[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Bunker |

File: fd98f5bb8848780⋯.jpg (1.32 MB,2400x1624,300:203,Adam_to_Joseph_Longevity_C….jpg)

c4f7d2 No.850398

>in b4 "nice blog post"

You have to take the account of Genesis literal because much of the religion is based off it, and makes no sense if it was just a metaphor/parable. You have to do extreme mental gymnastics while reading the rest of the Bible if you deny the beginning of Genesis to be a literal story. Here I will debunk many of the arguments people use to discredit Genesis.

>Adam and Eve, and the other characters in the beginning of Genesis weren't real people, it's more of a parable.

1. Original sin came into the world because of what Adam did "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.(1 Cor 15:21-22)" "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.(Rom 5:12-21)". That was a long long passage to quote, but is very important. Sin and death entered the world through Adam, but life by Jesus Christ. If you deny Adam being a real person you are then disagreeing with that entire passage of scripture saying that sin came by Adam. You are then also denying the need for Jesus to come to the earth to be a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus is called the second/last Adam "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.(1 Cor 15:45)". If original sin had not happened, then Jesus would not have needed to come to earth to save us. The reason as to why we sin is because the original sin nature/temptation of Adam has passed on to us. And we need Jesus to cleanse us from our sins.

2. The people mentioned in the Genealogy of Genesis 5 are mentioned in many other genealogies. Such as in 1 Chronicles 1:1-4 and Luke 3:36-38. There is no reason to assume that it starts talking about fictional characters when reading these genealogies, and there is nothing implying it.

3. These characters are spoken of throughout the entire Bible, and they always seem like real people and sometimes teach important doctrine (such as point #1). The Hebrews 11 hall of faith chapter mentions Abel, Enoch, and Noah, and there is nothing implying they were not real people. And it doesn't make sense to tell the great faith of someone that is fictional. Another example is that Enoch is mentioned in the book of Jude "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,(Jude 1:14)". There would be no need to mention Enoch in this passage if he did not exist. Jude could have not have added the part about Enoch, and still have kept the part about the Lord coming with his saints.

4. Parables never give people's names, the one people bring up to say they might is the rich man and Lazarus, but that is likely a true story and Jesus doesn’t start it by saying “And he spake this parable” like he does many times. Also, when do parables ever have genealogies, span multiple chapters, and mentioned hundreds of times?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4f7d2 No.850399

File: f3ac9886af5c2ca⋯.jpg (89.54 KB,1200x627,400:209,1587394177082.jpg)

>The earth is old, likely billions of years old, not 6,000

1. The Bible gives all the years from the creation to when Cyrus became king of Persia. By adding up the genealogies, reigns of the judges and kings, etc. and then having Cyrus become king at around 530 BC, you then get creation to be around 4,300 BC, or 6,300 years ago.

https://youtu.be/9i4KQoYU3n4

2. Jesus says "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. (Luke 11:50-51)" Jesus says that the murder of Abel was "from the foundation of the world". In the young-earth model this makes sense, since the Cain and Abel story was likely ~30 years after creation. In the old-earth model this does not work, since it would then have the story ~4.5 billion years after creation. That is nowhere near the foundation of the world. Same with when Jesus says “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,(Mat 19:4)"

>What about the day-age theory

1. For all six days of creation it says "And the evening and the morning were the ___ day.”. It defines each day as being evening to morning, that doesn’t make any sense if they were long periods of time. And that there is absolutely nothing indicating otherwise, it is just compromising with the world. People usually bring up that it can’t mean that because the sun wasn’t created until day four, however God created on light on day one and that God was likely the source of light, which is how it will be in the New Jerusalem (Isa 60:19, Rev 21:23).

2. The other reason is the plants were made on day three and the sun on day four. Plants can’t live millions of years without the sun, though they can for one day. Also, all the other symbiotic relationships many plants and animals have together such as bees pollinating flowers

>What about the gap theory?

1. There is nothing at all implying a gap between verses one and two when reading Genesis chapter one. it’s really just trying to see where they can try to fit billions of years into the Bible when it says no such thing.

2. A text gap-theorists often bring up is in Jeremiah 4:23 it says something very similar to Genesis 1:2. The problem with trying to say that this is about the creation in Genesis 1 is that it isn’t, it is about judgement on Judah because they have been rebellious to God (Jer 4:16-17). Also, it talks about “all the birds of the heavens were fled.” (Jer 4:25), first off, the birds were made on day 6, so they wouldn’t have even existed yet. It also says that they were fled, if the whole earth is destroyed then where would they go? Are the birds that don’t exist somehow going to fly to the moon that doesn’t exist yet?

3. Gap-theorists also say that the rebellion by Satan likely happed at this time. The problem with that is God says at the end of day six “behold, it was very good (Gen 1:31)”, it’s not good if the fall of Satan would have already happened.

4. In Exodus 20:11 the Bible says “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…”, that doesn’t leave room for billions of years. He created the earth (Gen 1:1) and the rest (Gen 1:2-to the end), in six days, Exodus 20:11 includes both before and after the so-called gap.

5. Something gap-theorists bring up to prove their doctrine is that the King James Version, which is what I use, God tells Adam and Eve to “replenish the earth” in Genesis 1:28, and that replenish means “fill (something) up again”, so then there were people before them. But in 1611 when the King James Version was written, the word replenish only meant to fill, not to fill again. The definition for fill up again came later in the 1700s and was not the primary definition until the late 1800s. All the newer versions seem to also just say fill, not refill. Also, 1 Corinthians 15:45 seems to say Adam was the first man.

6. The gap theory has death occurring before the fall of man, which also contradicts scripture, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.(1 Cor 15:21)"

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4f7d2 No.850400

File: 04d6da74c36bfda⋯.png (817.09 KB,796x599,796:599,KJB.PNG)

>>850399

>What about theistic evolution?

1. God created all animals after their kind "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:(Gen 1:25)". An example of a kind is how a dog, wolf, and coyote can all interbreed, so they are most likely the same kind of animal. But a banana, elephant, and dolphin are most certainly not the same kind of animal.

2. It has some of the same problems as the other old-earth theories. You are basing it on nothing in the Bible but just compromising, you have death before Adam, contradicts Exodus 20:11, and Adam and Abel are not from the foundation of the world.

>The flood was local, not world-wide. Or it may have just been a parable.

1. The Bible literally says it is world-wide, not just local. God says he will destroy all flesh on the earth (Gen 6:17, 7:4), Everything not in the Ark died (Gen 7:21-23), Peter says how only Noah and his family survived (1 Peter 3:20), Peter says the world was overflowed with water and perished (2 Peter 3:5-6)

2. God has all animals come to Noah so he can put them in the ark (Gen 6:20). If it was local, then there is no reason why they needed to go there. Especially considering many of the animals likely came from somewhere that would be past the so-called local flood area.

3. If it was local, God could just tell Noah to move. There is no reason to build a big boat when he had plenty of time to just leave the area.

4. "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."(Gen 7:20). The mountains were fully covered. This is only possible in a world-wide flood. If it started in only a local area, the water would run-off the side of the mountain immediately when it gets above it. To be 15 cubits (about 25 feet), it would have to cover the entire planet.

5. He sent out the birds to see if they could find plant life (Gen 8:6-11). If it was just a local flood, there is no reason Noah would even do this.

6. All of mankind was united 100 years after the flood to build the Tower of Babel. If it was only local, then theirwould-be civilizations all across the globe that would have lived through it, so they would not all be together.

7. All the rest of the Bible also teaches that it was a real story, not just a metaphor or parable.

7A. Noah is mentioned in genealogies (1 Chronicles 1:4, Luke 3:36). There is no reason that the genealogy would start including fictional characters

7B. It is referred back to, and wouldn't make sense if it wasn't real. Jesus mentions it in Matthew 24:38-39 and Luke 17:27. He also uses the example of Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah, which almost all Christians would say is a real story. He, and many other people before the flood, are mentioned in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith chapter (v. 7). Doesn't make much sense to see the faith of people that weren't actually real. The Psalmist in Psalm 104:6-9 also says how God brought a flood and then took it away, like it actually happened.

>Talking snakes, that can't be real

1. It was Satan talking through a snake. It was a miracle. Breaking off pieces of bread and having it reappear also isn't normally possible.

2. This also happened to Balaam's donkey, with God speaking through the donkey. And Peter quotes it like it was real "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. (2 Peter 2:15-16)"

>All the animals were vegetarian, that's not possible. Do you expect me to believe a lion ate straw?

It will be like that in the millennial kingdom when Jesus comes back. Will you now also deny the reign of Christ on earth?

Isaiah 11:6-7 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4f7d2 No.850401

File: 5856fadb5e96d9e⋯.jpg (22.4 KB,244x320,61:80,1566765057822.jpg)

>>850400

>The years in Genesis 5 should be divided by 10 or 12 to have it be more realistic, such as Methuselah instead of being 969 years old at death, dies at 97 which is more realistic.

1. That's based off of nothing in the Bible, but just compromising

2. It would have Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch begetting their children very very young. 9, 7, 6.5, and 6.5 years old respectively

3. There are many people after the flood that lived to be hundreds of years old, or quite a bit over one hundred. Such as in the genealogy in Genesis 11 has Shem dying at 600 years old, Arphaxad 456, Salah 433, Eber 473, Peleg 239, Reu 230, Serug 230, and Nahor 148. Some famous Bible characters after the flood also lived very long, Abraham 175 (Gen 25:7), Sarah 127 (Gen 23:1), Isaac 180 (Gen 35:28), Jacob at least 130 (Gen 47:9), Moses 120 (Deu 34:7), Joshua 110 (Jos 24:29)

4. Mentioned above, Jacob says to Pharaoh "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage (Gen 47:9)" He is already 130 years old and is saying that's few compared to his fathers.

5. It will be similar to this again in the millennial kingdom "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed…. for as the days of a tree are the days of my people (Isaiah 60:20/22)"

>But there are many other creation/flood stories that are similar to Genesis

The reason many religions have similar stories that take place before the flood is because it actually happened. After the tower of Babel, man got split up, and over time people perverted what the true story was, to being different. There are similar flood stories all around the globe, if you believe in the evolutionary timescales, then there is no way that people in the Middle East should have the similar story to people in the Americas.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c4f7d2 No.850403

>>850399

Should include this also for the day-age theory one

3. Many day-age theorists will also say that day seven is still going on, but "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.(Exo 20:11)" God rested on the seventh day. He didn't just create the world, and then rest for then until now. It is clear that day seven has ended.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9f66ad No.850404

Based

The local flood view is still literal though

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

406a87 No.850405

nice blog post

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05fde No.850424

Makes sense. There really is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 though.

Isaiah 45:18 says "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

Everything that God creates is good, and is also new. He even says this in Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things new." If God made something that was without form and void in the moment of its creation, this infallible statement by God would not be true. Rather, something must have happened to make it become flooded with water and destroyed, then God creates the world as a new creation in six literal days the rest of Genesis.

>The problem with that is God says at the end of day six “behold, it was very good (Gen 1:31)”, it’s not good if the fall of Satan would have already happened.

When God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, it will be very good and there will be no death in it. The existence of this fallen world is not a contradiction to that. Or are you saying it is?

>In Exodus 20:11 the Bible says “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…”, that doesn’t leave room for billions of years.

That's right, it doesn't. But Exodus 20:11 doesn't include all of the things that Nehemiah 9:6 does, and Nehemiah 9:6 does not say six days.

>The gap theory has death occurring before the fall of man, which also contradicts scripture, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.(1 Cor 15:21)"

Ok, so when God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, there will be no death entered into that world there. But death did occur in this fallen world before God created the new world in Revelation. No contradiction, because if God creates a new world, it will be very good and no death will be entered into it at its creation. Like God says "Behold, I make all things new" in Revelation 21:5. This is why God creating an earth that is without form and void is not believable, as well as Isaiah 45:18 saying God "created it [the earth] not in vain". The word for "in vain" is of course the same word used for "without form and void" in Genesis 1:2. Something clearly happened to the earth, some judgment happened between the two verses to make it become destroyed. God did not create it in vain; in that state. He says so in Isaiah 45:18. And I will believe this statement.

Also,

>Peter says the world was overflowed with water and perished (2 Peter 3:5-6)

This has to be referring to the first flood. In 2 Peter 3:7 (the next verse) he implies directly that the heaven itself (the atmosphere) was destroyed and had to be remade by God. Notice Peter says the heavens and the earth which are now, in verse 7. This implies that the heavens (atmosphere) which are now, are not the same as what existed before this flood. But if the atmosphere was destroyed, there would be no air and everything would die without exception. This would have to be describing the first flood, not Noah's flood where there was still air and Noah survived. God's twofold promise not to cut off all flesh, nor to destroy the earth by flood in Genesis 9 could easily be a reference to these two events. But the reference in 2 Peter 3:6-7 has to be referring to the flood that made the earth become flooded with water in Genesis 1:2 by the way I see it. Then after this flood, God separated the waters from the waters and made the firmament that exists now, which is what Peter refers to. He says "the heavens and the earth which are now" in 2 Peter 3:7. It's pretty conclusive this means there was a previous heaven (again, atmosphere) that stopped existing due to a flood.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e3ba55 No.850431

>>850424

>Makes sense. There really is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 though.

The main fault is that people misinterpret "Light" as the sun or some other physical light. But the sun was created on a later day. Think like someone in the ancient world. What did "Light" usually signify?

It signified Time/time keeping. God's first act of Creation was Time. But that doesn't mean there weren't events happening before Time in this Creation. Time doesn't exist in Eternity or the realm of the Kingdom.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9e835d No.850438

>>850405

This.

Really, Op. Your talents are wasted here. You should put this all on Facebook.

It mean, no one's ever heard this idea of taking the Bible absolutely literally before.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

894cec No.850492

>>850424

>If God made something that was without form and void in the moment of its creation, this infallible statement by God

No. It was six days of creation. Yes, he created/formed the earth to be inhabited, but it took six days.

>The existence of this fallen world is not a contradiction to that. Or are you saying it is?

In the New Heaven and New Earth Satan and all the unsaved will be in the lake of fire. So there will be no more sin nor death so it will be very good. But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

>That's right, it doesn't. But Exodus 20:11 doesn't include all of the things that Nehemiah 9:6 does, and Nehemiah 9:6 does not say six days.

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.

6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

What is Nehemiah leaving out from Exodus 20:11? They both say that God created the earth and heavn and filled them. Just in Nehemiah it doesn't say six days, but that doesn't mean it was more. Like if you work on a prject for six days and one time you said it took six days, and the another time you didn't mention how long it took. Both are right, but you can tell it was six days.

>Ok, so when God creates the new heaven and new earth in the end times, there will be no death entered into that world there. But death did occur in this fallen world before God created the new world in Revelation

Sure there's going to be no death, but it says "and there shall be no MORE death… for the former things are passed away." It doesn't say that for the first (or I guess for you the second) creation.

>heaven itself (the atmosphere) was destroyed and had to be remade by God. Notice Peter says the heavens and the earth which are now, in verse 7. This implies that the heavens (atmosphere) which are now, are not the same as what existed before this flood.

I dunno what exactly you believe. But I personally believe the canapy theory for before the flood, so that would still make sense in that context becuase the atmosphere would be different.

Also would like to add to it that if you believe there was the first creation and God competely wiped it out then, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the FIRST heaven and the FIRST earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." which is pointing to the earth we currently live in.

also again though there is nothing implying a gap when you read those two verses. God could have easily put "and much later" betweeen them, but he didn't

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

894cec No.850493

>>850431

I don't speak Hebrew so I can't say for certain, but

I've heard there are two words for light, word is the source of light, like a light bulb. And the other is the actual light itself. And that the word for "light" in "Let there be light:" is the second, not a light source.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05fde No.850500

>>850492

>Yes, he created/formed the earth to be inhabited, but it took six days.

Then why does it already say he created the heaven and the earth in verse 1. Clearly, the original creation ex nihilo took place before Genesis 1:2, otherwise nothing would exist.

When God creates something, it is not in a ruined or formless and void state. That is what the statement "I make all things new" means. And this makes sense, God's creations are good and complete as is. That just makes logical sense. This is also why God even specifically said in Isaiah 45:18 that he "created it [the earth] not in vain." It is to clear away that very misconception that he would create something without form and void in the beginning.

Again, "in vain" is using the same root word as "without form and void" and it's saying he did not create it in that way in Isaiah 45:18. So why do you suppose he specifically said this about the way in which he created earth? For no reason? There has to be a reason. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righeousness.

>It was six days of creation.

This also agrees with everything in Scripture. God creates new things from time to time. Genesis 1:1 details the first creation ex nihilo. Later on, God creates more things that are also new, because everything God makes is good and new. And nothing is without form and void, without becoming that way due to ruin/destruction.

Otherwise, there would be things that God creates that are not new, and the statement in Isaiah 45:18 would be contradicted.

>But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

The Bible still has Satan existing in the lake of fire in the end times. While the New Earth that will be created and which will exist at the same time as the lake of fire, will still be very good.

If theoretically Satan, or sin, or death were to somehow enter the New Earth some time after it is created in the future, then it would stop being good. Of course we know this. But of course the difference is that will not happen this time.

>But in the gap theory is has Satan still roaming around and God calling it very good.

Not if he entered only after God said that. Which, of course, all theories commonly state.

>What is Nehemiah leaving out from Exodus 20:11?

Exodus 20:11 is leaving out the heaven of heavens with all their host. That could have been created in Genesis 1:1, and would have existed since before the six days started in verse 4 which is when God divided the light from the darkness.

>Like if you work on a prject for six days and one time you said it took six days, and the another time you didn't mention how long it took.

Let's say you built a house in six days according to one statement. But then according to another statement you built a house and a foundation but the amount of time is not stated. Now, if according to the two statements the foundation is not counted as part of the house, then it could have been made before the six days of house-building started, and the length of time between the foundation being created and the beginning of six days of house-building is not stated.

Perhaps the foundation was laid a month before that, and the building that was there before was destroyed, before the house was built. Since the foundation was not mentioned in the first statement that specified six days, this is not outside the realm of possibility.

If we then include consideration of the other Scriptures mentioned by me, this actually becomes a requirement rather than merely possible.

And If so, it would explain the reference in 2 Peter 3 and in Genesis 9 about the entire world being destroyed by a flood separate from Noah's flood, and yet more importantly it would avoid contradicting Isaiah 45:18 and Revelation 21:5.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05fde No.850501

>>850500

>>850492

>Sure there's going to be no death, but it says "and there shall be no MORE death… for the former things are passed away." It doesn't say that for the first (or I guess for you the second) creation.

That is not conclusive. Nowhere does it have to say that in order for it to be true. All we have are the statement in 1 Corinthians that death came into the world by man. This could be explained equally well by either explanation. Just as the new earth will not have death, being a new creation, unless somehow it enters into that creation (which it will not in this case).

>so that would still make sense in that context becuase the atmosphere would be different.

The verse literally means that the heavens and earth that exist now are not the same as the world that then was. The two are contrasted. Meaning the world from before was completely destroyed, and that means not only would earth be destroyed but also there would be no air. In the scenario Peter describes, the air would not be created (or possibly returned) until after the flood, when God separates the waters from the waters and creates the firmament in Genesis 1. We happen to know the earth in Genesis 1:2 was completely covered in water, as it would be if it had been completely destroyed by a flood, including even the atmosphere. If we go with Peter's scenario, the heavens and the earth which are now did not exist before the flood in question, as the statement of II Peter 3:7 is in comparison with "the world that then was."

>Also would like to add to it that if you believe there was the first creation and God competely wiped it out then, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the FIRST heaven and the FIRST earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

This makes sense if you believe the earth was created, then it became destroyed by a flood so that it was formless and void, and then the heavens and the earth were created according to the narrative of Genesis 1:2 and onward. It is pretty clear that God used that destroyed remnant to create entirely new things upon, thus marking the beginning of creation. Creation refers to everything that exists which God created, and it began with the six days. That does not preclude things existing before the six days of creation began in Genesis 1:4, such as the original creation ex nihilo of Genesis 1:1, no matter what amount of time you might place between those two events. You could theoretically place no time between the events, but we are not required to (Nehemiah 9:6 does not require it, and it includes more things than Exodus 20:11.)

So like I said, God used that destroyed remnant to create entirely new things upon. Thus, it is not an entirely new earth and can still safely be called the first earth. But all of creation seems to have been created in six days on top of the ruins of the world that existed before (2 Peter 3:6).

>God could have easily put "and much later" betweeen them, but he didn't

He could have easily put "and immediately after" between them, but didn't do that either. Accordingly, I do not say it was immediately after OR that it was much later. I maintain it could have been a long or a brief amount of time, and Scripture does not outright say either way. We know how long it was since the start of the first day, but the time from Genesis 1:1 to 1:4 is never stated. Exodus 20:11 does not include everything that Nehemiah 9:6 does. Isaiah 45:18 states God did not create the earth in vain, suggesting it did not start out like that but became like that. And God doesn't leave these kinds of things in his word by accident, there has to be a reason for these passages to exist. It seems pretty reasonable that Nehemiah 9:6 and Isaiah 45:18 are there to help teach us about creation, since that is the subject of those verses.

Hopefully that made some sense. I am not even saying there were millions of years or any specific amount of extra time before the six days at all. But there had to have at least been enough for the earth to become without form and void for whatever reason, because we know God doesn't create things that way. Especially not the earth, as He even specifically took special care to say, infallibly, in Isaiah 45:18.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c05fde No.850505

>>850501

>>850492

I forgot to add, "the creation" could also be used just as easily to refer to the new earth once it is created, because this will be a new creation in and of itself. The fact that this "new Creation" (which, this time will be an entirely new heaven and earth) will have a beginning (and hence, "the beginning of the Creation" could refer to the creation of this new earth to those that live in it) does not preclude the existence of this world that is former to it.

Likewise, Satan and death will still exist in the lake of fire, but this will be separate from the new Creation, so that it will be very good. Just as the Creation after the six days was originally very good before any sin, death or devil entered into it due to the events that occurred between Genesis 1:31 where it was "very good," and Genesis 3.

Likewise, the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 was originally very good as well before it became without form and void in Genesis 1:2.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

785350 No.851048

Ultimately, whether or not the story is literal or a parable doesn't matter. What matters is the meaning behind the story.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

29bb16 No.851049

>>851048

1. A "meaning behind words" is a metaphor overused into being misleading.

2. If for your belief system it doesn't matter if the Old Adam is factual, then it must also not matter if the New Adam is factual. All consistent men agree Adam is as true as Christ - believers and unbelievers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7abc81 No.851051

>>851049

Most people named Adam I met are NPCs so in general terms no, Adams aren't real.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

83a00f No.851055

>>851048

This is literally a liberal fag enabler argument

No. Compromise here means compromise elsewhere.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2df6a9 No.851057

>>851048

It's a good thing I don't have to listen to people like you, because this is exactly the kind of relativism that has led to the problems of today.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

90911c No.851068

>>851055

>>851057

Care to explain? Not that I doubt you but doesn't taking a literal approach miss out on the symbolic implications and wouldn't that be bad if the stories were intended to be symbolic? After all certain OT names tell the story of Jesus' life despite being presented as real people.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

573542 No.851069

>>851068

>After all certain OT names tell the story of Jesus' life despite being presented as real people.

Like what?

There's typology and prophecy. David was a type of Christ, and in the psalms he prophesied about the future messiah

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2df6a9 No.851070

File: 12c5a784855c8c2⋯.png (56.98 KB,500x618,250:309,4543b3df5.PNG)

>>851068

>Care to explain? Not that I doubt you but doesn't taking a literal approach miss out on the symbolic implications

Why would it? It really happened and it was intended by God to have foreshadowing.

Now if you don't believe in God, it is exceedingly difficult to believe these things happened. You almost are forced to think some later person wrote it in as fiction. And that's what we see all these coping mechanisms are for. They all align on the point that the events never literally happened, because they all come from the point of view that God does not exist… because they do not want to remember that, because that would mean their sin is actual sin and they can't redefine it and say it's all relative to the culture, or all the various excuses they make for being sinful and doing sinful things.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

54db69 No.851071

This is the type of OC I like. Will read on the s—ter later

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

785350 No.851077

File: 7d8c4a62c0c255c⋯.jpg (429.81 KB,1784x1024,223:128,7d8c4a62c0c255c909e9c9c151….jpg)

>>851069

>David was a type of Christ, and in the psalms he prophesied about the future messiah

>David was a type of Christ

I'm pretty sure this is heresy. Nobody is on the same level as Christ/God.

>>851055

Origen wasn't a liberal fag enabler. He's a quite controversial figure in Church history but he's not that.

And reading The Bible as it is meant to be read (which is not always literally) is not the same as compromise.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

90911c No.851078

>>851077

Well after reading that everything else Origen says sounds a lot less stupid. So he was concerned with spiritual and symbolic matters?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

573542 No.851079

>>851077

You think typology is heresy?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7533be No.851120

>>850398

where did Cain find his wife in the distant land?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

52296a No.851213

>>851077

>pro-Origen

>against typology

lolwut?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7bed3a No.854484

>>851120

It never says when that happened. They probably had other kids at the time

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2df6a9 No.854493

>>854484

>>851120

Genesis 4:7 tells us that Cain, in some manner took sin itself as a wife. See the parallel that the latter part of this verse has with Genesis 3:16. They both use the same verbiage.

This would seem to suggest that the offspring of Cain, as opposed to the line of Noah, would not actually be fully men in the same sense that Noah was. This would also explain the statement in Genesis 6 where it says that Noah was "perfect in his generations."

This would also explain why it says that flesh was "corrupting his way" in the earth. Genesis 6:12. It's not because random angels were interbreeding or anything like that. I don't believe that for a second. It was because more people were following after the pattern of Cain, and not staying with human partners. And his offspring therefore could only say they had some human parents, because Cain's wife was not one, thus explaining how Cain found a wife before any of his siblings were even born. These corrupted offspring of Cain would be called the "daughters of men" because they were the abomination formed by Cain's rebellion.

And this is as opposed to the "sons of God" like Noah who continued to keep God's way.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

731450 No.855567

>>850431

>>850493

Either way it fits with the Big Bang narrative. According to the Big Bang Theory, light was the very first thing to exist because the universe was too hot for matter to form. And according to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, light is the very measure of time by virtue of its constant speed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6cca99 No.855568

>>855567

Genesis 1:2 says that there were waters on the earth before God said "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3.

The narrative directly goes as follows:

<2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

<3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9e54a0 No.855584

>>850398

Going by this you'd have to believe the Earth is flat and covered by a dome (the firmament).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

ebff7f No.855634

>>855584

Or alternatively you don't

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

63a500 No.855992

>>855568

>without form, and void

most cosmological myths (im using myth as in a general belief here, not that genesis is false) start off without water alone in a "formless void" or something of that sort, like the greeks for example. Its likely jsut trying to use imagery to evoke the feeling of emptiness, since it might be rather hard for a illiterate shepherd 3000 years ago to conceive of a total void.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7ffff2 No.856017

>>855567

And yet you guys forget that in Genesis 1:1, the Earth (without form and void) is created before the light.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6d4cea No.856018

repent, for this board is entirely given to sin

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e3ba55 No.856111

>>856017

Verse 14 is about physical light, as modern people understand the word "light". The creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. Verse 1 is about establishing Time. Or more to the point, it's about Order. God destroying the Chaos (the Deep) and first establishing a sense of Order. It's not a story about any Big Bang. It's more about subverting a well known story in Mesopotamia of Tiamat (the chaos dragon of the seas), who warred with the god Marduk, who split her in two and divided heaven from earth from the pieces of her body (see the parallels yet?). Except in Genesis' case, it's subverting this story. It has only one God, who doesn't need to go to war with anyone, and has no challenger. Chaos is impersonal, and destroys it simply by speaking (while later on in Genesis, any "sea monsters" are just designated as another of his lowly creations. Not some primordial rival). This would have been audacious, and maybe appealing, to outsiders to hear of only ONE God, who was all powerful and could destroy chaos in a mere instant. That's the bigger truth the writer is getting at with Genesis 1:1. Completely trashing Tiamat and Marduk in one little verse. Nothing about science.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5fdf87 No.856113

>>856111

In Biblical cosmology, the order of events would be that Genesis 1:1-3 literally happens, and as a result of Lucifer's rebellion, he later causes the fall in chapter 3 of Genesis. Then, in the era of the Sumerians of Uruk, the Adversary creates the myth of Tiamat and Marduk among many others to subvert the truth by adding a few details here and there that are untrue. Finally, we have God preserving the true account of what happened throughout all of this through His Word, through ultimately the framework of what would end up being our book of Genesis.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e3ba55 No.856114

>>856113

That's fair. You could look at it that way too. Either way, the true God gets all the glory, and it annoyed polytheists. And that's it main target. It's not about our modern notions of science, but a dismissal of polytheism known in the world.

I would say further that the whole chapter is subversive. Temple dedications (even outside Israel) lasted for seven days, where on the last day, the "god" rests in the temple. Solomon himself does this too when he builds the first Temple, as indicated in seven day dedication in Chronicles. In Genesis, it's a song of dedication for the true temple in heaven.

Other elements would have annoyed polytheists too. God creates plants and herbs before he ever creates the Sun. Pagans (and even people today) were enamored with the power of the Sun and of Fertility, and had gods dedicated to those domains. But here in Genesis, God doesn't need any of it. Plants grow because of his Word. There's no sun at all. The Sun is an after thought merely to automate what his word already began.

The creation of Man at the end is the most subversive to the Sumerian/Babylonian worldview. In their scheme, the gods created the garden for themselves, and for man to be a slave who worked for the gods. But in Genesis, the garden is created for Man and out of love. Not out of slavery.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0e279e No.857261

They got us as kids man! They got us as kids, not the church, but the wolves! They pulled the fraud out in the open, since they've put the screen in front of our eyes! https://odysee.com/SpeakingTheTruthinalltheRealm:8

It's already banned by Public Broadcasting Service!

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e2cb7 No.857286

"In the beginning"

Time.

"God created the heavens"

space

"and the earth."

matter.

"And the earth was without form, 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.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Light is light, not time, in order for light to travel, it needs time, as photons travel at a fixed speed through space.

I would like to point you to the following;

Video game development.

In a history long ago i made maps for UT2k4, an online shooter.

Every time i would load a new file, clean and empty, i would start with a blank space. Within this space i could create all kinds of objects.

However if i would load the map for testing, everything would be pitch black, if i forgot something very specific.

Why?

Because i did not add any "sources" of light to be generated within the map once it is loaded.

This is probably not purely aligning with the genesis 1:1-3 passages, however i do not think it is far from it either.

The light that God created in this context i am presenting was merely not fixed to celestial objects.

It does not really make sense to create plants on day 3 without light to nourish them.

In other words, i find it more reasonable that light was confined to terrestrial objects on day 4 (the celestial clock made for signs and seasons), then that light "actually means time", if there are very distinct words to be used if you want to describe either.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]