D
Dave Slayer
Guest
Was there death before Adam sinned? Please provide scripture to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Nick
Member
- Feb 27, 2009
- 14,527
- 464
No, there was not, since everything was perfect.
Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Now this is inferring that people didn't die before the downfall of man.
This next passage tells us more directly that man must not have eternal life. We must not be immortal. And so what's the opposite of immortal? Mortal. We must be mortal. Therefore we were immortal before Adam sinned, or God would not have said these things.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Now this is inferring that people didn't die before the downfall of man.
This next passage tells us more directly that man must not have eternal life. We must not be immortal. And so what's the opposite of immortal? Mortal. We must be mortal. Therefore we were immortal before Adam sinned, or God would not have said these things.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
G
Guitar Guy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
Death is a byproduct of sin.
Genesis 2:17
"...And you shall surely die"
Die in Hebrew = תמות
v. to die, perish, expire
The consequence was to die, perish, and expire.
tl;dr: No, no death before sin.
Genesis 2:17
"...And you shall surely die"
Die in Hebrew = תמות
v. to die, perish, expire
The consequence was to die, perish, and expire.
tl;dr: No, no death before sin.
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
Personally, I believe that the 'death' refered to in 'the garden' was SPIRITUAL death. For OF COURSE death existed previous to 'the garden'. We have the evidence of the 'remains' of that which DIED previous to 'the garden'.
Blessings,
MEC
Blessings,
MEC
G
Guitar Guy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
I'd like to know why you think things died prior to the fall of man.
If you believe in seven day creation I think it's highly unlikely.
All the animals were omnivores so they did not eat each other.
Adam was created and then so was Eve. Of course there is no real time line in Genesis between chapters 2 and 3 which is the creation of Adam to the fall of man although it does come immediately after and my personal belief is that not much time had passed.
If no animals ate each other and if man did not eat animals, I can't imagine that much time had passed between.
Even furthermore that the word used for "die" is Strong's H4191 - muwth which is given:
1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death
a) to die prematurely
The word "die" in the original Hebrew has absolutely no connotation of spiritual death.
I'd just like your thoughts is all.
If you believe in seven day creation I think it's highly unlikely.
All the animals were omnivores so they did not eat each other.
Adam was created and then so was Eve. Of course there is no real time line in Genesis between chapters 2 and 3 which is the creation of Adam to the fall of man although it does come immediately after and my personal belief is that not much time had passed.
If no animals ate each other and if man did not eat animals, I can't imagine that much time had passed between.
Even furthermore that the word used for "die" is Strong's H4191 - muwth which is given:
1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death
a) to die prematurely
The word "die" in the original Hebrew has absolutely no connotation of spiritual death.
I'd just like your thoughts is all.
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
Firstly, it is rediculous to THINK that ANYTHING PHYSICAL was EVER created to 'last forever'. For it is apparent that there is NOTHING that has EVER lived that has NOT died or WILL not die. We were 'created' from the elements of this earth and eventually, EVERYTHING created thus will ultimately RETURN to that which is was created from. The PHYSICAL AGES.
Was Adam created to be immortal? Spiritually he probably WAS. But physically, there is NO REASON to believe this. And IF we are to Believe that God is ALL KNOWING, do you not THINK that He KNEW that Eve was going to 'talk Adam' into eating the fruit? So, that would LITERALLY mean that God KNEW that man would disobey.
Yet we have been TOLD that the spirit IS able to 'last forever'. But we were also told that the spirit IS able to BE DESTROYED by God. And we have the words of God stating,
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Do you BELIEVE that God is refering to THE BODIES of men LIVING FOREVER? For everything else is concerning the MIND or SPIRIT. For we HAVE God comparing man to HIMSELFand we KNOW that God IS Spirit.
So, the indication is that when God stated that to eat of the fruit was a 'death sentence', what He was OBVIOUSLY refering to was SPIRTUAL DEATH.
Now, if you have ANY evidence whatsoever to offer concerning man being created in a body that was MEANT to last FOREVER, please let us have it. But the evidence is pretty cut and dry. For even though they touched and ATE of the fruit, they did NOT DIE PHYSICALLY. Innocence died, the relationship that they had with God BEFORE was destroyed. But they LIVED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS after eating of the fruit.
As for a LITERAL 'six day creation', there is NO EVIDENCE that this is LITERAL. The evidence being that God is NOT confined by TIME and simply USED THE TERM 'days' to indicate PERIODS of TIME as pertains to OUR understanding. Remember, Moses would not have even had a CONCEPTION of MILLIONS OR BILLIONS. And it does NOT matter as pertains to the 'creation story' that we have an EXACT amount of time that it took. But we were offered that it was completed in SIX time periods.
but we WERE given INTELLEGENCE and the ABILITY to UNDERSTAND. And over the THOUSANDS of years that we have been here, we HAVE collected quite a BIT of understanding as concerns the world around us. And quite a large portion of this knowledge is involved with the HISTORY of this planet and HOW it was FORMED.
Once again, YOU are confining yourself in a belief of that which has been taught since Moses. Even with all that we have learned that CONTRADICTS the original interpretation, you would STILL choose to remain as ignorant as Moses concerning the HISTORY of this planet. For your 'six day creation' belief only allows for an Earth that is around 9,000 years old. Yet we have PLENTY of evidence that the earth is MUCH older than this by perhaps BILLIONS of years.
If you choose to deny this, the SIMPLE FACT that LIGHT travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND and we can observe stars that are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of light years away, proves that it is YOU that has chosen to deny OVERWHELMING PROOF that there was NO 'literal six day creation'. When you look at the land masses throughout the world and realize that they SEPARATED over an EMENSE time period, it becomes apparent that the term DAYS was used symbolically.
But, if you INSIST upon a 'belief' in something interpreted by someone with the LITERAL understanding of that natural world of an infant, then by all means.................
But, I have NO PROBLEM with 'creationism'. I have simply recognized that at the TIME that the story was offered, it was offered in a WAY that those that it was offered TO would understand. They would NOT have understood that it took 'billons of years' to complete'. And it is a FACT that God is NOT contained to the 24 hour rotational period of our Earth IF His IS The Creator. For the Creator is confined to NOTHING that it is ABLE to create.
It is UTTERLY rediculous to THINK that ALL that we have found so far as fossil remains DIED in FIVE days. For WHAT would have been THE PURPOSE of 'creating' that which ONLY lasted A DAY. And we KNOW that there are MORE species of life that has become EXTINCT than actually EXIST today. And we DO KNOW that species HAVE evolved. And that takes TIME. Sloths use to be the size of houses. There use to be cats with teeth a foot long. There use to be Mamoths with tusks that weigh as much as a small car. And dinosaurs BIGGER than BUSES. And NONE of these exists in such a FORM today. The OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is that they EVOLVED. They started as ONE THING and eventually changed into 'something else'. And this takes TIME. NO, not a mere 9,000 years. We're talking about MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. And this does NOT refute what the Bible offers in TRUTH. ONLY in the ignorant interpretation of it by men that had NO SUCH understanding as that we possess today.
And ONE of the MOST important THINGS to remember is that this story was MOST LIKELY passed from mouth to ear LONG BEFORE it was EVER WRITTEN DOWN. So the likelyhood of the story that WE have of BEING the EXACT STORY is HIGHLY unlikely. And I KNOW how hard it is to accept such information. For the churches have been TEACHING that The Word is UTTER TRUTH for two thousand years. Yet we KNOW that MUCH has been altered over TIME. And much has been LOST over time. The IMPORTANT issue is NOT whether you BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE, but that YOU BELIEVE that Jesus Christ IS The Son of the ONE TRUE GOD.
And before anyone starts screaming 'HERETIC, HERETIC', simply ask and I will be MORE than willing to show you MANY MANY examples of how MUCH of The Bible has been ALTERED from it's original pieces of writtings. And I'll BET that there are others that can point out MORE than I. So YOU believe that you are required to BELIEVE every word in the Bible as written. And I'll simply recognize that MUCH is symbolic and NOT MEANT to be taken LITERAL.
Blessings,
MEC
Was Adam created to be immortal? Spiritually he probably WAS. But physically, there is NO REASON to believe this. And IF we are to Believe that God is ALL KNOWING, do you not THINK that He KNEW that Eve was going to 'talk Adam' into eating the fruit? So, that would LITERALLY mean that God KNEW that man would disobey.
Yet we have been TOLD that the spirit IS able to 'last forever'. But we were also told that the spirit IS able to BE DESTROYED by God. And we have the words of God stating,
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Do you BELIEVE that God is refering to THE BODIES of men LIVING FOREVER? For everything else is concerning the MIND or SPIRIT. For we HAVE God comparing man to HIMSELFand we KNOW that God IS Spirit.
So, the indication is that when God stated that to eat of the fruit was a 'death sentence', what He was OBVIOUSLY refering to was SPIRTUAL DEATH.
Now, if you have ANY evidence whatsoever to offer concerning man being created in a body that was MEANT to last FOREVER, please let us have it. But the evidence is pretty cut and dry. For even though they touched and ATE of the fruit, they did NOT DIE PHYSICALLY. Innocence died, the relationship that they had with God BEFORE was destroyed. But they LIVED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS after eating of the fruit.
As for a LITERAL 'six day creation', there is NO EVIDENCE that this is LITERAL. The evidence being that God is NOT confined by TIME and simply USED THE TERM 'days' to indicate PERIODS of TIME as pertains to OUR understanding. Remember, Moses would not have even had a CONCEPTION of MILLIONS OR BILLIONS. And it does NOT matter as pertains to the 'creation story' that we have an EXACT amount of time that it took. But we were offered that it was completed in SIX time periods.
but we WERE given INTELLEGENCE and the ABILITY to UNDERSTAND. And over the THOUSANDS of years that we have been here, we HAVE collected quite a BIT of understanding as concerns the world around us. And quite a large portion of this knowledge is involved with the HISTORY of this planet and HOW it was FORMED.
Once again, YOU are confining yourself in a belief of that which has been taught since Moses. Even with all that we have learned that CONTRADICTS the original interpretation, you would STILL choose to remain as ignorant as Moses concerning the HISTORY of this planet. For your 'six day creation' belief only allows for an Earth that is around 9,000 years old. Yet we have PLENTY of evidence that the earth is MUCH older than this by perhaps BILLIONS of years.
If you choose to deny this, the SIMPLE FACT that LIGHT travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND and we can observe stars that are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of light years away, proves that it is YOU that has chosen to deny OVERWHELMING PROOF that there was NO 'literal six day creation'. When you look at the land masses throughout the world and realize that they SEPARATED over an EMENSE time period, it becomes apparent that the term DAYS was used symbolically.
But, if you INSIST upon a 'belief' in something interpreted by someone with the LITERAL understanding of that natural world of an infant, then by all means.................
But, I have NO PROBLEM with 'creationism'. I have simply recognized that at the TIME that the story was offered, it was offered in a WAY that those that it was offered TO would understand. They would NOT have understood that it took 'billons of years' to complete'. And it is a FACT that God is NOT contained to the 24 hour rotational period of our Earth IF His IS The Creator. For the Creator is confined to NOTHING that it is ABLE to create.
It is UTTERLY rediculous to THINK that ALL that we have found so far as fossil remains DIED in FIVE days. For WHAT would have been THE PURPOSE of 'creating' that which ONLY lasted A DAY. And we KNOW that there are MORE species of life that has become EXTINCT than actually EXIST today. And we DO KNOW that species HAVE evolved. And that takes TIME. Sloths use to be the size of houses. There use to be cats with teeth a foot long. There use to be Mamoths with tusks that weigh as much as a small car. And dinosaurs BIGGER than BUSES. And NONE of these exists in such a FORM today. The OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is that they EVOLVED. They started as ONE THING and eventually changed into 'something else'. And this takes TIME. NO, not a mere 9,000 years. We're talking about MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. And this does NOT refute what the Bible offers in TRUTH. ONLY in the ignorant interpretation of it by men that had NO SUCH understanding as that we possess today.
And ONE of the MOST important THINGS to remember is that this story was MOST LIKELY passed from mouth to ear LONG BEFORE it was EVER WRITTEN DOWN. So the likelyhood of the story that WE have of BEING the EXACT STORY is HIGHLY unlikely. And I KNOW how hard it is to accept such information. For the churches have been TEACHING that The Word is UTTER TRUTH for two thousand years. Yet we KNOW that MUCH has been altered over TIME. And much has been LOST over time. The IMPORTANT issue is NOT whether you BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE, but that YOU BELIEVE that Jesus Christ IS The Son of the ONE TRUE GOD.
And before anyone starts screaming 'HERETIC, HERETIC', simply ask and I will be MORE than willing to show you MANY MANY examples of how MUCH of The Bible has been ALTERED from it's original pieces of writtings. And I'll BET that there are others that can point out MORE than I. So YOU believe that you are required to BELIEVE every word in the Bible as written. And I'll simply recognize that MUCH is symbolic and NOT MEANT to be taken LITERAL.
Blessings,
MEC
Nick
Member
- Feb 27, 2009
- 14,527
- 464
Imagican said:
Absolutely agree with you on this second part of your post. I assume you are not accusing me of believing that the six day creation is a literal six days, because I am absolutely agree with your line of thinking on this matter. There are some things in the Bible that are literal, but a great part of it is more metaphorical. Take the creation for example, or the book of Revelation.
Sinthesis
Member
- Feb 23, 2009
- 5,188
- 264
Actually creation was not perfect but only good-very good.Nick_29 said:
Ask yourself how could there be a tree of the knowledge of good and evil if there was no such thing as evil.Nick_29 said:
Yet what does Jesus promise His believers but eternal life. The difference is that man must not be able to claim immortality on his own, but it must be a gift from God.Nick_29 said:
G
Guitar Guy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
Imagican.
I'm not even going to reply to your post. You were ignorant in every possible way and extremely rude, you threw debate etiquette completely out the window and give obviously absolutely no regard for the authority of Scripture.
You're not even worth trying to talk to. Seriously. Good luck going anywhere with your pompous attitude.
I'm not even going to reply to your post. You were ignorant in every possible way and extremely rude, you threw debate etiquette completely out the window and give obviously absolutely no regard for the authority of Scripture.
You're not even worth trying to talk to. Seriously. Good luck going anywhere with your pompous attitude.
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #13
Nick_29,
While my response was a 'reply' to your post, I was making NO direct accusations toward you, but to those that would accept ALL the benefits that science has to offer, yet, on this point, refuse to accept ANYTHING that has been learned concerning the AGE of the universe.
It seems that MUCH of the SAME attitude exists today that did in the time of Galileo. Someone comes along and refutes what they TEACH, and immediately they are 'heretics'.
I believe the Bible is the CLOSEST thing that we have to 'God's Word'. The NT is more reliable, (in a sense), than the OT so far as being literal. MUCH of the OT is in the form of 'stories' and MOST of the NT involves a LITERAL account of God's Son's visit here.
While MUCH of The OT is TRUTH, it is veiled in quite a bit of 'hand me down', 'word of mouth' stories that may well have been 'added to' or 'taken away' from.
I BELIEVE that there is MUCH truth to be found IN The Bible. But I can also say that I DO NOT take ALL of it to be LITERAL. A 'church' of men decided which 'books' were and which one's were NOT divinely inspired. And I, for one, do NOT place my trust in MEN. Was it divinely inspired? MOST certainly. But even those that penned much of it plainly offered that it is ONLY THROUGH The Spirit that it has MEANING. In other words, to read it WITHOUT divine GUIDANCE, there is LITTLE to be gained from it.
So, was there a 'six day creation'? ABSOLUTELY. But the understanding is that the use of 'day' was for the sake of understanding of those that it was revealed to. And in time, our understanding has developed to where we now have a MUCH deeper understanding of the NATURE of 'creation'. I AM A CREATIONIST without doubt.
Blessings,
MEC
While my response was a 'reply' to your post, I was making NO direct accusations toward you, but to those that would accept ALL the benefits that science has to offer, yet, on this point, refuse to accept ANYTHING that has been learned concerning the AGE of the universe.
It seems that MUCH of the SAME attitude exists today that did in the time of Galileo. Someone comes along and refutes what they TEACH, and immediately they are 'heretics'.
I believe the Bible is the CLOSEST thing that we have to 'God's Word'. The NT is more reliable, (in a sense), than the OT so far as being literal. MUCH of the OT is in the form of 'stories' and MOST of the NT involves a LITERAL account of God's Son's visit here.
While MUCH of The OT is TRUTH, it is veiled in quite a bit of 'hand me down', 'word of mouth' stories that may well have been 'added to' or 'taken away' from.
I BELIEVE that there is MUCH truth to be found IN The Bible. But I can also say that I DO NOT take ALL of it to be LITERAL. A 'church' of men decided which 'books' were and which one's were NOT divinely inspired. And I, for one, do NOT place my trust in MEN. Was it divinely inspired? MOST certainly. But even those that penned much of it plainly offered that it is ONLY THROUGH The Spirit that it has MEANING. In other words, to read it WITHOUT divine GUIDANCE, there is LITTLE to be gained from it.
So, was there a 'six day creation'? ABSOLUTELY. But the understanding is that the use of 'day' was for the sake of understanding of those that it was revealed to. And in time, our understanding has developed to where we now have a MUCH deeper understanding of the NATURE of 'creation'. I AM A CREATIONIST without doubt.
Blessings,
MEC
Dave Slayer said:
Was there death before Adam sinned? This is a good question. From what I have read in accordance of scripture...I honestly do not believe so. No doubt God knew that Adam and Eve would sin....but then just as any of our actions have consequence...so too did any form of sin from the begining of time...even before Adam and Eve. If we look at who Lucifer was and what happened to him, we see such examples from then on. For Satan was God's most beloved angel. Once he decided he was better than God and would overthrow him what happened? He got thrown, or cast out of Heaven. What could have been more worse than to be removed from God's presence?
For Adam and Eve it was this and basically the knowledge that their mortal lives would end. Death is not something I believe a number of us always feel comfortable about dealing with or facing later on.
Then, it could be just me. My apologies for any offense caused. None was meant.
May God Bless You
Danielle
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #16
Guitar Guy,
I apologize for any offense that I caused. That was NOT my purpose.
You accuse me of ignoring scripture. I would offer that I have simply accepted a DIFFERENT interpretation of it.
As I pointed out, it is quite 'close minded' to believe that we have NOT learned MUCH that was UNKNOWN to those that originally interpreted the 'story of creation' and the signifcance of DEATH.
While many insist upon a perpetuation of this 'story as penned by Moses' and an interpretation that goes back five thousand years or so, I have NO PROBLEM accepting what has been offered in PROOF so far as science is concerned. And PLEASE do NOT confuse THIS with THEORY as offered up by science.
And it IS amazing that one that would DENY what science has offered so far as the hisory of this planet is concerned, has NO PROBLEM flipping open their cell phone to call the OTHER SIDE of the planet. Or, sit inside of a tube capable of mapping the entire INSIDE of the human body. Toss some left overs in their microwave oven, climb aboard a 'tube of metal' with jet engines and fly six miles above the planet. And MANY of these enjoying 'electricity' produced from NUCLEAR power plants. Accepting ALL that science has to offer so long as it does NOT refute their BELIEFS in a 'story' offered NOT as a DETAILED account of 'creation', but simply offered to SHOW that 'creation' took place.
I have found LITTLE that science has been ABLE TO PROVE that contradicts ANYTHING offered up in scripture. While there may be MUCH that contradicts interpretation, much like the past, we are then forced to RE-interpret in order for TRUTH to exist.
The church once taught that the Earth is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. A man came along that offered PROOF that this was simply NOT SO. The church did EVERYTHING within their power to KEEP this man from publishing his findings. When this couldn't be STOPPED, they then chose to confine him for the rest of his life.
Now, you would OBVIOUSLY accept that this man's proof was INDEED PROOF. That the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Now, how hard is it to accept that there was NO LITERAL 'six day creation'. That the use of the term DAY was used so that those that the information was offered to would be able to UNDERSTAND that 'creation' was accomplished in SIX TIME PERIODS?
For we KNOW that a day to God can be as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY. God is NOT confined BY time. He is OUTSIDE of time. But to relate to us that His creation took SIX distinct time-periods, the term DAY was used. The OPENING and CLOSING of events. Beginning and ending or COMPLETION.
And folks, we were NEVER commanded to have faith in that which doesn't exist simply for the SAKE of faith. We were commanded to have faith in that which has been offered. And I can PLAINLY show that MUCH of what is written in the Bible is TOTALLY dependant upon interpretation to FIND the TRUTH.
Blessings,
MEC
I apologize for any offense that I caused. That was NOT my purpose.
You accuse me of ignoring scripture. I would offer that I have simply accepted a DIFFERENT interpretation of it.
As I pointed out, it is quite 'close minded' to believe that we have NOT learned MUCH that was UNKNOWN to those that originally interpreted the 'story of creation' and the signifcance of DEATH.
While many insist upon a perpetuation of this 'story as penned by Moses' and an interpretation that goes back five thousand years or so, I have NO PROBLEM accepting what has been offered in PROOF so far as science is concerned. And PLEASE do NOT confuse THIS with THEORY as offered up by science.
And it IS amazing that one that would DENY what science has offered so far as the hisory of this planet is concerned, has NO PROBLEM flipping open their cell phone to call the OTHER SIDE of the planet. Or, sit inside of a tube capable of mapping the entire INSIDE of the human body. Toss some left overs in their microwave oven, climb aboard a 'tube of metal' with jet engines and fly six miles above the planet. And MANY of these enjoying 'electricity' produced from NUCLEAR power plants. Accepting ALL that science has to offer so long as it does NOT refute their BELIEFS in a 'story' offered NOT as a DETAILED account of 'creation', but simply offered to SHOW that 'creation' took place.
I have found LITTLE that science has been ABLE TO PROVE that contradicts ANYTHING offered up in scripture. While there may be MUCH that contradicts interpretation, much like the past, we are then forced to RE-interpret in order for TRUTH to exist.
The church once taught that the Earth is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. A man came along that offered PROOF that this was simply NOT SO. The church did EVERYTHING within their power to KEEP this man from publishing his findings. When this couldn't be STOPPED, they then chose to confine him for the rest of his life.
Now, you would OBVIOUSLY accept that this man's proof was INDEED PROOF. That the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Now, how hard is it to accept that there was NO LITERAL 'six day creation'. That the use of the term DAY was used so that those that the information was offered to would be able to UNDERSTAND that 'creation' was accomplished in SIX TIME PERIODS?
For we KNOW that a day to God can be as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY. God is NOT confined BY time. He is OUTSIDE of time. But to relate to us that His creation took SIX distinct time-periods, the term DAY was used. The OPENING and CLOSING of events. Beginning and ending or COMPLETION.
And folks, we were NEVER commanded to have faith in that which doesn't exist simply for the SAKE of faith. We were commanded to have faith in that which has been offered. And I can PLAINLY show that MUCH of what is written in the Bible is TOTALLY dependant upon interpretation to FIND the TRUTH.
Blessings,
MEC
Good posting. For those insisting that the "yom" in Genesis must be like our day I would suggest you read Psalm 90:4, Genesis 2:4. Surely the reference to "evening" and "morning" before the creation of the sun requires some deeper analysis and thought. Knowledge of Hebrew and the root meanings of evening and morning (erev/boker) helps considerably. ;)