"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
No it's not, it could just be a representation of the 6 ages, Starhunter even admitted that.Stu wrote:This is a good point.Starhunter wrote:No need to, it is easy to scroll back, I like your point about shrinking, and have an answer found in the ten commandments, re the fourth on the seventh day, this implies that the weekly cycle of literal days is a memorial of creation.
I believe the basic story also, but it does not say how God did it, the basic story is why God did it.Starhunter wrote:
I don't know of an OEC or evolution, or of the science that backs it up lately. I believe the basic story of creation in six days and have never thought to question it.
AgreedThe Bible is a book of salvation, and begins with creation, which sets the platform for all of God's dealings with humanity.
Jesus used to teach, beginning with the writings of Moses. Is the beginning important for salvation, is not all scripture profitable for salvation?
The why of creation is important, the how of creation is not. I think it is modern day legalism when your so focused on what exactly was written and you have missed the spirit of what was written.I don't make a distinction between the works of creation and the works of recreation - which is what salvation is.
God doesn't require any time, short or long. He isn't restricted by 6 literal days and he isn't restricted by 6 literal ages of time, God can do as he pleases. if you say I am saying God needs more time, I can then say your restricting God to a small amount of time. You can't eat your cake and have it also.As someone said earlier, one believes in the resurrection, but when it comes to creation, it is better to give God more time to do it. Creation is practically instantaneous, as is salvation. "He spoke and it was..."
So now your saying creation was instant and not 6 literal days, just like salvation?By the same token He speaks to us the word of salvation, which is instant. A person is not lost because they believe in evolution of OEC, but to teach others that this is the way when you know better, and to ignore scripture on the basis of false science, is a denial of Christ and His ability to speak the word of creation and or salvation, getting instant results.
As far as I am aware this is considered the correct interpretation according to Jews, well at least the ones I have spoken to or read from.It was designed to be read literally, as a theological text. It was not designed to be read as a scientific text. Genesis is literally theology. It is more than a myth or a history. It goes into detail about how God relates to the world, us, how we relate to God, each other, etc. To say "Genesis is just what happened" is not only scientifically inaccurate, but it is also limiting the meaning of the text. Genesis (and the rest of the text) is deep, deeper than I see many people give it credit. Our job is to explore every nook and cranny to figure out what God is saying, and I can assure you it is more than just an accounting of what happened. Genesis is a theological text.
He also thought that allegorical interpretation was permissible. On that view, it doesn't matter what Scripture says. The only reason I give ANY credence to OEC is because it claims to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. It's a waste of time, then, to appeal to Augustine's (or any other allegorists) opinion in trying to establish a precedent for a non-24 hour literalist view. And if you don't care about having a literalist interpretation, then you don't need Augustine. You don't need ANY precedent, for that matter. If the text can be allegorized or taken as a myth, then it doesn't matter what it says at all. *shrug*neo-x wrote:A good point to note is that st. Augustine didn't think of Genesis being 6 day creation. He thought creation had been instant.
I know 2 ministers that went to do theology for their quals and both came out as being atheists. Many of us believed Genesis was a first hand account of creation told to Moses by God and written by Moses. On reading Genesis one sees it as non plausible to assume Moses wrote about his own death. The other concerning teaching from the intellegencia is that Genesis along with many bible books was actually put together around 600AD from snips and snaps of writings and stories handed down through the ages.Jac3510 wrote:He also thought that allegorical interpretation was permissible. On that view, it doesn't matter what Scripture says. The only reason I give ANY credence to OEC is because it claims to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. It's a waste of time, then, to appeal to Augustine's (or any other allegorists) opinion in trying to establish a precedent for a non-24 hour literalist view. And if you don't care about having a literalist interpretation, then you don't need Augustine. You don't need ANY precedent, for that matter. If the text can be allegorized or taken as a myth, then it doesn't matter what it says at all. *shrug*neo-x wrote:A good point to note is that st. Augustine didn't think of Genesis being 6 day creation. He thought creation had been instant.
So the parables Jesus taught are meaningless and it doesn't matter to you what they are saying because they can't be read as literal stories of things that actually happened?Jac3510 wrote:He also thought that allegorical interpretation was permissible. On that view, it doesn't matter what Scripture says. The only reason I give ANY credence to OEC is because it claims to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. It's a waste of time, then, to appeal to Augustine's (or any other allegorists) opinion in trying to establish a precedent for a non-24 hour literalist view. And if you don't care about having a literalist interpretation, then you don't need Augustine. You don't need ANY precedent, for that matter. If the text can be allegorized or taken as a myth, then it doesn't matter what it says at all. *shrug*neo-x wrote:A good point to note is that st. Augustine didn't think of Genesis being 6 day creation. He thought creation had been instant.
Sabbath in most instances simply means rest, as you know, six years of working the land, the 7th for fallowing. This does not do away with the weekly cycle, just as a day does not do away with hours.RickD wrote:It's a template for 6 work periods followed by 1 rest period. It's not a literal 168 hour week. If it was meant to be specifically and only seven 24 hour days, there wouldn't have been Sabbath years.
...field.[/i]
What I said is not an admission. I said that to show where people go off in their reasoning without reading the context, and I followed it with a question for thought. I don't like what you have done, it is a sign of weakness.Danieltwotwenty wrote:No it's not, it could just be a representation of the 6 ages, Starhunter even admitted that.Stu wrote:This is a good point.Starhunter wrote:No need to, it is easy to scroll back, I like your point about shrinking, and have an answer found in the ten commandments, re the fourth on the seventh day, this implies that the weekly cycle of literal days is a memorial of creation.
God has always requires direct accountability to Him, you don't have to quibble or cuddle with every philosophy.Mallz wrote:[uired for salvation.I don't understand. Elaborate?I don't make a distinction between the works of creation and the works of recreation - which is what salvation is.
The thing is.. And since you never thought to question "the basic story of creation in six days", you need to give people of other creation views a bit more slack. What was italicized: It's incorrect to label other creation views in such manner as it implies assured knowledge. They don't 'know better'. They are confused but have good reason through legit exegesis to believe as such. Personally I'm convinced of YEC, but have doubts based on legit reason to question if OEC is the actual truth. I started as a YEC, went to OEC and am now back at YECbut to teach others that this is the way when you know better, and to ignore scripture on the basis of false science, is a denial of Christ and His ability to speak the word of creation and or salvation, getting instant results.The most hilarious thing, is I was YEC when I was innocent, OEC when rebellious, and YEC again when I started my relationship with God through reason and borrowed wisdom.
Anyways, I thought I had more to say but I forgot what. Now I forgot if I ever did...
This business of a thousand years = one day, either way around etc, has got to do how time is to God, It says "for with God...a thousands years is as one day. Not with men.Jannah wrote:Hi!
Just to clarify, "starhunter" I am not refuting the fact that God created this earth as we know it in 6 days and neither am I refuting that those days could have been 6,000 years as scripture states a thousand years are as a day and vise versa. What I am saying however is that scripture points to an earth already in place in which God said let there be light and so on and so on. Genesis 1:1 states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". I believe this statement to be apart from verse two which sais "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep". ( In verse one the Hebrew word used there is "Bara" which actually translates as "fat" or "made to be fat" which would make sense in accordance with verse two that the earth was void. But I understand that this is all hypothetical since one must take into account that the original Hebrew alphabet was a series of pictures and that in Hebrew one word had many meanings in the sense that it was a thought or overall image that was conveyed rather than technicalities more liken to the scientific English language)
But the point is why do you feel young earth perspective is necessary for salvation? If you agree that the serpent in the garden is Satan which is basic christian premise then Satan would have to already be on earth when it was created which to me proves the earth is older, among other things. God has said throughout the bible that he creates and he destroys, he created the earth then it was destroyed through Noah's flood as well he sais in latter times he will create a new heaven and a new earth. So why is it so hard to believe that he would have done that in the past, Satan fell to earth like lightning with a third of the angels, this is when the earth was without form and void and darkness hovered over the face of the deep, then God said "let there be light" and ushered in a new age in where he created men on the earth.
Starhunter,Starhunter wrote:Sabbath in most instances simply means rest, as you know, six years of working the land, the 7th for fallowing. This does not do away with the weekly cycle, just as a day does not do away with hours.RickD wrote:It's a template for 6 work periods followed by 1 rest period. It's not a literal 168 hour week. If it was meant to be specifically and only seven 24 hour days, there wouldn't have been Sabbath years.
...field.[/i]
Are you saying that there is no such thing as the 7th day Sabbath, because there are yearly Sabbaths?
Any Bible student knows that there are many activities in the Jewish calendar all tied in.
Anyway, back to the thread.
Starhunter said "Re to saying ... can't be saved unless a YEC. I never said that, it has been conveniently pinned on me. I said, the power of creation is the same in salvation, and if God is somehow indebted to pre-existing righteousness or material, you better have something to offer God otherwise you will perish. And they say that I'm legalistic!"Starhunter wrote:Matthew 9: 1-7.
Jesus asked the local churchmen, when He was healing a paralytic, "Which is easier to say "thy sins be forgiven... or rise up and walk?"
The power involved in salvation is all of the power of God invested in Christ, exactly as it is in creation.
The Bible opens up with this power, which is able to do things in an instant, without borrowing eons of time from a nerd's calender.
To understand creation correctly, is to be given faith in the power of Christ to save without any indebtedness to time or material, or pre-existing righteousness, or gradual improvements in character.
Genuine creation does not borrow or use pre-existing matter, or even favorable conditions. And God does not need more time than He has declared to do the job.
Salvation does not depend on a pre-existing tendency to do right. And neither is it a gradual acceptance with God.
The paralytic represents the helpless condition of the sinner, like the void before creation. At the instant that the believer, accepts the word of salvation, they are given the power to walk in newness of life.
The age of the earth is fairly easily worked out by genealogies to be around 6000 years old.
Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?
