/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Matthew 5:37

>But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

It's literal as God, and Jesus', form of communication is, yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

>this thread again

[-]

Watch this, OP. And God bless you on your spiritual journey.

>>645065

Just because it is not a fact, it doesn't mean it is not true.

Truth is not a synonym of fact.

The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to create the beautiful 100% truthful non-factual story of Adam and Even.

>>645122

Source on that quote by origen?

100% a fact. I would say that probably anyone that reads it(especially in KJV) and still thinks it's a metaphor/parable probably isn't saved since Jesus said people of God hear God's words.

>>645280

Can't find it, St Augustine of Hippo (saying the same thing) is going to be easier to find

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/augustines-commentaries-on-genesis-one-and-modern-theology/

>>645320

This is your brain on Ameriprot-theism.

>>645122

>what God says in the Bible is wrong, the post

How do you suppose we should interpret scripture then? And how did you come to your conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20. I thought that because Jesus says let our yea be yea and our nay be nay that we are to mean exactly what we say. Just like Jesus means exactly what He said as He is no hypocrite.

>Anti-intellectual

<We realized our own nakedness, frailty, mortality and potential for evil

The Bible is inherently Anti-intellectual/anti-scribe as the knowledge of good and evil is forbidden in genesis 2. As the whole point of the wages of sin being death romans 6:23 was to point out that we need Jesus to save us from the body of sin romans 6:6. On top of 1 corinthians 1:17-25

>For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

>For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

>>645390

>what do you suppose Matthew 7:16 "by their fruit you will know them" means?'

It is quite literally talking about prophets in context. The fruit itself being the fruit of the Spirit in galatians 5:22.

<Your premise is exactly that of the atheist, therefore I distrust it, for the fruit thereof is poison

How did you come to this conclusion? Unlike the atheist, I actually believe the word of God that is written down for our edification as said in matthew 4:4

>But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

<PRIVATE interpretation, would be had I consulted no one to form my opinions.

Did you actually read 2 peter 1:20? If you had read verses 20-21 you would have seen the context

>Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Your interpretation is not to be based on the traditions and commandments of men as spoken of and against in matthew 15:6-9

>And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

>Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

>This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

>But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

But rather on galatians 1:11-12 which is in faith to so do.

>But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

>For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

<For instance, what if I quoted you Ecclesiastes 12:8, saying life is meaningless?

>Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

Then i'd say you have a possibly valid interpretation.

>Clearly then, what you are saying has nothing to do with Tradition

Indeed, because f-u-c-k the traditions of men.

<or the Scriptures, absolutely nothing.

That's wrong, I am directly quoting scripture. How does that "have nothing" to do with scripture? All you seem to do is refer me back to the teachings of men rather then following colossians 2:8

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>>645401

Also for clarification, in matthew 7:15-20 when it talks about knowing them by their fruits, of the Spirit in galatians 5:22 that is, you need to clarify what a prophet is as spoken of in revelation 19:10

>And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Anyone claiming to be testifying of Jesus, is claiming to be speaking by the spirit of prophecy. Hence by their fruits ye shall know them is quite literal.

<Firstly, enough about Romans 6:6! Not everything is yea or nay;

Jesus clearly states "let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay". The Bible is the word of God, don't you suppose God's communication via His word would then be: yea, yea; nay, nay?

>>645390

Who do you think wrote Genesis?

>>645411

>Who do you think wrote Genesis?

Doesn't matter as long as it gives glory to God and is inspired by God see 1 corinthians 1:31

>That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

and 2 timothy 3:16

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Scripture is inspired by God, whether moses himself wrote it down or some translator claiming to be speaking by the spirit of prophecy some 6000 years later did so is irrelevant. As God gets the glory if it is His fruit as spoken of in matthew 12:33

>Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

>>645406

>>645401

I'm done with this, KJV

What does Ecclesiastes 12:8 say in Greek? ματαιότης which means meaningless/futile.

The word vain, means exactly the same thing.

>2 Peter 1:20 with context

It's even worse for your argument

>Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Thus it is not even about our interpretation, it is saying that no prophet just made it up himself. Indeed the prophet spoke as the Holy Spirit commanded.

>>645418

Origen recanted

>>645122

>Read it allegorically and stop being a modern heretic.

no you

>>645420

How did you come to this conclusion? All 2 timothy 3:16 talks about is the usage of scripture for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" and that all scripture is inspired by God. What does that have to do with interpreting the scripture?

>>645421

Secound Council of Constantinople declared him anathema

https://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Constantinople-AD-553

>>645417

>Thus it is not even about our interpretation, it is saying that no prophet just made it up himself. Indeed the prophet spoke as the Holy Spirit commanded.

You are catching on now. That's why I quoted revelation 19:8, as all claiming to testify of Jesus are claiming to speak by the spirit of prophecy. Thus are they claiming to be speaking by the will of God, but God cannot lie as said in titus 1:2. So by their fruits ye shall know them. So don't believe me, but rather believe what God says in the scripture, as I am just thy fellowservant.

<It's even worse for your argument

No, that's because its not my arguement, but rather what the words of God are as spoken of in the scriptures.

>>645436

>revelation 19:8

Should be

>revelation 19:10

>>645320

>imagine being this deep on materialism

Might as well be a fedora, to be honest.

>>645432

For concept of preexistence of souls and alleged teaching about reincarnation

>>645463

Did you read matthew 12:33? Either make the tree good and his fruit good; or make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by his fruits. If these prophets were of God, then their fruit would be good such as God not being able to lie in titus 1:2 or being perfect in ephesians 4:13.

>The Bible is not inerrant

What does inerrant mean? Are you saying God can lie and is not perfect? Or that His fruit could lie or not be perfect?

>>645122

While the Orthodox church doesn't take a firm stand on evolution, don't they state that Adam and Eve literally existed and that the fall literally happened? How do you reconcile that with an allegorical take on Genesis?

>>645466

You seem to be under this vain delusion that God = the writings in the Bible.

The writings in the Bible are the stories of men who strove with God, and the Son of God, written to be accurate as far as the recollection of men allows. It encompasses a ton of LITERARY GENRES and spans a period of history nearly 2,000 YEARS.

God never lied, but people forgot as centuries wore on. Their words are still accurate as to the Spirit, because they were divinely inspired, but you have to do more legwork than just assuming that they never spoke in parables.

I'm sure there's some pagan somewhere saying that the Iliad is the literal word of Zeus.

>>645468

Oh, they're just my memes, didn't know that

(Traditional Anglican)

>>645466

See

>>645334

>>645477

<You seem to be under this vain delusion that God = the writings in the Bible.

Of course not. Which is greater, God's word, or God who sanctifieth His word? mattew 23:17-22

>Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

>And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

>Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

>Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

>And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

>And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

<The writings in the Bible are the stories of men who strove with God

>he doesn't believe the Bible to be the literal words of God

>he doens't believe that God preserved His word forever

1 thesselonians 2:13

>For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1 peter 1:25

>But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Do you think these people inspired by God and speaking by God to be liars? They claim as translators who are speaking by the spirit of prophecy in 1 peter 1:25 that "this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" in reference to the word of the Lord. Why don't you believe them as they claim to be speaking by God?

>you have to do more legwork than just assuming that they never spoke in parables.

Well indeed, that's why ye shall know them by their fruits matthew 7:15-20. Jesus spake in parables, but it literally mentions they are parables.

>I'm sure there's some pagan somewhere saying that the Iliad is the literal word of Zeus.

Well indeed, but they are liars. We christians serve God in spirit and in truth john 4:24. Thereby we are not lieing about the scripture.

>>645482

Oh well I'm not sure that's the official Orthodox stance anyway - just read it somewhere.

>>645487

You are deliberately trying to violate basic rules of interpretation and your case is damned from the beginning. Good Day, you are wasting my time and yours.

>>645356

not being a heretic*

>this thread

>Christians not knowing shit

>not going back to the original languages Hebrew and Greek, like God intended and scholars of the KJV advised

OP, just watch this and your question will be answered: https://www.bitchute.com/video/LDbRjMXb1nlv/

>>645468

>>645489

We say that Adam and Eve existed (and even fedoras have to agree, every species have their ancestors) and we say that they were made in Image and likeness of God. Though there are certain things that are taken allegorically. For example tree of life is viewed as the Love of God in Orthodoxy. Fall is about disobedience. Same when talking about order of creation: Some viewed days as steps or epochs and some as literal days. Same regarding stance on evolution, which some say that it is true or acceptable (though regarding animals mostly)

But general concepts are that:

God created the world

Adam and Eve existed

Humans are supreme creation made in image and likeness of God

Fall of Mankind is about disobedience and rebellion against God

Well, its sort of what this guy says >>645142 . And as I watched his videos, he may be most "Orthodox Catholic" in my humble opinion.

>>645554

>unironically tries to damm me and still doesn't explain how he came to his conclusion

I wonder why the mods didn't ban you for cursing, that is wishing evil upon due to the definition in 2 samuel 16:5-14, me?

<Good Day, you are wasting my time and yours.

Ephesians 5:16

>Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

>>645732

Which flood? The genesis 7 flood, or the ezekiel 31:15 flood?

>>645732

>high mountaintops weren't submerged.

Besides the Bible says they were. The mountains weren't as large then because one of the psalms say that the mountains and valleys were formed during the flood but at least it covered the mountains that existed at the start

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

>>646006

The Bible says the genesis 7 flood's mountains were submerged. But that doesn't mean the ezekiel 31:15 flood neccessarily submerged the mountains, even if it destroyed them.

>one of the psalms say that the mountains and valleys were formed during the flood

Does it say which flood and which psalm are you talking about?

>>646010

Pretty sure it's this

Psalm 104

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

I realize that this doesn't directly answer OP's question nor am I directly referencing him with the following, but his question made me think how strange it is when people gloss over all the other miracles that were performed in the Gospel and get tripped up on these ones. It just seems that many believers struggle with these in particular even when they accept all the others. "Jesus turned water into wine, cured the blind, and even conquered death itself, but the supreme act of creation must be an allegory… surely, right?"

I don't think we're called to have an idea of these things either way. A lot of Christians like to smuggle in as much doctrinal confusion as possible because they are moved by spirit of pride to feel as if they ought to know as much as possible and then this demonic spirit compels them to use these doctrinal issues to exclude as many from salvation as possible. Only the Orthodox church, the true church says that salvation is not simply granted or denied on the basis of these things.

The planet is 6300 years old

>>645065

The Bible doesn't teach that the world was created in 6 literal days. That is a teaching by a heretical sect called Fundamentalist who infiltrated all other sects and inserted this blasphemous doctrine.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word “day” (Heb., yohm; Gr., he·mera) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even symbolic sense. Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”—Nu 11:31; Ac 1:12; The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began.

The entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day."

>(Genesis 2:4) This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

According to the Bible, the word day is used liberally to mean stages of time of significance not adhere to a strict interpretation of 24 hrs.

>>646584

<According to the Bible, the word day is used liberally to mean stages of time of significance not adhere to a strict interpretation of 24 hrs.

You are wrong here too, a day is twelve hours john 11:9

>Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

So in genesis 1:5

>And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So since a day is twleve hours, and a night is twleve hours, evening and the morning were the first day.

>>645122

>the bible

>the words of a man

I'll stick with the bible

>>645989

Of course the Genesis (Noah's) flood.

My point was that worldwide flooding within plausible human cultural memory is actually accepted consensus geology, that it is entirely possible by science for part of that flooding to have been catastrophic with heavy rains for for days and days, and that ancient advanced civilization could entirely realistically have been destroyed by such a flood. I also think that God prefers to work in such ways.

>>646006

Fifteen cubits is only around 7.5 meters.

>>646016

I think that is actually describing the ordinary hydrological cycle, with a side note relating to how the rise of the waters associated with the end of the ice age is now over.

>>646792

You used the word "mountains". You can't both take your translation of the Bible 100% literally and believe that the mountains were covered, because if you believe that "mountains" can refer to things that are 7.4 meters or less, you are no longer being 100% literal.

So maybe you should find another way to be 100% literal. For example mountains being covered does not = all the mountains were submerged under risen sea levels from a global flood.

An important point: "Eretz" in Hebrew can mean both "earth" and "land". This is important to keep in mind when considering the extent of the flood.

>>646599

The Gospel of John was written in Greek. Genesis was written in Hebrew. The two languages are not at all the same.

>>646834

>because if you believe that "mountains" can refer to things that are 7.4 meters or less

I never said that. It's the waters were 7.5 meters above the highest mountain, not the highest mountain was 7.5 meters

>>646599

You're ignoring the simple truth. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the last day was mentioned as continuing by Paul 4 thousand years later. Genesis 2:4 sums up all 6 creative days into ONE DAY. The days are not literal, they are metaphorical for stages of time of significant things happening. Nobody knows exactly how long the process of creation took, but we do know it wasn't 6 human days.

>>646892

Dude it literally says the evening and the morning was the ___ day, stop being a heretic.

>>646584

>(Genesis 2:4) This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Why did you quote Genesis 2:4 from the New World translation, of the Jehovah's false witnesses?

>>645477

>The writings in the Bible are the stories of men who strove with God, and the Son of God, written to be accurate as far as the recollection of men allows.

Try reading the word of God sometime. Every last word is there for a reason. God has spoken thus and God has said that he shall preserve it, every single last word, and what he says will be done. Doubters of this are utterly shameless in your denial.

>Luke 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

>Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

>Isaiah 59:21

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

>Matthew 4:4

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

>>647080

(DARBY)These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens

ASV - These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.,

YLT - These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

>>647057

Doesn't matter. Hebrews 4:1-10 states that the 7th day was still continuing 4 thousand years later down to Paul's day. Gen 2:4 sums up all 6 days into one day. Those days are not literal. Neither is "morning" and "evening" literal.

>>647115

That's not what I asked. I asked why is the NWT your go-to translation?

>>647157

It's one of the easiest to understand and has it's own cross-reference section with every Bible verse in the Bible. It allows quick immediate cross reference with other verses while the other Bibles don't.

>>646834

A local flood as described in the bible is more incredible than a global flood. What would that even look like? An enormous viscous mound of water so high it engulfed the mountains of Ararat and persisted on the earth for nearly half a year with Noah's ark floating on top?

>>647123

>Gen 2:4 sums up all 6 days into one day.

No it doesn't, read it again

>These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This gives specific exclusion to each thing being made in a day.

>Hebrews 4:1-10 states that the 7th day was still continuing 4 thousand years later down to Paul's day.

Now this you have a valid point on, but let's read it just to be sure, hebrews 4:1-11

>LET us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

>For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

>For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Now here it recognizing that the "works" "were finished from the foundation of the world", works such as the creation in genesis 1.

>For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

>And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

>Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

>Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

>For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

>There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

>For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

>Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

God has already entered into that rest of the seventh day. It is us Christians who have not entered into that rest/seventh day it speaks of. 2 peter 3:8

>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is literally the only verse in the Bible that could justify a literal seven day creation being seven thousand years. But God has already entered into that rest and is outside of time. So that seventh day surely would also be with Him in heaven, which is to say we don't enter that rest until revelation 19:7-9.

>>647313

>What would that even look like?

The Bible mentions some of the waters came from the deep genesis 8:2. The deep/"face of the waters" is below where God is in genesis 1:2. God divides the deep's waters in genesis 1:6-8 followed by placing the sun and the moon and the stars in the dividing of the waters, the firmament/Heaven/outer space genesis 1:14-15. Now you might be confused, if you read through the genesis 1 account and stumble upon genesis 1:9

>And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Now "heaven" in the uncapitilized form could be reffering to two things, where God is in genesis 1:1-2 above the waters, or the sky/fowl of the heaven/birds of the air in genesis 7:23. It is likely that God took the waters that were under the sky and gathered them into one place, but left the waters above outerspace/Heaven/firmament where they were, the deep.

Which would explain where all the extra water for the two global floods of genesis 7 and ezekiel 31:15 came from, and went away to. It went beyond the firmament inbetween where God is, heaven, and outer space/Heaven/firmament.

The reason I go through all this explanation to answer your question is because, the universe/space/firmament is massive so we are told by (((them))). So that's a huge amount of water that could be up there that would have totally engulf the earth. The genesis 7 flood was a "rain" genesis 7:12. So it wasn't just this massive dumping of water, but a slow proccess of rain. The ezekiel 31:15 flood was a "floods" plural. Implying there was more then one "rain" going on at that time. Which would explain how "the earth was without form and void" in genesis 1:2. All of the quotes are KJV or this makes no sense.

>>647316

>>647316

>This gives specific exclusion to each thing being made in a day.

You just made that up right on the spot. You intentionally ignored:

>in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

>made the earth and the heavens

The entire creation period is summed up into ONE DAY. Even though they were all created in stages. You literally ignored your own context.

>God has already entered into that rest of the seventh day.

This he did immediately in Gen 2:1-4

>Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.

Thus when Paul mentioned for Christians to enter into God's rest was 4 thousand years later!! Besides Gen 2:4, Heb 4:1-11 is proof the days were not literal human 12 nor 24 hours. Only stages of time.

2 Pet 3:8 is irrelevant to this conversation because that's ANOTHER USE of the word day and the length of time this "day" is used. This "day" has no relevance to the creation days with the exception that it proves the concept of "day" is not always literal 24 hours in the Bible.

>But God has already entered into that rest and is outside of time. So that seventh day surely would also be with Him in heaven, which is to say we don't enter that rest until revelation 19:7-9.

This you just made up on the spot. No, that rest "day" is not outside of time because Paul mentioned it as CONTINUING down to his day. You keep ignoring the context of everything to push your Young Earth Creation Doctrine but that is not Biblical.

“The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.” - As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613)Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

“Days of God are intended, with Him a thousand years are but as a day when that is past, Ps. 90:4 . . . The days of creation are, according to the meaning of Holy Scripture itself, not days of four and twenty hours, but aeons . . . For this earthly and human measurement of time cannot apply to the first three days.” - New Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch, Franz, 1813-1890.

“A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” - (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109)

>>647338

>Young Earth Creation Doctrine

Have you never read hebrews 9:26, revelation 20:10,14-15, john 8:44, isaiah 14, revelation 11:8, and ezekiel 31? There was a literal seven day formation/making of the earth and the earth itself could be a undefined age due to the gap between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 due to ezekiel 31's reference to the assaryian/pharoah which could be in reference to matthew 4:8-10's relevance to revelation 11:8.

There is an possibly old/undefined age earth and heaven and a literal seven day formation/making of the rest of creation that aren't angels.

<The entire creation period is summed up into ONE DAY.

>in the day

It does not say the same day, nor does it say one day. It says the plural in context "the day". The day the light was created was the first day. The day man was created was the sixth day.

<No, that rest "day" is not outside of time because Paul mentioned it as CONTINUING down to his day.

No he doesn't, or atleast I don't see it in hebrews 4:1-11. The closest reference to such would be hebrews 4:10

>For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Implying we shall enter into God's rest which has happened, but we have not entered in. Which would support the out of time thing as God is in that rest, outside of time, and we are not.

<all those quotes by men, instead of quoting God in the Bible

Colossians 2:8

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

>>646584

<The Bible doesn't teach that the world was created in 6 literal days.

How do you explain God using the word "day" in genesis 1? Have you ever read matthew 4:37?

>But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jesus' communication is, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil. Do you not think that Jesus' communication also would be, Day, day?

>>647346

>matthew 4:37

Should be

>matthew 5:37

>When a protestant pastor takes Mark 16:17-18 so literally that he refuses to take the antidote after being bitten by a rattle snake. Then dies.

It turns out that that passage was not even included in the older version of the Gospel of Mark. Which originally ended in 16:8. So I want to say that everyone who takes the bible literally is making a yuge mistake. This is a God of the living, as Jesus Christ proved. And the Church is the living body. So stop being like muslims.

>>647350

>Mark 16:9-20 don't appear in these 4th century manuscripts so they must be a later insertion!

>please ignore how writers from before the 4th century are quoting it

The absolute state of biblical scholars

>>647354

>The absolute state of biblical scholars

There is a reason 1 corinthians 1:19-25 is written to deride "scribes" which is a synonym for scholar

>For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Also what does >>647350 and >>647354 have to do with this thread? This thread is about creation.

>>647346

I explained that in that very same post you quoted and in this one.>>647338

>>645065

Hugh Ross is pretty good on this from a scientific perspective, if you have the time for it.

>>647316

>This gives specific exclusion to each thing being made in a day.

Right. Notice it says, "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," and what follows is the events of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth." That does not imply all of the events happened in the day that the earth and the heavens were made, it means that's what followed from this.

Similarly, Genesis 5:1 starts off by saying

>This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man,

And Genesis 5 covers a much longer period than the one day, it covers the whole lifespan of Adam all the way down to Noah. It merely starts with that first day and goes from there, it isn't saying all these things happened in that one day. It isn't saying Seth, etc were all born in the day that God created man; that day is just the start of the generations of these things. Likewise, the generations of the heavens and of the earth began on the day they were made, which specifically is the First day.

>Now this you have a valid point on,

He doesn't really. Hebrews 4 is saying God entered into rest on the Seventh day after having done the works and draws the parallel to us entering into rest on a certain day but not before then. It's saying there exists, somewhere in time, a limit for us which can be compared to that final day of rest, not that the seventh day is some kind of epoch that we have entered. End of God's works was that seventh day, for us there is a day of rest similar to that yet to come.

>For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Also, Exodus 20:11 is the only verse you need to dispense with day-age teaching.

<For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

We know the sabbath day is a literal day, there is no way out of this without also saying Exodus 20:11 is false, which is denying Scripture.

>>647390

Kent Hovind seven creation seminar videos

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT

It's important to remember that your soul is not in danger of going to hell if you do or don't believe in a flat earth, young earth, evolution, etc. Maybe those things are true, maybe they're not, we'll find out some day when all is revealed.

>>645065

I guess we should start by reading genesis as the author of it intended it to be read. The creation of the world and Noah's ark are reminiscent of creation myths and flood stories in other cultures, I think the author, clearly a Jew, intended to create a theologically sound version of these stories, so the degree to which these stories are historical should be taken in light of that.

The flood took place in the Tarim Basin in China. It was local.

The Bible is only focused on the history of the Adamic race up until the arrival of Jesus. It's only important that God is the beginning of everything so the question on the actual and exact age of the earth/galaxy/universe is pointless. Genesis is very easy to understand for the most part but people shouldn't get too hooked on the math. Whether it's six literal days or six thousand years or six million years nobody can tell unless we have a time machine.

It's a cliche to say but the moral of the stories is more important than trying to prove their exact scientific modeling.

>>645065

For alot of God's most important teachings, he speaks in allegory/poetry/metaphor.

>>645065

>How are we supposed to read Genesis

I usually start from the beginning

>>660922

Sure to be full of falsehood. You're better off just reading Genesis yourself than let a middleman intervene and corrupt the word of God.

>>660944

Found the protestant

>>646648

Daily reminder that the Bible is the words of men, inspired though they are.

>>660945

>>660949

John 12:48

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

>>660952

The story of the flood was not the word of God, and in the context of that story Jesus was not referring to the bible. Also, I can assure you, he did not even care about to talk about the topic, to quote him on the issue "_______________" ____0:0. Though I am only quoting the KJV.

>>645065

Both allegorical and literal.

God created everything, God created humanity, humanity sinned and its nature was damaged, Cain killed Abel, etc…

The allegorical part is because certain things also had a symbolic meaning. Cain and Abel for example probably also represents agricultural people and nomadic people.

Also Adam and Eve may represent more than two people, possibly the original humanity and not just themselves. What is important is that the first humans had a sinless nature but they fell into sin.

The age of the patriarchs is a useless enigma.

I say this because not only the numbers are different in the different version of the Bible (Peshitta following his own way and Septuagint adding 100 years to the age of every patriarch).

Hundreds of people tried to calculate the age of the Earth and EVERY SINGLE one of them had a different answer. We simply can't know.

Oh by the way.

We are still living in the last day of creation, where God rest.

Days are periods of time, not 24h.

>>660975

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

>>660958

Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

>>660967

I've been reading Genesis lately and i don't think we can say that these ages are useless. Reading many other commentaries on the gospels or other parts of the bible, many church fathers like St. Augustine or otherwise great theologians like Hugh of Saint Victor place a lot of importance on numerology. Hugh of Saint Victor has a lot of stuff on the meanings of the dimensions of the Ark. St. Augustine has a lot of stuff just on all the different numbers in general, and many commentaries on the gospels in the catena aurea take great care about the numbers that our Lord mentions. So I find it hard to believe that all these numbers given are just useless. Why did God waste his time then with all this stuff and all these genealogies? I'm not a YEC, but I find it suspect to think all this information is useless. I also don't really think it's sufficient to think that it's just to show people's lifespans reducing -> sin makes people reduce in holiness or something. But what the answer is… I don't know, if it's been 2000 years and still no one knows what it means.

Also it's a bit worrying that these ages have caused many excellent theologians or even Church Fathers to erroneously try and calculate the age of the world because of this. If the Lord is not the author of confusion, why is this there then?

>>661021

I'm sorry, you are right.

I'm sure it's not a meaningless detail if it's in the Bible. I mean it's a useless enigma for us to try and calculate.

>>661418

The names in Hebrew essentially spells out Jesus Christ the Messiah (see embedded vid). Not sure if this directly addresses your question but hope this helps.