesis account, God didn't create the heavenly bodies until day 4.

Again, you're making assumptions on what the text is actually saying.

So you're going with the earth just spinning around in space without any of the other heavenly bodies for billions of years because you don't think God is precise enough in explaining in the Genesis account that all of those first 2 verses are merely an introduction to what the following testimony would be discussing?

Again, you're making assumptions both about what I have said and what the text says. According to your interpretation, God had the earth bring "forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind" on the third day, when the sun that is necessary for the growth of such things isn't created until the fourth day.

Which means you're also making an assumption about what "day and evening" mean in the first three days. Do you believe that phrase refers to literal 24-hr days? If you do, don't you think it's rather difficult to have literal 24-hr days if the heavenly bodies that determine that cycle aren't even created yet?

Having said that, it is also a legitimate interpretation of verses 14-18 that God appointed all the stars and planets, that were created in verse 1, "to rule over the day and over the night." That is an argument that you should also have made, as it solves both of our seeming difficulties.

So yes, the question that first comes to my mind with your explanation is simply why?

Again, why not?

Give me a reason to believe that God made a mistake or scribes have made an error or the writings have been changed that God didn't really create the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them in six days.

No way to come to that conclusion from anything I wrote. You're again making assumptions based on your interpretation.

Just a glimmer of a possible explanation for why God would say that to Moses, but it apparently isn't true according to your understanding. You believe that God just created the earth and it spun around happy and carefree with, I guess, water sloshing around on the surface for some untold number of years... and then He took six days and made all those stars out there in a mere blink of an eye. I find that particularly difficult to see as the intent of what God has written to us throughout His testimony of what He has done in creating this realm in which we live.

Again, you're making assumptions. I've given a possible, legitimate explanation of the text.

The whole point in this is that there is a lot more going on in the text of Gen. 1 than most seem to even care to know about (there are numerous books on this chapter alone.) Too many assumptions drive certain interpretations that have ramifications for many other doctrines. When it comes to eschatological prophecy, much more caution is warranted, especially when it gets based on numerous other assumptions. One ends up with assumptions being based on assumptions, and a resulting confidence level about end times beliefs that is completely unwarranted.

 

[miamited]

Nor is that implied from anything I stated.

Alright, let's talk. How long do you believe that the earth existed before the first vegetation was planted on it?

 

[Free]

Alright, let's talk. How long do you believe that the earth existed before the first vegetation was planted on it?

I don't want to go any further off-topic. My only point was that there are certain assumptions always being made when people "interpret" prophecy.

 

[miamited]

That is one interpretation. I gave another possible, legitimate interpretation.

But interpretations must be tested and meet all of the evidence that is given. For example, there are some who believe that the parting of the Red Sea was some other place called the "reed sea" and that it was like just low tide. That's great! But how does that meet the descriptor that there was a wall of water on both their left hand and right? Some will say that the flood was just a local event. That's great! But how does some local area stay flooded for 6 months to a height of over 20 feet of whatever the highest place in the area was? I've witnessed local floods. If only a local area of the map is flooded, no matter how big that area may be, the water runoff would be much faster than 6 months.

In this case you're claiming that you have found reasonable evidence to offer up an explanation of the event and so I'm asking you particulars about the event to see if it meets all the givens that we have with which to test it? You say it's a possible, legitimate interpretation. Ok, let's weigh that against the evidence we have.

Starting with the law. Was there some misunderstanding between God and Moses? Have the Scribes of centuries past miswritten the Hebrew? The law says that in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. How does you evidence oppose that claim that God has made to us in His law to us. The one where it says though shalt not bear false witness. Is God bearing false witness to us or has there been some scribal error or some other 'interpretation' that explains why God has clearly caused to be written that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days just like He told you in the opening account of the Beginning... but He didn't.

 

[Free]

But interpretations must be tested and meet all of the evidence that is given. For example, there are some who believe that the parting of the Red Sea was some other place called the "reed sea" and that it was like just low tide. That's great! But how does that meet the descriptor that there was a wall of water on both their left hand and right? Some will say that the flood was just a local event. That's great! But how does some local area stay flooded for 6 months to a height of over 20 feet of whatever the highest place in the area was? I've witnessed local floods. If only a local area of the map is flooded, no matter how big that area may be, the water runoff would be much faster than 6 months.

In this case you're claiming that you have found reasonable evidence to offer up an explanation of the event and so I'm asking you particulars about the event to see if it meets all the givens that we have with which to test it? You say it's a possible, legitimate interpretation. Ok, let's weigh that against the evidence we have.

Starting with the law. Was there some misunderstanding between God and Moses? Have the Scribes of centuries past miswritten the Hebrew? The law says that in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. How does you evidence oppose that claim that God has made to us in His law to us. The one where it says though shalt not bear false witness. Is God bearing false witness to us or has there been some scribal error or some other 'interpretation' that explains why God has clearly caused to be written that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days just like He told you in the opening account of the Beginning... but He didn't.

This discussion goes back centuries and centuries, but isn't really the topic of this thread. There are several legitimate understandings of Gen. 1 that do not rely on six literal 24-hr days. But, that is all I'm going to say.

 

[miamited]

I don't want to go any further off-topic. My only point was that there are certain assumptions always being made when people "interpret" prophecy.

And we are off topic because of what? The topic is the timeline event of the creation to the new Jerusalem. How are we going to know where to start if we don't answer this question. If the creation existed trillions of years ago, where do we start the timeline?

Look, I'm sorry. And I know you believe what you're saying. You are sincere. But I'd ask you to ask these questions to test what you believe. That's what the Scriptures advise us to do. Test everything to see if it is true. And there's a clear problem with the earth having existed for billions of years before mankind was ever put on it, and for God to say that in six days He did all that He claimed to do. For me, that's a serious and legitimate question to be asked.