However, before modern times, scientists laugh at the Bible's account because they estimated the sun to be 5 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years. The age of the Sun was estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites found on earth. Their rationale is that it was extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. the Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore, the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating. The earth's age is estimated by the oldest rocks found.
Well, today, science continues to tell us the solar system formed as one mass and now dates the sun and the solar system to around 4.6 billion years. They go on to tell us that the sun and the rest of the solar system formed from a giant, rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula. Soon after that, the sun, earth, moon and planets separated and began to form into the shape we see today, between 4.54-5.567 billion years ago. It then took the sun about 100,000 years longer to coalesce and begin to illuminate about 4.5 Billion years ago.
So, in case you missed it, science now says that, in the beginning of our solar system, the sun, earth, moon and the planets were formed first and then the sun began to illuminate a little time after that. Amazing, that's exactly what the Bible and Bible believers have said all along. Thanks, Science for proving the Bible correct, again.
And that's what you'll find, When You Search For The Truth.
You Christians amaze me. You twist science to match your fairy tale of a book and then condemn science as ever changing to keep up with changing thoughts and attitudes. It is you who twist the facts around.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous, I actually appreciate your comment. However, I'm at a loss. Could you please show me which science fact or Bible verses I twisted? As for science changing constantly, can you point me to a field of science, that hasn't changed, within our lifetime?
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI have an accurate guess that you cannot without pure rationalization explain why the Bible is a "fairy tale".
And about ever changing science...just this week they found that they were off by 100,000 years after a discovery: New Fossil
ReplyDeleteScience is changing all the time. Sure, it's because science is getting better and they are making more discoveries that help them know more, but that would make early scientific discoveries "fairy tales".
Looks straight forward to me. It looks like science is catching up. Also, I don't remember seeing this in the news. Isn't it amazing how it's all over the news when it appears to show the bible in a bad light. People are so transparent in their biases.
ReplyDeleteTotally Agree, Tim. I have to admit that it makes me chuckle, when they call the Bible a fairy tale, especially when you consider that most atheists buy into evolution, hook, line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteHey Chris. Are you saying that the news is biased? LOL I asked annonymous to give examples. It has been my experience that when atheists are asked for examples, they deflect or run away. Some hardcore atheists dig in their heals and argue that we are making things up, as we go. However, there are some who truly believe what they are saying, but again, without anymore proof than we do.
ReplyDeleteHi Keith, it sounds to me that the scientists do a lot of guessing, why don’t they believe the oldest account from the history book of the Lord. After all, He was there, wasn't He ?
ReplyDeleteWell, then again, perhaps they try to proof the Lord’s account wrong.
Hey Paul, I totally agree. It amazes me how people put their faith in Science and make it their God, while putting down the Word of God, when it is continually proven correct. I know that we both agree that their knees will bow before the author all of it all.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of jinxing ourselves, I like this version of Paul. I agree with you too Paul.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a proven science. The facts are there. There is much more validity to evolution than your fairy tale. Science isn't a fairy tale. It's hard facts that you can't deny. Every time science hones their theories you Christians say see that's what the bible has said all along. I'm sick of it. If there is a god then the first thing he would do is wipe out the Christians. Christians have done far more harm than Hitler Mussolini ISIL Hamas and so on. Look at the crusades. Look at the self righteous republicans have done to the United States. They voted in that fascist Trump, a sebaceous cyst on the ass of our country, by stealing the elections with the help of the Kremlin. How's that for rationalization you asswipe.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you are the same anon as I addressed earlier, but if you are you never responded to my question. Why is it a fairy tale?
And the reason why we say the Bible said it first is because it pretty much did.
The Bible from verse 1 explains the basics of the universe---4000 years before we said what they were.
The Bible shows physics, oceanography, plate tectonics, meteorology (wind), geology, geography, and chemistry. These fields weren't even around when the Bible was written. That is why we can say that the Bible said it first.
Evolution is not proven science. It is a scientific theory of how man developed. It is a theory---the best educated guess with the data that is presented. Evolution is one way of looking at how this happened. Yes, there are facts they use as their data, but many of those facts are biased. There are also many facts that can be used for creation. One believes based on what one's foundation and bias is based on.
Now, I agree that Trump is somewhat of a cyst. I am a conservative. I did not vote for him during the primaries. I only voted for him because Hillary was not the person for our country. Not all GOPers voted for Trump and not all DEMs voted for Hillary. If you use science as your basis you did not use the data correctly, as what those who believe in evolution do. And all politicians are self-righteous.
Christians have done harm. 100% agreed. But it is due to being part of the human race. Mao and Stalin were atheists and killed more than the Crusades ever did. About 1.5 million up to 2 million in the Crusades. Stalin killed 7 million Ukranians and Mao up to 10 million of his own people. Religion does kill. But those who love Christ don't practice religion, but reality. But I will agree with you that Christians have caused way more harm than good. But all humans have done this.
So with that, if you are willing to discuss---not debate, because I am not here to "win" anything, I am willing to talk too. If you walk away not wanting to know, or still denying things then that is up to you.
God would wipe out Christians but He is full of forgiveness and grace because we are all sinners and make mistakes everyday.
Here are four questions you either will not answer or will try and change the parameter of the questions, which is fine.
1. What is on the other (outside) of the universe?
2. Why is believing in God so hard for you to believe in?
3. Where did all life begin?
4. What are the four components of the universe?
If anon answers me, I am asking others do not get involved, please. Anon, we can go to my site too if you want to move the discussion over there, sorry Keith.
Hi Anonymous. First of all, as I said in the previous comment, I do appreciate your comment. However, even though any subject is allowed, there is only one rule. NO FOUL LANGUAGE!!! You can even be as uncivil as you desire, but NO FOUL LANGUAGE!!! If you continue, I will just delete your comments and not give you any second thought.
ReplyDeleteAs for your latest comment, Evolution is a conglomeration of different theories, most of which are true. However, the main one, which is not true, is the Origin of Life. I challenge to investigate it for yourself. Most evolution articles and videos will tell you that they don't have any proof about how life began, just supposition. Suppositions are fine as long as they stay within the concept of a valid theory. When they are taken out of the context of suppositional theory and stated as fact, it simply becomes a false statement. Again, I challenge you to investigate it for yourself. Other than that, we are more than willing to discuss it with you. To start off, did you know that Darwin said,
"The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate and is one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence."
Also, there are numerous blog entries that you can read to start your investigation. If you go to the top of this page, you'll find a blog search engine. Put in science, scientists or evolution. If you are using a mobile device, you will have to first go to the web version link at the bottom of the comment section. I have written numerous posts concerning science and the Bible. One of my favorites is:
ONE PUNCH, TWO PUNCH. Evolution Is Down For The Count.
Feel free to ask any questions. However, the Bible tells us not to believe on face value, but to search out the real facts.
Continued in the next comment.....
As for the "Fairy Tale" comment, unless you are actually willing to read both scientific articles and the Bible, we can't honestly discuss this. Quite bluntly, you are doing exactly what most atheist and theist do, that is, receive information from tainted sources and perpetuate the lies. Yes, lies are perpetuated on both side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for science honing their theories, do you understand what that means? That's saying that science changes with every new discovery. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but don't get mad when those same theories begin to resemble what is said in the Bible and we point it out. If you're sick of that, then maybe you need to take a long hard look at what your beliefs are.
As for Christians doing more harm than Hitler, ISIS, Hamas, Mussolini, etc., especially including the crusades, I have to disagree. You see, in every generation, God reserves a small group of people, to call his own. These people are those who truly follow God, through the Messiach, Y'shua, The Messiah Jesus. We are called the Remnant of God. What I trying to say is, that there are many, who call themselves Christians, but are not of the Remnant of God, True Christians. If you read the Bible for yourself, then you would know that the True Christian, The Remnant, would never engage in such acts as the crusades and others throughout history. Now, is the Remnant perfect and do nothing wrong? Absolutely Not!!! But I can honestly say that True Christians would not do most of the things they are blamed for. Let me ask you a question? If you were part of a group protesting abortion and some of the crowd got out of hand and killed someone, would you be guilty of murdering that person? The answer is obviously no. That is how The Remnant has been persecuted throughout history.
As for the comments concerning President Trump, once again, you need to take a step back and investigate the facts, for yourself. If, in the end, you don't like him or his policies, that's your right. But you owe it to yourself to seek out the truth, for yourself. In the end, you only have yourself to blame.
Tim, Very well said! However, God has led anonymous here for a reason. To scoot him/her over to your site would be shunning the will of God. You know that I will not do that. Also, I don't honestly know why I would deprive the others a chance to witness to anonymous and possibly defend the faith, unless I misunderstood you.
ReplyDeleteChris, I agree. It would be nice to have "Nice Paul" around. We can only pray.
ReplyDeleteSorry Keith, that is not what I was trying to do. I know what happens in these cases. Anon would ask me a question then someone else would jump in before I have the chance to respond. (Happens on Yahoo all the time) And then the person who jumped would not go in the same direction and too many ideas would cluster the post. I apologize and want everyone to know that I am not trying to sabotage or steal the commentor.
ReplyDeleteSo I meant just to suggest that if anon directs the question to another person then let the person respond. I know pretty much what anon is going to say. I have the responses that will either satisfy or open up a whole new conversation. I was steering anon to my site because I already have this whole topic covered.
Forgive?????
No forgiveness needed, my friend. I know you. I didn’t think you were trying anything weird. I was just wondering what you meant by it. I knew there had to be a reason. I assume that anonymous was directing his/her comment toward either you or me, given that I brought up evolution and the “How’s that for rationalization?” comment was surely directed at you. :-) LOL 😂
ReplyDeleteWho was the "wipe"?
ReplyDeleteI just assumed that it was you, since you made the rationalization comment. Maybe he/she will come back and we can ask. Of course, I’ve been called far worse. 😇 LOL
ReplyDeleteHey Keith, you almost sound like a Christian.
ReplyDeleteNot that you claim to be a Christian, you only said that you believe in God, and that does not make you a Christian at all.
For you to be a Christian you need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and in NO other.
Do you think that believing in God will make you a Christian ?
The Muslims also believe in God, and does that make them Christians ? and the Jehovah Witnesses also believe in God, and does that make them Christians ?
Well, I don’t think so my friend !
Consider this, the Bible is the OLDEST history book and is unequaled to any other history book. It gives us the history by name and genealogy from the Lord Jesus Christ right back to the first man Adam.
And then we have the scientists who ignore the history books and speculate that man appeared between 5 million years to 7 million years ago.
5 million and 7 million years, that’s TWO million years difference. If that is not a wild guess then what is ?
I think that is foolish speculation, by ungodly men who ignore the history book.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe first part we will ignore (and so should everyone else) because it has nothing to do with anything, but your point about a 2 million year difference is a great point. No science has ever pinpointed anything. They always says 4.5-9 billion years or some stretch. If they could actually say it happened on Jan 8, 4216 years ago then they could be valid. As Keith has shown in many of his posts that the Bible can do that.
A wild guess is what they have. They call it a theory, but in the end that is all they have.
Thanks, Paul, I along with everyone else are a work in progress. Perfection is yet to be achieved. Day by day, we are hopefully attempting to live up to the perfection through which Y'shua/Jesus has obtained for us. As you have said, I am not quite there, but I am trying. 😇
ReplyDeleteAs for science being speculation, especially the historical science, very few scientific facts are observable. I totally agree with you and Tim, that most of it is a wild guess and foolish at times.
I know some people ignore the Bible as a science and history book, but as we have been seeing lately, science is coming around to, in an about way, confirming the Bible as the extraordinary book, that it is.
I can’t believe you. What does the Bible say that science wasn’t the first to discover? Name one thing without you rationalizing it.
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous, well the first one, that comes to mind, can be found in the first verse of the Bible. The Bible says that creation, space-time had a beginning. It wasn’t until the 20th century that science established the our universe had a beginning. Before that, science said that the universe was here forever, with no beginning and actually ridiculed the Bible and its believers for even suggesting the universe having a beginning. That’s one. Want more? There’s a lot more.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThe same verse Keith is referring to says something science took thousands of years to understand.
The greatest website out there is NASA's own. Here is the data for you: Physics of the Cosmos. Summary of this article says that the basic building blocks of the universe are matter, energy, space, and time. Science...NASA...says that. All that we know, all that we are starts with those four components. Here is another source for you. Click on it and look at the diagram (one that is highly accepted) Map of the Universe. Notice space and time are the dimensions. Notice matter being spread throughout space over time. And notice at the beginning---a flash of light, which is of course energy. Again time, space, matter, and energy are what science says is what makes us up.
Now, there is no rationalization here. I am providing you with facts. The same verse Keith is talking about says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
In the beginning---time
Heavens---space
Earth---matter
Light---energy
Even the big bang is shown in Genesis 1.
Not bad for a fairy tale but science is trying to catch up.
As Kieth said...that's one, and we haven't even gotten out of the first chapter yet. I can still show you where basic physics, oceanography, plate tectonics, meteorology (wind), geology, geography, and chemistry are in the Bible.
I will ask my questions again, because before you can believe any of that you have to know where you stand:
1. What is on the other (outside) of the universe?
2. Why is believing in God so hard for you to believe in?
3. Where did all life begin?
I answered #4 for you already so I didn't re-ask it.
Christians changed their interpretation, as soon as science comes out with another discovery. They never thought that until after Einstein and subsequent discoveries.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThat is what the whole human race does. They hear something they have never heard before, see something they have never seen before, or think about something new for the first time and they change their perspective, mind, or as you said interpretation. Same with science. I don't know how you came up with just because of Einstein we changed our minds. But the word of God has never changed. The verses we have shown you have been there for 4000 years.
As I predicted you have not tried to answer my questions.
Let's just start with an easy one: Why is believing in God not an option?
Anonymous, Tim is 100% correct. However, specifically, your assertion is incorrect. Back a few years ago, I wrote a post that should give you a ‘on the mark’ rebuttal of your assertion, It went like this:
ReplyDeleteDid you know that Maimonides, a Jewish Medieval Scholar, was ridiculed by the atheistic and secular society, in the 13th century, when he wrote, “From the Torah (The 1st five books of the Bible), I have concluded, that we live in a 10 dimensional universe, 4 spatial and knowable dimensions, and 6 unknowable dimensions”? Low and behold, during the 1900’s, modern physicists came up with the String Theory, which states, “ The universe exists of 3 + 1 spatial dimensions with one being time, making up Space-Time, which is easily perceivable. There are also six additional spatial dimensions that can only be reconciled by indirect means….”. With increasing frequency, we are still being told that the Bible is a quaint, archaic book, full of errors and fairy tales. Yet, it has scooped the scientific world again and again, throughout the years. Finally, whatever their motivation, atheists continue to put out disinformation about the Bible and the evidence that supports the existence of God.
He went on to write that the unique forming of the very first letter of the TORAH, the letter, Bet, shows that there was absolutely nothing before that moment in time, including time itself.
This was over 600 years before science discovered it. Maimonides, a lowly Jewish Rabbi, with the help of God’s Spirit, figures it out, not science. I would hope that you don’t take my word for it, but search it out for yourself.
Don't forget Joseph-Louis Lagrange and Bernhard Riemann discovering four dimensional space in the mid 1700's. But they were beat out by Paul when he wrote in Ephesians 3,
ReplyDelete"And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."
It is obvious that Paul knew about space-time, even though he didn't call it by that term.
Don't you think it's time to start thinking for yourself?
That’s one of my favorites, Chris!
ReplyDeleteThere is no debate that there is a God. I never said that I didn't believe in God. I said you Christians amaze me. You twist science to match your fairy tale of a book. You are so arrogant. You think that there is only one name that God goes by and he wrote only one book and yours is the only one correct. And I do think for myself. How can you say a Jewish scribe proves your point about the bible? You are a Christian. Also, Ephesians is just a poetic description of God's Love, not to be taken literally.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, may I ask you what God, do you believe in? Also, is there a holy book, by which you believe, is the word of God?
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThen I sincerely apologize for me jumping to conclusions. Your approach is very similar to atheists.
I guess the only question from me then is why do you think it is a fairy tale?
I would agree with your statement. There is only one God and the book we use has only truth in it. We can accept "Jewish scribes" because Jesus was Jewish. We believe the Jewish people are God's chosen people and that we have been "adopted" if we believe in Jesus. You would have to ask each Christian their own feelings but for me, after looking at other "religions", Man's View of God, and after studying some science (not an expert, will never claim to be) following Jesus is the only logical choice. I can give you my ideas if you want, I don't want to list all of it if you don't want it.
As for Ephesians, that would be your opinion. Ephesians was literally written and should be take as a real letter that is meant to be taken literally.
And Keith asked a good question. Is there a God you believe in and what makes that one the real one?
Keep in mind, we're not here to argue. We want to discuss things and hopefully not maker fun of people's feelings.
Could you please tell me how you can tell how you know that Paul switched to poetic language?
ReplyDeleteThere is only one God, with many names and many ways to serve him. There is no holy book only what God speaks to us directly. God would not speak through a book that could be corrupted by man. Your bible is full of errors and descriptions of God which is not true. God does not condone slavery. He is not a killer. He does not condone eating little children or killing your misbehaving sons. When you see something written about God, that is not physically possible you can be sure that it is poetic, philosophical, prophetic, whatever. God is real and does not waste his time with such garbage. Jesus is not Jewish. He is Christian. Judaism is pure. Christianity is not.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I agree about one God with many names. That’s what the Bible says. What if God did send a message, what would it look like?
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteOne God. Yes. Many names? That depends. I would say yes, but not all names that people use for Him I can accept. Many ways to serve? Yes.
Would God write things down for us in a book? Why not? If the human race can't take verbal messages and get them right, why wouldn't He help us and have it written down? If He guided people's hands while it was being written then man did not corrupt it. That is why we believe that all scripture in God-breathed. But, man can interpret the written word completely wrong. Man can rewrite the word and get it wrong, and some have tried it. That is why Keith and I really try to see what the original language was and then learn.
As for errors? That is your perception of what scripture says. I am sure you will use the common mistaken verses to prove your point but we are here to discuss to please go ahead and list them.
God does not condone slavery. Correct. God is not a killer. Correct. He does not condone eating babies. Correct. I know the verses you are referring to and they are not what you think.
Jesus was a Jew. He practiced all the ceremonies. He is not a Christian. He is the Christ...big difference.
I don't get how Judaism is pure. I would like to hear more of why you say that.
Do you consider yourself to be any follower of a religion?
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNo, God does NOT have many names, God does only have ONE Name, the Name which is above all Names and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.
The other god, the god of this world he has MANY names called the serpent, the devil and Yahweh and also Jehovah etc. Especially he likes when you call him Jehovah and Yahweh, that is because some clever little deceivers have been introducing those names and call themself the ‘Jehovah Witnesses’.
You said, “ God would not speak through a book that could be corrupted by man. Your bible is full of errors and descriptions of God which is not true.”
Are you then saying, that the Quran is the book which has no errors ?
And how do you know that God does not kill little children and misbehaving sones ? Who has told you that ?
I can see that you don’t know God.
Well I am always willing to introduce Him to you, if you like ?
For my God is amazing, His Name is Jesus, and there is NONE like Him, He is the one who can make you a new creation, and forgive you all of your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.
He is the one who can make Himself known to you, so that you have angkor for your soul and an constant companion in you life and a Father for the fatherless.
This is Tim, I have to do it this way since my phone is another account.
ReplyDeleteAnd because of Paul answering Christianity looks stupid. Now you'll see why Keith probably only one person should answer Anonymous. I knew once Paul started it would go there.
Anon,
Please disregard anything Paul says. Unfortunately there are those in every circle that are on the fringe who ruin all things.
Paul, please note that anonymous has not identified him/herself to a certain belief system. Therefore, making assumptions concerning his/her beliefs and trying to pigeon hole him/her into a certain holy book is uncalled for and would not be something an ambassador for Christ would do. Please stop it until he/she is comfortable to do so.
ReplyDeleteHey Tim, I can see how frustrating Paul can be. However, if God was the one who drew anonymous here, then his/her spirit thirsts for the truth. He or she appears to be somewhat intelligent, maybe a little misguided, but should be able to sift through Paul's Non-Biblical manmade doctrines. Don't sell him/her short. I know that the power of God's Holy Spirit is far more powerful than Paul's unscriptural rantings.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that anonymous should ignore what Paul says, but give him/her some credit, until he/she proves what type of person he/she is.
Anonymous, at least give us an idea whether you are male of female. I'm getting tired of writing him/her type of references. :-) LOL JK
ReplyDeleteI understand you Keith, but I have seen it too many times before. One bad egg ruins the whole carton. I almost guarantee once Anon sees what Paul wrote, no matter how intelligent Anon is, he/she will think "see, you all can't even agree" or will start hearing Paul and think we are all like that. Ha nothing to do with intelligence, but has everything to do with human perceptions. If you don't have the gospel then you get the first gospel spoken to you. Paul is not that person that should be representing the gospel and we who are saved know that.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Tim, that Paul doesn't have and is not presenting the true Biblical Gospel. However, that is left up to the individual receiving the message. If it is truly God drawing anonymous, we are just a stepping stone on his/her way to salvation. If anonymous really wants the truth, nothing, you, me or Paul, can say that will deter him/her. We are just pointer signs towards the true salvation, which is achieved by only by God's Spirit pointing to salvation, through God's Son, Y'shua. Many fish are lost in the process, but precious are the ones which remain. I think we can agree on that. Love you, bro. Love your heart and your passion. Don't change.
ReplyDeleteGod is spirit and connects to us all. Why would he need a book to write down his thoughts? Yes i am a man who has walked with God all my life. He is everywhere. Also, I am intelligent to recognize what is and what is not. Are you?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymous. I really appreciated not having to have to write his/her references concerning you. :-) LOL
ReplyDeleteWell, what I perceived from you, so far, is that you believe in God. Man falls short of God and is corruptible and corrupts, which I totally agree. I'd be re-missed if I didn't mention that's exactly what the Bible says.
As for God writing down his thoughts, the need isn't for God, which I'm sure you agree, it is for us. I don't know about you but I've got very bad short term memory. In addition, I can remember what is told to me, in general, but for specifics, I've got to write them down.
I also agree with you that God speaks to us spiritually, but only after you or I take that leap of faith and believe in him. There are very few exceptions to this.
How do you think God reveals himself to us or brings people to himself? Is it done spiritually or what?
I already said that God continually speaks to us spriritually, by his own mouth to our ears. I don’t know how to say it more plainly. He doesn’t need to write down his words into a book, for reference or anything else. Even your Bible says that God will write his law upon our hearts. What do you think he meant by that?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the Law of God is written upon the Remnant's heart, but that is only after the person believes the Word of God. Please answer a couple of quick questions, for me. I don't understand how you would evangelize or spread the word of God, without any solid reference. How would you show or tell me about God, without something to back you up? What would be the steps, that you would take me through to prove that the message, that you are proclaiming, is from God, not you alone?
ReplyDeleteHi Keith, just tried to leave a message on my blog, but it kept going wrong. Am not connected to the Internet at home yet, on my mobile in my son's house. Hope to be set up at home soon and put up a post. God bless you and your family. Shalom!
ReplyDeleteHi Brenda. I was starting to worry about you guys. I hope the move went smoothly. God Bless you and the family and may he keep you safe.
ReplyDeleteThe move was good, the house is lovely and it is great living between the sea and the Loch.
ReplyDeleteI am truly happy for you and your family.
ReplyDeleteYour Bible can not be the word of God. It has errors and stories that cannot be true. That is my point. The burden of proof is on you when you arre claiming that it is the word of God.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, we already showed you that you are in error, when you claimed that the Bible was first in science, in many areas. You are going to have to be a little specific, for I know of no errors, within the Bible. You alluded to some vague references, in an earlier comment, but no specifics. As for proving that the Bible is a supernatural message, from God, we have prophecy. The most fantastic prophecy being Daniel 9, where it gave us the axact day that the Messiah would present himself, as the Mashiach Nagai. Y’shua/Jesus fulfilled this propephy to the exact day. You can read about it here.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Nine. Excellency in Prophecy
Anonymous, could you give one example of what is in the Bible that cache not be true. One thing that comes straight to my mind is that the things of God are foolishness to the carnal mind. We have to have the Holy Spirit to teach us God's ways.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the spelling mistake. Predictive Text.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't prove me wrong!!!!!! You simply showed your interpretation. I do concede that Daniel 9 could be interpreted that way. It would be an amazing if other scholars agreed with you. They do not.
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous errors in the Bible, which shows that God was not involved with writing it, unless you admit that God can make mistakes. I think not.
The following are just a handful of the mistakes in the first chapters of Genesis.
Contradictions and internal errors in the Bible
GE 1:14 God created lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night
GE 1:4 God had already made this division earlier
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2:5 There is no plant or shrubbery on the earth after god created it, before the fall because there was no one to "work the ground."
GE 1:11-12 The land produced plants, trees and fruit on it's own without a worker.
GE 3:17-18 Having to work the ground for food was a punishment for the fall
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI am going to let Keith take most of this because he has a strong view and scriptural background to it. I know he has written about your exact points before.
But what I want to stress is a few things. Answers to EVERYTHING is something no human can do. It's easy to come up with questions. It's easy to not understand things and write them off. It's easy to find things you don't agree with and say it's not true. We won't have all the answers. Or won't have all the answers you will agree with. But none of that would negate if it's truth or not.
With that said, here is my view on one of the "errors":GE 1:14 God created lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night
GE 1:4 God had already made this division earlier
There is a difference between "light" and the "lights". Even science said this. WMAP Notice there is a flash of light, if you will, at the beginning and then later on stars and stuff were made, even NASA agrees. The light in 1:4 is the speed of light, the energy of light, the concept of light. 1:14 is the actual lights used as in our sun and moon. Big difference.
Sorry, anonymous, but the past seven days have been really busy.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that a prophecy could be interpreted different ways. However, when a prophecy is fulfilled, then you discard the others, allowing the truth to remain. I don't want to get into a big argument, but Daniel 9 does prove your original statement, concerning the Bible, as erroneous. There is no getting around that. I will not back off that claim, because that is what you would expect from the Word of God.
As for your Contradictions and internal errors, in the Bible, the following may be of interest to you.
1. In Gen 1:4, God separated the light from darkness. As Tim mentioned in his last comment, this is the light from God, not the sun, as you are suggesting. A reading of Rev. 21 and 22, specifically Rev. 22:5, will shed some light on it. Sorry for the pun. :-) LOL You are correct that in Gen 1:14, a semi-permanent division, between night and day, was put into place. This will be in place until creation has been completely reconciled to God, just beyond the last days.
2. As for trees, birds, mankind, etc., being created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2, take a look at Gen 2:4-7. Pay close attention to the time period. It was before on or before day 3. Gen 2 is talking about a man, called Adam, while Gen 1 is talking about mankind, in general. This interpretation also resolves the "Who was Cain afraid of?" conundrum, after he left Adam and Eve.
3. Gen 2:5 is talking about the Garden of Eve, while Gen 1 is talking about the world, in general. As for Gen 3, it was post fall and there is a difference between working the ground and tending to the plants and trees.
4. First, who wrote the Torah? Obviously, Moses. In Exodus 3, Yahweh made himself known to Moses, as Hayah Asher Hayah, I AM That I AM. Yah is derived from HaYah. Keep in mind that God was revealing himself to Moses, for the first time, and reminding the Israelites that he was Yah, the God of Adam, Abraham, Isaiah and Jacob. There is no discrepancy in Moses writing in the name of Yah, where it is appropriate, in the early chapters of Genesis.
If you would read the Bible for yourself and not let others tell you what's in there, I think you would be surprised how truthful it is.
You are so arrogant. You think that your bible is the only book that shows the way to God. There are many ways to God. I have shown you just a few examples of errors within your bible and you attempt to justify with twisting the words and meanings. You know very well that your view and explanations are not accepted as mainstream. You have the audacity to claim that only you and a select few truly understand the bible and have exclusive access to God. You are a great example of what's wrong with Christianity. I have read your bible many times and the errors are glaring. I would give you more errors but you would only twist and rationalize your position. What I find the most preposterous is your rationalization of how you believe that Yahweh and the bible was first not a result of other polytheistic religions.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous, I am sorry that I have come across, as arrogant. However, that doesn't change the fact that apparently is annoying you. That is, that I'm correct, concerning the inerrancy of the Bible. If you are honest with yourself, take a step back and imagine the way that an interdimensional God would communicate with creatures of limited dimensionality. A book, like the Bible fits the bill.
ReplyDeleteSure, the Quran, the Vedas, the Tipitaka, etc. could also stake that claim. However, when the light of truth is shone upon them, only the Bible shows it's inerrancy and worthiness to be the Word of God. I'm sorry that bothers you, but that reveals an issue with you, not the Bible.
If you could show me how I twisted words to match my position or beliefs, I would gladly entertain your supposition.
As for my views matching mainstream Christianity, I would expect that, since maintream Christian beliefs are no where near what the Bible actually teaches. Again, read it for yourself, without any preconceived notions about Christianity.
Also, please do bring on your thoughts on Biblical errors. It's important for us to discuss these things.
Finally, I'll let the Bible and the other religious books testify as to who preceded who. Other than the Quran and the Bible, no other text claims to have an oral tradition dating back to the beginning of Time and Space. There isn't any ancient writings to support ancient historical data, but we know that certain things happened, by oral and natural testimonies. Why do you refuse to give the Bible the same benefit of the doubt?
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you coming across as so hateful? I think you're reading way too much into some of the things being said here. Keith has been upfront and straight forward. But you keep coming at him (and me at first) with harsh words and accusatory attitude.
Anyway, I don't agree with 100% of what Keith is saying. I agree with a lot of it but not all.
As to what Keith said in response to Anon:
1. In Gen 1:4, God separated the light from darkness. We all agree that somehow the Bible here is not saying exactly what some of us think. However, as I stated this is not an error in scripture. It simply explains what science also says. There is an “explosion”. There is a flash of light as I showed from NASA’s website. And then there are the stars that were formed. The Bible and science said it. But the main point in the whole topic is that God/Bible said it first.
2. As for trees, birds, mankind, etc., being created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2. I can’t agree with that one. I see what Keith is saying but you would have to assume some things before that can be accurate. I feel Genesis 2 expands on Genesis 1. Genesis 3 and 4 expand on Genesis 2 and so forth. I can’t see the second part of creation Keith refers to. I have read it 100’s of times and not see that conclusion. Each chapter is not necessarily a linear time period, such as what the Gospels do not do as well. We don’t really know how many days Adam lived. We know the Bible says he lived 930 years BUT that may be after he was kicked out of Eden. That could explain the many years of all the animals coming to him. The Cain issue is not an issue at all. Cain was afraid of people living on the earth that his mother and father had. If Adam and Eve had 500 children, do you think Cain knew all of them and they automatically knew him? It may resolve the issue the way some may feel the need to have it resolved but an easier way to look at it is that these people were now distant relatives. It could have been anywhere from Cain’s 18th birthday up to almost 130 years of living. That would mean a lot of people being born. A great-great-great-great nephew he never knew could be the one he was afraid of.
3. Gen 2:5 is talking about the Garden of Eve, while Gen 1 is talking about the world, in general. This is can see and can be part of what I said about expanding on the chapter.
4. Yahweh’s name. I don’t understand why this is a problem. Who said no one knew what his name was? Adam probably knew him as Yahweh. It never said anything about Moses knowing his name before anyone else does it?
Back to Anon,
ReplyDeleteCould you please show us the many ways to God? You have shown perceived errors but not real errors. Please list all the errors. But before you do, make sure they are actual errors and not misinterpretations, biased feelings, and actually in the Bible.
And one huge assumption you have made that many people who are atheists actually claim to try and disprove the Bible is that it is taken from other sources. That is a major flaw in their argument. The Bible is known to be one of the oldest written books around. As Keith said, it also has an oral tradition that spans way beyond other “religions” and writings. And what makes you think that other religions just didn’t borrow from Judaism? How do you know? Please provide the evidence, besides Wikipedia.com.
Back to Keith,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that most Christians are wrong and are unbiblical. I really feel you grew up in a different and strange environment. As for many of the things you have stated in your posts and you have claimed that Christians believe aren't accurate. Unless I grew up in a strange environment and was blinded to the rest of our brothers.
I don't see God allowing mankind to distort His Gospel in such a way that we are wrong as a whole, or as mainstream in the words of Anon.
However, I agree 1005 with your assessment of other "holy" books. None fill in the gaps like the Bible does, and has remained relevant for all human eras starting with Genesis 1:1. I mean, look, we're still debating the creation of the world and the Bible talks about it. No other book can do all the things the Bible does.
100% not 1005....
ReplyDeleteHey Tim, If strange is the worst thing you can call me, then I'm OK. I do suggest that you are not aware of the beliefs within mainstream Christianity.
ReplyDeleteLet's look some of the Mainstream Christianity Beliefs.
1. Belief that Jesus is God, to the exclusion of Yahweh, the Father. Not Biblical. Most worship, today, is directed to Jesus alone, rather than to his Father.
2. The Trinity. Not Biblical. As a matter of fact, most modern translations continue to include supporting verses, that never were in the original manuscripts.
3. Once Saved, Always Saved. This is one of the destructive heresies alluded to within the book of Jude. Not Biblical
4. Replacement theology, where the church has taken the place of Israel. Not Biblical
5. The Law is no more. Not Biblical. True the punishment is gone, but the Law remains. Even Y'shua said it.
6. Pagan holidays and rituals eagerly accepted and participated in, to the exclusion of God's ordained Holy Days. Not Biblical
7. Acceptance of Church leaders, who have had repeatedly divorced, had adulterous affairs, etc. Not Biblical
8. Arbitrarily puts a deadline on the availability of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not Biblical
9. Works based instead of faith based salvation. Not Biblical
10. Baptism as a requirement for salvation. Not Biblical
Do you want me to go on? I surely can.
As for God allowing mankind to distort his Gospel. The Gospel has never been distorted. However, how it is being delivered to the people has been distorted. People have been led to believe the church leadership rather than the Word of God. A great example is the history of the Catholic Church, who actually outlawed the laity from having a Bible in their homes, little alone read it. Take a step back and you can see that Satan is alive and well, within the Christian Church. Why is that a surprise. Y'shua warned us it would happen in his "Birds in The Mustard Tree" Parable.
The Bible is clear, that in every generation, God keeps a remnant to himself. Why do you think Y'shua said, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Many Christians will perish, except the Remnant of God.
We do definitely agree on the relevancy of the Bible, throughout the history of the world.
Tim, on the subject of Genesis 1 and 2, can we agree to take it step by step?
ReplyDeleteCan we agree that the chapters and verses were not part of the original Word of God?
If so, where do you think the first general creation account ends? At the end of chapter one, or maybe Genesis 2:3 or 4?
By the way, if it's not obvious, I do believe that the timeline of both chapters run parallel, with chapter one starting in our ancient past and chapter two starting on or before day three of creation and terminating some time after the end of chapter one.
I digress. I wasn't calling you strange. Although..... (by the way to the readers, any zingers we have for each other are never in anger, always in jest)
ReplyDeleteI just haven't seen all the things you have said in the realm I worship. But seeing some of the things you listed I guess we are different, and I would disagree on some things.
1. Belief that Jesus is God, to the exclusion of Yahweh, the Father. Not Biblical. Most worship, today, is directed to Jesus alone, rather than to his Father.
I’m not quite for sure they do this. I just think it is more subtle. When I hear worship songs or sermons they do mention Jesus of course but we always equate them as one. There may be individuals who have said what you have said and I would agree they would be wrong. But I believe the reason they do this is because Jesus saying that all authority has been given to Him. We all believe the only way to the Father is through Jesus. I hope they all understand that this means through Jesus life/blood/sacrifice and not uplift the man only as God.
2. The Trinity. Not Biblical. As a matter of fact, most modern translations continue to include supporting verses, that never were in the original manuscripts.
You know I disagree on that. Even with the including verses, the concept is all throughout the Bible. And that can be simply put into three small questions. Is Father God? The answer is yes. Is the Son God? The answer is yes. Is the Spirit God? The answer is yes. There is no other manifestation mentioned in the Bible and there is none less mentioned. That is not to say God is limited. God can be whatever he wants. But throughout the Bible we consistently see 3 as being a unified number and referring to God or His ways. And just because the word is not mentioned is not a valid point that some make. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) depending on which translation basically says it all.
3. Once Saved, Always Saved. This is one of the destructive heresies alluded to within the book of Jude. Not Biblical
I use to think that all the time and the churches I grew up in all believe what you said. Only the “Baptists” are the ones I ever heard of saying that. However, one thought enters my mind about that. Can any of my sins ever out do the sacrifice of what Jesus did? Can my sin by man ever be greater than His sacrifice by God? Jesus death was once for all. Jesus said all of my sins are forgiven. Paul, and not just Jude, preached the idea that no matter what you do you are saved, that is why he answered his own question when he said…”should we go on sinning…by all means no!” And as I read and hear the word if we look at the Ark and see how it is built. We see the Mercy Seat covering that Ark. What is in the Ark? The Law. To get to the Law we have to remove Mercy. THAT is NOT biblical when it comes to Jesus’ teaching. He has a new covenant. The Law is in us. The Law is holy but it CANNOT make you holy. It didn’t even work for Israelites. The OT although being real in history and literal only serves as an allegory for NT believers. Jesus fulfilled the Law not continued it.
4. Replacement theology, where the church has taken the place of Israel. Not Biblical
Agreed. I have seen this one and disagree with them.
5. The Law is no more. Not Biblical. True the punishment is gone, but the Law remains. Even Y'shua said it.
See my above paragraph. How would the punishment be gone if the Law is not? That is like saying Don’t walk on the grass use to get you arrested but now the law still tells you don’t do it but there is no penalty. Then why have the law anymore? Jesus is saying that I know you will walk in the grass, but I have taken the penalty for you. There is still a penalty!
6. Pagan holidays and rituals eagerly accepted and participated in, to the exclusion of God's ordained Holy Days. Not Biblical
ReplyDeleteI can see that. I don’t like certain days that Christians participate in but I don’t think all of those are Pagan in its origination. Easter is Resurrection Sunday! But why is Easter around that time? I believe in the time but not the name of the day. But I can agree with you.
7. Acceptance of Church leaders, who have had repeatedly divorced, had adulterous affairs, etc. Not Biblical
I hope no church believes that is ok. But, are we to judge or bring them back into the fold. Or are we to not forgive and keep people from serving? I believe we need to teach we need to live better lives but no one is perfect. Is divorce worse than liars? We all lie? If that is the case then no one can be a leader. See what I mean? I see what you mean, and on the surface I agree with you but we also can’t be complete judge. What if there were no men on earth who had not committed adultery? Would there be no leaders at all? Just a thought my friend.
8. Arbitrarily puts a deadline on the availability of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not Biblical
That I have seen. That I have argued with many about. The gifts are here and they were never meant to leave.
9. Works based instead of faith based salvation. Not Biblical
I agree with you. But then see your point about the Law. In the OT the way to salvation is to fulfill the Law. If the Law is still here in full existence then you need to fulfill it. Of course not, faith in Jesus is our salvation.
10. Baptism as a requirement for salvation. Not Biblical
That I agree with you about. And I have seen that everywhere, but mostly by strong willed individuals, not as Christians as a whole.
What do you mean Genesis 1 was no part of the original Word of God? I don't understand what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Tim, Yes, sometimes I forget our familiarity with each other. I always consider it as two brothers talking back and forth. No offense is ever taken.
ReplyDeleteAs for the numbered items above,
1. Please name the songs of worship this past Sunday. If you can't remember them, could you please make note of the ones, this coming Sunday?
2. I don't want to get into that debate again. Scholars, on both sides of the argument, do admit that the trinity concept would be lost without Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7. Both of which did not include the Trinitarian references in the original text. As a matter of fact, Matthew 28:19 doesn't show up in the earliest text.
To add support, to this position. There are a lot of early church fathers, who quoted John 5:7 and did not include the Trinitarian references. One that comes to mind is Eusebius of Caesarea. Also, in the 16th century, a scholar, by the name of Erasmus, was given the task of modernizing the vulgate. He requested the earliest Biblical text, when he found that part of Matthew 28 was missing. The Catholic Church created a forged Greek text to support the Trinity Doctrine.
Finally, all non English Bibles, at that time, lacked the three witnesses allusion. Check it out. I challenge you. Let me finish by saying that I firmly believe in the Father, fully dwelling within the man Y'shua, by the power of his Spirit. However, as I've have said before, limiting God to three dimensions or persons, does exactly that, limits him...puts him in a box. What about the Hand of God, The Power of God, The Right Hand of God, The Word of God (Which manifested in the Son of God), etc.? God exists in all and reveals himself in many ways, not just three.
I honestly think it's quite clear in Ephesians 4:4-6.
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
With that said, I do not believe this is a salvational issue, but a relational issue, in our pursuit to know and draw closer to God.
3. As to whether it is mainstream, it is considered part of the predestination doctrine, which is spread over many denominations. Look it up. I think you'll be surprised.
ReplyDelete6. That is basically what you and I believe, except I feel really uncomfortable calling out the name of a pagan goddess on the day of resurrection. However, our belief is not mainstream Christianity. Again, investigate it. You'll be surprised. Keep in mind, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Calvinist based denominations make up more than half of the Christian ranks.
7. Even though leadership is part of serving the Body of Christ, there is a requirement for those, who actually lead the day to day, such as ministers, elders and so on. Is one act worse than others? In salvational issues, no. However, in leadership roles, the Bible is clear. Ministers having affairs, divorced elders, embezzling youth ministers, pedophile priests, etc. are all over the news and that's the ones we know about. Most go on to continue to lead with the consent of the church. Again, serving is different than leadership.
9. We agree. But the church doesn't look at the law, in the same way, the Messiah does. Paul put in perfectly.
Acts 24:14
"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets."
Romans 7:25
"I thank Yahweh--through Y'shua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of Yahweh, but with the flesh the Law of sin."
I could list more, but the only thing that went away was the guardianship or salvational abilities of the Law as in Galations 3:19-25.
"Then why the Torah? It was added because of wrongdoings until the Seed would come—to whom the promise had been made. It was arranged through angels by the hand of an intermediary. Now an intermediary is not for one party alone—but God is one. Then is the Torah against the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given that could impart life, certainly righteousness would have been based on law. But the Scripture has locked up the whole world under sin, so that the promise based on trust in Messiah Yeshua might be given to those who trust.
Now before faith came, we were being guarded under Torah—bound together until the coming faith would be revealed. Therefore the Torah became our guardian to lead us to Messiah, so that we might be made right based on trusting. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
We are to use the non-fulfilled parts of the Law to guide us to the loving side of God.
By the way, I like our conversations.
Tim, "What do you mean Genesis 1 was no part of the original Word of God? I don't understand what you mean."
ReplyDeleteSorry for the misunderstanding. Let me restate my comment.
Can we agree that the chapter numbers and verse numbers were not part of the original Word of God?
If so, where do you think the first general creation account ends? At the end of chapter one, or maybe Genesis 2:3 or 4?
By the way, if it's not obvious, I do believe that the timeline of both chapters run parallel, with chapter one starting in our ancient past and chapter two starting on or before day three of creation and terminating some time after the end of chapter one.
I like the numbering system. It makes it easier to keep track.
ReplyDelete1. Worship Songs….look don’t get me started. I have an issue with all songs anyway because they hardly worship God at all. We had a few years where we even used songs by Pink and Daft Punk as worship songs. That person is now gone. We have changed lately. But to your point, I don’t see anything wrong with singing all our songs about Christ, as long as we know that He is also the Father. Our songs give pretty much equal representation to Jesus, the Father, and our relationship with Him. Here is what we sang last week: Worship songs .
The problem here is that in today’s world we are more about show and what sounds good than actual worship. I don’t think that is what we are talking about here though. I think we miss the whole REASON for worship.
2. Is there anything in the Bible that is original?? Some scholars may say that, not ALL scholars would. Like you I would rather not go into all of that again, because you know who will show up. But to say it limits Him is opinion only. What if God was only 1 manifestation and that is all he was? Just saying what if? Is that limiting Him or is it just saying He is everything all at once? I am not saying that He is ONLY known as the Father, Son, and Spirit. He is known as the Word, The Bread of Life, and a door. He was a finger writing on the wall. Does that mean He is really bread? If I say he is the Bread of Life, did I limit Him since I think He is not also dairy products? Many of what you said is a metaphor for who He is. When He is called the Power of God, did He manifest as “the Power”? What does that mean? And as you pointed out, when He was the Word of God, that is part of Him being the Son. And as our friend says, many of those are just names.
So why is the concept of the Trinity out there? Do you think Satan did it? For what purpose? If we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit incorporate everything God can do, that is not limiting Him. I believe it is just part of His plan for us. When we get to heaven we will see that He is even more than what He showed us.
Ephesians 4:4-6, and then in verse 7 Christ is mentioned…no other manifestation, three things.
I don’t know if it is a salvation issue or not because then if you take one of them out of the equation like the JW, then are you committing heresy?
3. I do not agree with predestination. I also meant to say that no one in my “denom” believes in once saved always saved. I typed the wrong thing earlier. I grew up in that realm that we can fall away from God. So, I am on the fence but am sliding down on the side of OS-AS. Because if I can fall away that means by my works I can negate the work of Christ. How many times do I need to repent? How many times do I have to say I’m sorry for the things that I have done? On my death bed, what if there are sins I never asked forgiveness for? How does anyone know that they have assured salvation if we can fall away from grace once we accepted Christ? Did God want us to always be in doubt? Doesn’t doubt cause fear? Are we supposed to live in fear or in confidence in what our Lord did?
6. Do people call out a goddess’ name? Or are you saying calling it Easter is when they do that? I can agree! I hate the fact that the KJV calls it easter, but the rest call it Passover (Acts 12:4). But that is what I mean. The time of “easter” was not pagan FIRST. It was Passover FIRST. But we agree calling it easter is blah!
7. I agree there is a problem, but if it is not a salvation issue, then be careful about judging. It is a culture issue as well. I hope you didn’t vote for Trump :)
ReplyDelete9. You’re right. The church should not look at the law the same way. Jesus said there are two most important. Love God and your neighbor. Why? Because if you love God you WILL keep His commandments. If you love your neighbor then you ARE following His commandments because you are not hurting anyone with lying, coveting and such. The difference is we are not under the Law as a way for salvation. That is works-based salvation. The Law should be in us and work through us. As I said it is holy but cannot make you holy. If it did then we better go back to sacrificing in a Temple. Yes, you would agree that Jesus did that so we don’t have to, but then did He only get rid of one part of the Law or all of it.
Romans 8:1-4 “Those who belong to Christ Jesus are no longer under God’s judgment. 2 Because of what Christ Jesus has done, you are free. You are now controlled by the law of the Holy Spirit who gives you life. The law of the Spirit frees you from the law of sin that brings death. 3 The written law was made weak by the power of sin. But God did what the written law could not do. He made his Son to be like those who live under the power of sin. God sent him to be an offering for sin. Jesus suffered God’s judgment against our sin. 4 Jesus does for us everything the holy law requires. The power of sin should no longer control the way we live. The Holy Spirit should control the way we live.”
The Law kills but the Spirit brings life!
You mention Romans 7:25, "I thank Yahweh--through Y'shua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of Yahweh, but with the flesh the Law of sin." Notice it says IN MY MIND. The rest of Romans 7 is needed!!!
I didn’t mean why was the Law written. I meant why still have a law if there is no punishment. But I like what you said anyway!
Yes, I agree that chapters and verses are arbitrarily added. I believe though (opinion) that chapters are placed in order by the Spirit and for a purpose.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Genesis 1 with a few verses in 2 are one piece. And then the rest of 2 is an addendum if you will to 1, showing a different purpose. I do not think they are linear. I wish I was at Nicea.
Check this out: The Big Bang
ReplyDeleteAmazing, what God can do and how He did it. Sadly though how we missed it.
1. I stand corrected and am very happy to see that the worship is God-Centered.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I agree. I'll let the Spirit guide us into the truth, even though we went a little into it on your recent blog.
3. We are agreement on this one. However, we were talking about mainstream Christianity.
6. Again, you and I agree. We are not mainstream Christians. I have always included you as part of the Remnant.
7. When the Messiah condemned judging, it is judging one's position in the Messiah, which I do not do. However, we are supposed to fruit inspectors and use the Word to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness. That is exactly what I do. Too many years liberal interpreters of the Word have use the Messiah's teachings to silent the Remnant, by say we are judging. This is why I emphatically and almost annoyingly tell everyone to read the Bible for themselves and let the Spirit teach, not ministers, who water down the message. As for voting for Trump, he isn't a leader within the Body of Christ. He is someone, who is being used by God, to further his Will. Even God uses evil men to get things done.
9. The Why is to bring us closer to the mind of God.
You said, "I feel that Genesis 1 with a few verses in 2 are one piece. And then the rest of 2 is an addendum if you will to 1, showing a different purpose. I do not think they are linear.
ReplyDeleteThen we are back to the alleged Biblical errors, stated earlier by anonymous. In your view, the following verses are contradictory.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
Keith,
ReplyDelete1. It is far from perfect that is for sure. I have an issue with worship because it's like they are doing it to please the guests and not the host!
3. Do you really think most Christians believe in predestination? As opposed to free will?
6. What makes a "remnant"? Why would He only preserve a few? And how does one know they are part of that remnant?
7. I don't mean salvational judgment. I am referring to allowing people to get their lives back. But I know what you mean and I agree. Trump was just an example.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteAs for the Genesis discussion. I do not see it as being errors either way.
I can't draw a graph here so try and picture this. What if I tell you a story (the big picture type). Very general, very simple. And then you ask me to expand. And I then expand on that. Is that an error or contradiction?
That's how I see Genesis. The first chapter is about how the world began. The second one opens up the creation to show you how man fell. The third chapter opens up and shows you the beginning of sinful nature and how it was passed on. Then the next part is showing how God dealt with sin and so forth. Linear, but a lot of vertical instead of just horizontal. Separate but not opposite. Big picture getting smaller and smaller until it all boils down to one thing---Jesus.
Tim,
ReplyDelete3. Within the US, there are estimates that there are only 35% who believe in predestination. However, that number spikes up to 65%+, when you go outside the US, especially in China. Just read an article that stated that there has been a resurgence in the US. So, do I believe that most Christians believe in predestination? Yes.
6. It’s a Jewish and old Christian term. The Remnant are the faithful, after a judgement,, who rise up out of the many. It’s a few because it is based on the percentage of mankind, who place their faith in God, through trials and perseverance, during their lifetime.
Paul and John mentions it in Romans 11:5 and Revelation 12.
Tim, I understand your position, because I believed it too, for a long time. But, your position lacks timing reconciliation. Regardless of how you view chapters 1, 2 and 3, there are conflicting time signatures. Chapter 1 says that mankind or in your position, Adam was created after the trees, animals and birds, while chapter 2 says Adam was created before the trees, birds and animals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in chapter one, man and woman were were Bara, created out of nothing, while Adam in chapter 2, was yatsar, form out of the dirt and Eve was banah, bullt from Adams rib.
You cannot reconcile the difference, if you maintain your post. However, I’m open to your counter-argument, because we are always looking for the truth.
Keith,
ReplyDelete3. I hope not.
6. But how does one know they are of the remnant?
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI don't think it should be read the way you are doing it in Genesis. I know it says: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."
I don't see that as 100% linear. I see it more of a vague statement that is just outlining the purpose of the Garden and stuff. It's not the complete story and as I said before is only an expansion from Genesis 1, which I believe ends in Genesis 2:3.
Notice how verse 4 kind of starts over the story. Almost a separation as saying that was one story, no let me tell you more about the Garden. I am of course using an analogy but something to that extent. It is "reconcilable", for lack of a better word.
The Hebrew word I see for creating man in Genesis 1:27 is וַיִּבְרָ֨א vai·yiv·ra
What I see in Genesis 2:7 is וַיִּיצֶר֩ vai·yi·tzer.
The only "bara" I see is when He created the whole universe/existence/physical world in Genesis 1:1 and in Genesis 2:3 when the creation was mentioned again as in the way I have indicated---a retelling but now expanding on the story.
I did not find bara when it came to creating man. Although maybe the lexicon I am reading is different. Give me some reference so I can see more.
Tim, Even though I agree, as I stated previously, that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a generalized account and Genesis 2:3 is a recounting of an event within the timeline of Genesis 1:1-2:3-25, you cannot say one account is linear and the other is not. That makes no sense. Why would the Spirit lead Moses to write down a linear account, then turn around to inspire Moses to write down a second account, which is non-linear. I'm sorry. I'm not buying that. Using your logic, I could easily start rearranging the events in chapter one. It doesn't work that way.
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Notice how verse 4 kind of starts over the story. Almost a separation as saying that was one story, no let me tell you more about the Garden."
We are saying the same thing. However, again, look at the timing. The second story doesn't fit into the first, if they are talking about the same "Man". Another piece of anecdotal evidence is why did God bless the third day of creation twice? No proof, but most likely because Adam was created on that day. I believe that God did that to point us to that day for the second creation account in Gen 2.
As for the vai·yiv·ra and vai·yi·tzer, I've seen that smoke screen before. They are a possible phonic transliterations of Bara and Yatsar. Not different words. Look it up. You can even see the original Hebrew words in their spellings. Bara בְרָ֨א is in vaiyivra וַיִּבְרָ֨א and Yatsar יָצַר can be seen in וַיִּיצֶר֩ vai·yi·tzer. Bottom line, Bara בְרָ֨א and vaiyivra וַיִּבְרָ֨א means to create out of nothing or the elements and Yatsar יָצַר and וַיִּיצֶר֩ vai·yi·tzer means to form, using existing materials. To back that up, look at the strong numbers of each word. You'll find that I'm telling you the truth.
Try looking at the raw text. I like the following site. It gives you the text with the strongs numbers, without any extra garbage.
Without The Vowels Project
As for the Remnant, that is a question of all Christians. It is an assurance that only comes with a daily desire to get closer to God, through his Word. I firmly believe that the closer the one gets on their quest to be one with God's Word, they achieve a doubtless faith in the God of the Universe. Are they the only ones saved? I don't know for sure, but the Bible does lean towards that interpretation. However, that is between the believer and God.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm a little late to this conversation but I would like to make three points.
ReplyDeleteIn Gen 2:4, it specifically says, "these are the towledah" which means generations or course of history. Either one means to lay out as it happens therefore linear.
If you look at Gen 2:4-7 God created Adam in the day of or preceding the herbs and trees. If not, why did he even mention it? Most likely day 2. It was barren. That why he didn't say it was good.
Then on day 3 in Gen 2:8 the garden was created and the man or Adam was put into it. That's why God said that the third day was good twice. This is clearly before day 6, when God created the beasts.
Great Points, Chris! I totally forgot the "towledah" point, which supports the linear interpretation. Also, I like the double blessing theory.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying these aren't linear. I am saying they aren't linear with each other. Chapter one goes in order. Chapter 2 goes in order. I don't see them as linear with each other. I thin they compliment each other.
ReplyDeleteWhy would God hide man's creation on day three?
About the remnant; if I never feel assured does that mean I am not part of it? I don't think so. I think once you accept Jesus you become part of the remnant (using your word). If we have to wait until we're assured then many who are saved would not be saved.
I don't get the "blessing" part. Are you saying when God "saw that is was good" that this is a blessing?
I am not rearranging verses. However, is the Gospel in order? No. Hardly any of it. Just saying...
1. I'm getting a little confused. I believe that chapter 1 is a generalized account of the creation. Chapter 2 is a specific account of special creation of the Messianic line, which happened within the time period of chapter 1. They are a parallel linear accounts not sequential, not one after each other, but parallel, happened during the six days of creation. It is possible, but unlikely, that Eve was built from Adam's side or DNA later.
ReplyDelete2. I don't see that God hid it. I see that he alluded to it, on the third day, by blessing the third day twice. It's kind of like saying that was a doubly good day, but I get back to that later. And he did, in chapter two. He even references the time period of day 2-3, in chapter 2, when he says this is what happened in the days of creation, before the herbs and trees.
3. Another thought for you: If Adam and Eve were the mankind reference in Genesis 1:27-28, then Adam and Eve disobeyed by staying by themselves, in the Garden and not immediately procreating, as they were commanded. Also, why did God not tell man not to eat of the tree of knowledge in chapter 1? Because man did not have access to the Garden. Adam and Eve did.
4. As for the Remnant and assurance, I didn't say it was immediate, even though that is possible. I said,
"It is an assurance that only comes with a daily desire to get closer to God, through his Word. I firmly believe that the closer the one gets on their quest to be one with God's Word, they achieve a doubtless faith in the God of the Universe."
You said, "If we have to wait until we're assured then many who are saved would not be saved." What did Y'shua mean by "Many shall call me Lord, but few (The Remnant) shall enter the Kingdom of God."? Also, what is the meaning of the ten virgins parable?
I'm a little confused. When I wrote about the Ten Virgins Parable, you commented,"I agree. But I have never heard it taught any differently."
Ten Virgins Parable Explained
The five prepared virgins is the Remnant, that God reserved to himself, out of what we call the Christian church today.
5. You also said, "I don't get the "blessing" part. Are you saying when God "saw that is was good" that this is a blessing?" Yes, exactly.
6. Not to derail this conversation, but the Gospels are in order of themselves. If you meant that they are not together sequential, then I agree. However, put together they are a parallel linear account of the time and teachings of Y'shua, while he was on the Earth.
1. I think we're saying the same thing but with different conclusions. I am not denying the possibility of your point. I just don't read it that way.
ReplyDelete2. Alluded--related to allusion, a hiding. I don't see when God says something is good as it being a blessing.
3. Because that chapter was not for that purpose. You just used the same thinking process I did..."Why didn't God say it then at that point?" Are you suggesting an evolutionary type of creation or two completely different types of creation? One spiritual and one physical? I have thought that second one may times and I can accept that but all of creation seemed to be physical---man's existence, with the pathway to God being spiritual. Eh...maybe.
4. I am not denying a remnant. I am asking how does one know you are part of it.
5. Discussed above.
6. That's what I am saying about Genesis!!! They are not linear in the Gospels. They are all over the place. The anointing of Jesus feet is an example. One has it in the beginning and one has it at the end. Some would say that these are two different instances but read closer, they are the same. Why? Because of the purpose they were written in their own order. Being a historian I have pieced together many of the events and when you read it like a history book---WOW it takes on a different meaning (so to speak).
In summary, I am not denying anything you are saying. I am not even arguing over it. I just don't read it that way.
1. I agree, which brings us back to the timing issue that is stated in Genesis 2, "...before the herbs and trees..." and verb issues in both accounts. They don't match. I understand that you don't read it that way, but you need to reconcile the differences, in order to properly evangelize. Don't you agree?
ReplyDelete2. Good, Happy, Content, etc. are all classic definitions of Blessed. Look at the Beatitudes. Change the word, "Blessed" with either one and it works. With that said, it does't really matter. Something happened on day 2, that God really wasn't pleases with. However, on day 3, he did something that he was doubly pleased with. What is it? I don't know for sure, but usually the next time it is mentioned explains it. The next time is in chapter 2, when he deliberately points to that exact time.
3. I was hoping that I was using your method of logic. I was proving a point. Just because it doesn't say it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We have to take in the whole counsel of God, to come to a conclusion.
5. I never thought you were denying the Remnant, especially since I've already said that I thought you were part of it. There may be more to it, but I feel that the Remnant consists of those who contently relying on the Blood of the Messiah for the redemption of their souls and continuing and progressively search out God, his Word, his meaning, earnestly attempting to following him.
6. We agree. However, within a specific Gospel, the events are not out of order. That's what I'm saying about the creation accounts of Gen 1 and 2.
Finally, I didn't think we were arguing...just discussing and I love our discussions.
Ok.
ReplyDeleteI have read this again and thought about and I still some things that do not coincide with what you're saying. I will stick to the numbering system to keep things easy.
1. I again do not see these verses as the full story. I think chapter 2 is just a reminder of what the world was like. In the beginning there was no shrubs, no life, no whatever. I don't think it is the complete story. I also don't think the whole thing is in complete linear arrangement. Such as with the logic that you are using look at 2:8 "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed" So, He put man in thew Garden, right? He was in the garden at that point. But in 15 it says, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Wait!!! He already put him there, why would he put him there again if this whole thing is 100% linear? That's because this is just a story telling and not a complete linear account of history. Yes, it is still linear over all but not what you're saying. That's how the verses run and why I believe each chapter is just a build on the ones before it. Not to mention that God called it a garden even though there weren't any trees or plants yet. No, this is not an error or contradiction such as Anonymous would say (which by the way I think he is gone). It is written for a purpose. The purpose...God created and nothing without Him is in existence, with other smaller stories too :) To answer your question: I don't agree. I see my view as being reconciled to what is being said.
2. I don't see the words you mention as being a "blessing". Yes, blessed may mean happy but if I say something is good does not mean I blessed it. I see it as saying God looked and knew this was His plan. Why was the 2nd day not blessed then? What happened? In Day 3 blessed the earth/sea and the plants. It says that right after those parts of creation. I don't see why that is man hidden in the blessing? And using your ideas, Day 6 was blessed three time then and that is when man was created. So, let me ask you when it says man was made in His image, exactly what does that mean?
3. My point was you tried to prove your point by using my point but you disagreed with my point...that was my point. :)
5. I agree with the concept of a remnant, but I want to know when was is assured of that.
6. Explain. Not one of the Gospels are in complete order. I can show you that. However, they are written in a spiritual linear way if you want to say that.
Tim,
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that chapter two is the complete story. It is a more detailed event, occurring during the timeline of chapter one. When? It starts as when the text says, on or before the herbs and the trees. Verse 8 is a general statement. Verse 9-17 is a more precise account. Notice that in verse 9, there is the Hebrew word, "min", which is translated as "and" in most versions. It's not even included in the NIV. The close Greek work is "meta taunta", found in the Revelation letters. It means, "After this". It is an indicator of linear time progression. Herbs, then Trees, Adam and then the wild beasts. That does not jive with chapter one. Couple that with the verbiage difference of create out of nothing, form and shape, you have a large hole to climb out of. Bottom line, I see your reasoning as circular and you have to ignore certain things to arrive at it. Good thing is that it is not a salvational issue. It's a fun topic that you and I disagree.
2. Whether he Blessed it or said it was good doesn't change the point that God didn't think that day two was good, but thought the third day was twice as good. Why? That is usually answered or alluded to when the subject comes up again and that was in chapter two.
3. Exactly, but it was you that started it. :-) LOL
5. I don't think it's tangible or measurable, but a Spiritual Asssurance, a gift of God.
6. Proof please. You are going to have to show me that the Gospels are not linear within the individual Gospel. I agree that Matthew doesn't go into Mark, then Luke and finally finishing with John.
1. After this could just mean "sometime later", that could be any time. Could you address the other issues I brought up in that point? How could he place man in the garden in 8 and then place him again in 15? Did he remove him? See what I mean? It may not be the progression you think. And what is the image of God?
ReplyDelete2. But what happened on Day 2 that he didn't like? And as I stated after he made the earth/seas he said it was good. After he made the plants he said it was good. Both "goods" are accounted for. I don't think that means anything different than what it says. Why then was the 6th day blessed three times, was it three times as good, or was just like I said--God saying this was his plan and he was satisfied.
5. I think it is. As soon as one accepts Christ they become saved, now I don't know if that is the same as the remnant. That is what I guess I am asking.
6. It's mostly in Matt and Luke where the order is not linear. But they have a purpose for doing so. Not to tell a history but to teach a lesson. Here are a few: Matt 4 and Luke 4 are similar but Luke 4 has the healing of Peter's mother-in-law but Matthew doesn't have it until chapter 8. Then Luke 6 goes with Matthew 12 but then the things in Matthew 8 are in Luke 8. Mark seems to be in most chronological order with a few verses not in order. John is in most order but it covers different topics and fills in the gaps, but these are guesses to where it all happens since they are different topics.
Hey Tim,
ReplyDelete1. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You still have the issue of the verbiage. I did answer your questions. Please look at my previous comment.
2. Regardless if you interpret it as good or blessing doesn't change the fact that God didn't think day two was good and though day three was doubly good. Also, it is typical of Spirit to follow up with it the next time it is mentioned. That was chapter two.
5. The individual knows. God gives him/her that assurance.
6. Need proof. I don't see it.
1. I guess I see where you answered it but that is exactly what I have said about the whole chapter 1 with chapter 2. Vague and then expanded. So we will disagree.
ReplyDelete2. But please let me know what happened on day 2 that was so bad. And was day 6 blessed three times? I thought I explained why there were two "blessings". It clearly states he created two different things that day.
5. Some don't. They accept Jesus but struggle their whole life wondering if they are saved. I used to wake up in my adult life crying wondering if I was good enough. Then I heard that once you accept Christ, your salvation issue is secured. And that is what assured me. I think too many people don't get that.
6. I thought I did show it. Let me try it this way:
Matthew 4 = Luke 4
Matthew 8 is also in Luke 4
Matthew 8 is also Luke 8 BUT
Matthew 12 is Luke 6
What happened? How do things happen in Matthew 8 that is in Luke 8 but when Matthew goes forward to 12 Luke goes backward to 6???? There are a few more like that.
Study this for me and see what your conclusions are: Matthew 26:6-13 and Luke 7:36-50 and John 12:1-8
1. Two additional things for this one,
ReplyDelete- You didn’t explain the difference in verbiage
- I really don’t think that God mixes things up and tries to confuse people. Do you honestly think that God lays it out in a linear matter, just to switch it up, then goes back to a linear manner?
2. I don’t know what was wrong on day two. We will have to ask him. However we were centering on why the third day was good twice. On the sixth day, there is only one good and at the completion of creation, he saw that all that he made was good, everything from day one through day six, except day two. :-) LOL
5. As for assurance, that is between you and God. We have no right to judge another’s assurance. However, we do have a responsibility to ourselves to evaluate our position in obedience in the Messiah.
6. One example does not prove your point. Peter’s mother could have easily been healed twice. We cannot take one example as proof of nonlinearity.
1. We're almost done with it :) I don't see a problem with verbiage. I never said it goes back and forth with linear matter. See my post on Genesis Genesis
ReplyDelete2. Day 6 has three blessings. Day three has 2. By your words. But day 2 has two creations that day. Day 6 has three, the last one being for ALL of his creation agreed. They are all accounted for.
6. I gave you another. Check it out. There are a few more I will let you study the one I gave you in my last post to read.
1. Saying that you don’t see a problem with the verbiage doesn’t make it go away. I read your genesis post. You statement about chapter two is clearly incorrect. You’re expecting the reader to accept that the Spirit deliberately inspired Moses to write things out of order when compared to the order and that man was created out of nothing in Genesis one and formed out of the dirt in chapter two. Why would he do that?
ReplyDelete2. The Hebrew Word טוֹב only appears seven times in Genesis One, once on day one, twice on day three, once on day four, once on day five, once on day six. He then said that he looked back on ALL that he made and saw that it was good. What version are you looking at?
6. I’ll give you the possibility that your interpretation is correct about the gospels, concerning an individual writer. However, again, it doesn’t give us proof that Genesis one and two were inadvertent written out of order, when placed side by side. Please don’t take this wrong, but it appears that you are trying to interpret chapter one and two to fit the traditional interpretation rather than reading what is plainly written. That’s what we accuse Paul of doing. Please explain why not taking what is literally written is so wrong.
1. Nah, they're not out of order, but an expansion. I never said man was created out of nothing, only the universe. Man was created. How? In chapter 2 it shows us.
ReplyDelete2. You said if the word good is mentioned then it is a blessing. Gen 1:24-31
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. HERE IS ONCE.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed HERE IS TWICE them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good HERE IS THRICE. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Unless the word good and content do not always mean blessed. I thought that is what you meant when you said, "Good, Happy, Content, etc. are all classic definitions of Blessed."
6. No, it doesn't prove it at all, that is fact but it does show that somethings have a spiritual purpose and not just a linear. And that bugs me being a historian!!! Remember, as I am sure you do, Moses may have written those words but inspired by God. Are Psalms in all chronological order? Are Proverbs? I don't think it matters if they are in 100% order. That is why I keep stressing the big picture. Another one I think if I remember right are the "7 woes". One I believe is in Luke 11 and the other is in Matthew 23. These are not in exact order. I could be wrong. he may have even said these twice. But if we look at them at face value then they seem out of order and then wrong. Not at all, there is a purpose when they were recorded. Even the crucifixion has some order misplacements. Doesn't make it wrong. Go to this site and look halfway down to where it say difficulty of the subject, Trial Order . Big picture says all of it happened, literally. Small picture they are in different order--so what. Know what I mean?
I am not doing the same thing Paul is doing. I am not adding into it and using it as doctrine. If it is traditional then ok, not everything traditional is wrong.
Keep in mind, I am not denying anything you are suggesting. I do not see any problems with the way I feel it is being written for us. Big picture, I am a believer, small picture---I make mistakes :)
Sorry for not responding sooner. It has been a very busy week. I've only had a chance, here and there, to comment. Also, I wanted to say that I really enjoy our discussions, especially this one. I don't see you adding things to the scripture. I would call you on that, as I would expect you to do the same for me. I would honestly like to have a reasonable conversation with Paul, if only he used what is actually written for a basis for his positions.
ReplyDeleteNow, back to our discussion.
Let me restate that Genesis 1:1-2:4 is definitely a linear summary of the creation account. I think we totally agree with that. You can see this in Genesis 2:4, where is says,
"The preceding was the course of history account of the Heavens and Earth created in the days Yahweh Elohim made the Earth and the Heavens."
An alternative reading of Genesis 2:4 is:
"The following is the course of history account of the Heavens and Earth created in the days Yahweh Elohim made the Earth and the Heavens."
Either way, the Hebrew dictates that either the events preceding or following Genesis 2:4 were an ordered account. It the same word used in conjunction with a genealogy list. I don't know of a place, within the Bible, where a genealogy is out of order. Therefore, I would expect the items, listed in Genesis two, would be an ordered account.
If you take the events of chapter two, you cannot reconcile it with chapter one, in an orderly fashion.
Also, the verbiage cannot be reconciled. Bara (Creation using the basic atom level particles) Asah (Creation using materials already Bara) and Banah (Creation using a base material in order to grow more of the parent material) are used within Genesis 1 and 2 for different creations.
Mankind, man and female were bara, in Genesis 1. Adam was Asah, in Chapter 2 and Eve was grown from the side material of Adam.