PDA

View Full Version : Young Earth & Age of Starlight



MrAnteater
May 11th 2008, 04:09 AM
Question for you Apologetics experts.

If someone assumes the young Earth and literal 7 day creation, how can you explain the fact the farthest starlight takes billions of years to reach Earth from far away galaxies?

According to Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." This happened in the 4th day.

The farthest know stars from the Hubble telescope are over 10 billion light years away. So if stars didn't come into creation until the 4th day, and if the 4th day happened less than 10,000 years ago, how can starlight have traveled 10 billion light years (5.8x10^22 miles) to Earth in this time frame?

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 04:37 AM
The speed of light has always been a constant? Personally I enjoy setting the earth inside a white hole, but I'd rather focus on the speed of time not being a constant.

calidog
May 11th 2008, 04:41 AM
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.

Light came before the light givers. Quite a miracle.

Oma
May 11th 2008, 04:59 AM
That wasn't a problem for God who spoke and it was done, was it? Could God not simply have created the stars and their light together as He created Adam and Eve with an appearance of age? Likewise the lower creation such as the trees bearing fruit looked like they would have been older when they were freshly created.

Hebr. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 12:54 PM
Question for you Apologetics experts.

If someone assumes the young Earth and literal 7 day creation, how can you explain the fact the farthest starlight takes billions of years to reach Earth from far away galaxies?

According to Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." This happened in the 4th day.

The farthest know stars from the Hubble telescope are over 10 billion light years away. So if stars didn't come into creation until the 4th day, and if the 4th day happened less than 10,000 years ago, how can starlight have traveled 10 billion light years (5.8x10^22 miles) to Earth in this time frame?

What's even more interesting is, it's not just simple starlight. In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away. Which means, if the universe is only 6-10,000 years old, God created light that many light-years away to simulate a star exploding 150,000 years earlier. Certainly, no one questions he could, but isn't that a bit deceptive? To set up natural law to make things appear as if they are far older than they really are?


The speed of light has always been a constant? Personally I enjoy setting the earth inside a white hole, but I'd rather focus on the speed of time not being a constant.

Pretty much every study indicating a variable speed of light has been smacked down pretty hard. There is no real evidence of that.


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.

Light came before the light givers. Quite a miracle.

Are you suggesting that God created light from the stars before he created the sources themselves?


That wasn't a problem for God who spoke and it was done, was it? Could God not simply have created the stars and their light together as He created Adam and Eve with an appearance of age? Likewise the lower creation such as the trees bearing fruit looked like they would have been older when they were freshly created.

Hebr. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


If things were created with the appearance of age then why would God object when we think they're far older? This sets up the dichotomy that nature is essentially a test to see if we'll choose between believing His word or our eyes. And I don't think God works that way.

Eaglenester
May 11th 2008, 01:39 PM
When Yahweh Elohim created the stars and their light - the light from the stars was seen from the earth then.

Adam saw the light from the stars that Yahweh had made only 2 days earlier.

Just as He created the tress with leaves and fruit on them - didn't have to wait for the trees to bloom.

Yahweh created things and beings in fulness.

Adam was created mature and didn't have to "learn" to talk.

The animals were able to "be fruitful and multiply" on the day Yahweh made them.

The stars were made with the same consistency as everything else - in fullness - light which reached the earth and all.

Pretty simple and easy to grasp.

Eaglenester
May 11th 2008, 01:43 PM
If things were created with the appearance of age then why would God object when we think they're far older? This sets up the dichotomy that nature is essentially a test to see if we'll choose between believing His word or our eyes. And I don't think God works that way.

for we walk by belief (faith), not by sight

(2 Corinthians 5:7)

MrAnteater
May 11th 2008, 03:13 PM
What's even more interesting is, it's not just simple starlight. In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away. Which means, if the universe is only 6-10,000 years old, God created light that many light-years away to simulate a star exploding 150,000 years earlier. Certainly, no one questions he could, but isn't that a bit deceptive? To set up natural law to make things appear as if they are far older than they really are?

I believe God created the universe but the point you make is the same question I struggle with in trying to believe the 6000 year old earth theory. Would God intentionally make the universe look older than it actually is?

I personally don't believe in the 6000 year old Earth theory but I was wondering if someone has a good argument to support this idea and still explain starlight from distance stars. I believe in the gap theory between the first few days described in Genesis and not 24 hour days. I think long periods of time could have elapsed between the days of the bible because we are told a day is like a thousand years to God, and the bible is God's words:

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

There were no human beings in existence when the earth was created and it was revealed to Moses in a vision from God. If God reveled to Moses the events of creation I believe it was just some snapshots at the major milestones of God's creation as described in Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, ect. There could be thousands or millions of years of elapsed time until recorded human history started with Adam and Eve and thats when the 6000 year old clock started and is traced back through their lineage.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 03:56 PM
I believe God created the universe but the point you make is the same question I struggle with in trying to believe the 6000 year old earth theory. Would God intentionally make the universe look older than it actually is?

Just to say; creating things with 'age' doesn't mean it took that long to create; it would have still been a 24 hour creation.



I personally don't believe in the 6000 year old Earth theory but I was wondering if someone has a good argument to support this idea and still explain starlight from distance stars. I believe in the gap theory between the first few days described in Genesis and not 24 hour days. I think long periods of time could have elapsed between the days of the bible because we are told a day is like a thousand years to God, and the bible is God's words:

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Well, these two verses don't have to do with how long a day actually is; 2 Peter 3:8 is a simile pertaining to God's promises; they aren't factual statements. To say quickly, everything in the Genesis account indicates 24 hour days; there's never been any disagreement on that until recently.

But, I'll concede for the point of argument that a 'day' in Genesis was a thousand years. So we have... seven thousand years; anyone wanna bid 15.4 billion-ish? Even in giving you the thousand years, you still come no where near the billions of years needed. Now you also believe in the Gap Theory, the major problem with the Gap Theory is that the 'And' which begins verse 2 in the English does not exist in the Hebrew--it's all one verse, there is no opportunity for extra time to creep in, in the original text. There's also no other biblical support for the Gap Theory--it's a needless reinterpretation based in a poor hermeneutic, a bad exegetic and all because of rather inaccurate dating methods.



There were no human beings in existence when the earth was created and it was revealed to Moses in a vision from God. If God reveled to Moses the events of creation I believe it was just some snapshots at the major milestones of God's creation as described in Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, ect. There could be thousands or millions of years of elapsed time until recorded human history started with Adam and Eve and thats when the 6000 year old clock started and is traced back through their lineage.

The Genesis account doesn't naturally support such a view. What Genesis blatantly says has to be ignored and reinterpreted (which affects much more of the Bible than a lot of people think) for it to work alongside the evolutionary theory.

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 04:12 PM
for we walk by belief (faith), not by sight

(2 Corinthians 5:7)



The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

Psalm 19:1-3

calidog
May 11th 2008, 04:32 PM
Are you suggesting that God created light from the stars before he created the sources themselves?




If the first day came before the fourth day, yes.

Gen 1:5 And GodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 he calledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the firstH259 day.H3117


Gen 1:17 And GodH430 setH5414 them in the firmamentH7549 of the heavenH8064 to give lightH215 uponH5921 the earth,H776
Gen 1:18 And to ruleH4910 over the dayH3117 and over the night,H3915 and to divideH914 H996 the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness:H2822 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it was good.H2896
Gen 1:19 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the fourthH7243 day.H3117

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 04:41 PM
Just to say; creating things with 'age' doesn't mean it took that long to create; it would have still been a 24 hour creation.

But that still doesn't address the deception argument. It's one thing to create a man as an 18-year-old; once that man is dead, there will be no evidence sitting around to be studied. It's quite another thing to create a universe that will be studied, with all sorts of signs pointing to a great deal of time and a great number of events needed to get the universe to that point. It's like God is inviting us to discover the wrong things and come to the wrong conclusions.



But, I'll concede for the point of argument that a 'day' in Genesis was a thousand years. So we have... seven thousand years; anyone wanna bid 15.4 billion-ish? Even in giving you the thousand years, you still come no where near the billions of years needed. Now you also believe in the Gap Theory, the major problem with the Gap Theory is that the 'And' which begins verse 2 in the English does not exist in the Hebrew--it's all one verse, there is no opportunity for extra time to creep in, in the original text. There's also no other biblical support for the Gap Theory--it's a needless reinterpretation based in a poor hermeneutic, a bad exegetic and all because of rather inaccurate dating methods.

I realize you're not making this argument; but I want to point out for the sake of the thread that it's bad interpretation to consider the "1000 years a day, a day 1000 years" as a formula. The entire point of the text is that God does not work by our standards of time; he operates in his own time and he's not limited by our measly constraints of lifetime.

I also agree about the gap theory. The problem, to me, is in trying to interpret Genesis 1 as having some rigorous scientific application. I feel it is not a story put together to tell history, but to explain spiritual truths about the way of things. There is no need to interpret a day as anything but a day; no need to try and fit billions of years in between a day. Words having literal meanings in a symbolic story are still not literally expressing their meaning to the world at large.



The Genesis account doesn't naturally support such a view. What Genesis blatantly says has to be ignored and reinterpreted (which affects much more of the Bible than a lot of people think) for it to work alongside the evolutionary theory.

Again, more for the sake of the thread rather than for discussion with you (because we've addressed this and I accept that we disagree), I will point out that there are as many problems trying to fit the bible in with a literal viewpoint as there are trying to reconcile it against science such as a billions-year-old universe and evolution. However, only in the latter sense is it possible to reconcile without denying reality.

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 04:54 PM
If the first day came before the fourth day, yes.

Gen 1:5 And GodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 he calledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the firstH259 day.H3117


Gen 1:17 And GodH430 setH5414 them in the firmamentH7549 of the heavenH8064 to give lightH215 uponH5921 the earth,H776
Gen 1:18 And to ruleH4910 over the dayH3117 and over the night,H3915 and to divideH914 H996 the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness:H2822 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it was good.H2896
Gen 1:19 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the fourthH7243 day.H3117

Light is essentially waves traveling through space from a source. What this suggests is that God created waves traveling along a path (spreading in all directions), and then traces those paths to their logical source to create the sources three days later.

Which, of course, I accept God can do, but it seems like a fairly illogical step to take just for the sake of inspiring a poetic text.

What makes more sense to me is that it matches the commonly held belief during those ancient times; that the sun, moon and stars were not sources of light, but elements of day and night. That is why in verses 3-5 "light" and "darkness" were attributed to "day" and "night", respectively; they were representing structures (the day sky, the night sky). You have days 1-3 creating structures (the skies, the sea, the earth) and days 4-6 filling each of those structures with the elements we see.

A separate but interesting note: did you ever wonder why the bible uses the words "greater light" and "lesser light" for the sun and moon, even though Hebrew has perfectly good words for the latter? The answer is that those words are both derived from the Canaanite names of their sun and moon gods, respectively. The text refuses to acknowledge pagan gods in every way possible - even in its wording.

Eaglenester
May 11th 2008, 05:11 PM
Well I explained why the stars appear older than a literal 6 day creation - ut then science can't date the stars, they haven't gone to them to beable to do so :lol:

All science does is try to come up with theory's (leaving Yahweh out of the picture and equation) to explain what they can't know.
.

As far as carbon dating things on earth - big flaw in the interpretation of data:
THE FLOOD

Things DRASTICLY changed on the earth and in the atmosphere - so carbon dating can't accurately see beyond that bend.

If Yahweh didn't intend creation to be interpreted as 6 literal days - then why did He say
And there was evening and there was morning, the first (2nd, 3rd, 4th ...) day
He clearly defined literal days for creation.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 05:15 PM
But that still doesn't address the deception argument. It's one thing to create a man as an 18-year-old; once that man is dead, there will be no evidence sitting around to be studied. It's quite another thing to create a universe that will be studied, with all sorts of signs pointing to a great deal of time and a great number of events needed to get the universe to that point. It's like God is inviting us to discover the wrong things and come to the wrong conclusions.

I don't think I'd quite call it a 'deception argument'. If God is saying, 'Hey, creation points to Me!' I'd think it a rather odd thing for Him to design creation so that it points in the opposite direction. So either the Bible is wrong or science is wrong in a few of its assertions--I'm going to have to go with 'science' being wrong. By science I mean the philosophy of evolution, the profitable industry that it is.



I realize you're not making this argument; but I want to point out for the sake of the thread that it's bad interpretation to consider the "1000 years a day, a day 1000 years" as a formula. The entire point of the text is that God does not work by our standards of time; he operates in his own time and he's not limited by our measly constraints of lifetime.

Yeah, we agree here.



I also agree about the gap theory. The problem, to me, is in trying to interpret Genesis 1 as having some rigorous scientific application. I feel it is not a story put together to tell history, but to explain spiritual truths about the way of things. There is no need to interpret a day as anything but a day; no need to try and fit billions of years in between a day. Words having literal meanings in a symbolic story are still not literally expressing their meaning to the world at large.

Well I agree for the most part; I don't take Genesis 1 to be a symbolic story; neither did the authors of the Bible.



Again, more for the sake of the thread rather than for discussion with you (because we've addressed this and I accept that we disagree), I will point out that there are as many problems trying to fit the bible in with a literal viewpoint as there are trying to reconcile it against science such as a billions-year-old universe and evolution. However, only in the latter sense is it possible to reconcile without denying reality.

A reality which is constructed by Godless people, mind you. Reality tells me its wrong for God to allow the killing of people in the Old Testament, but it's okay for women to abort their babies. Reality doesn't quite make sense, I'm fully prepared to reject the reality of our day.

**As per light, even science agrees that light is antecedent to stars... And as for the 'lesser' and 'greater' lights; yes it is against pagan thought at the time. Yet the moon does 'produce' less light than the sun...

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 05:28 PM
A reality which is constructed by Godless people, mind you. Reality tells me its wrong for God to allow the killing of people in the Old Testament, but it's okay for women to abort their babies. Reality doesn't quite make sense, I'm fully prepared to reject the reality of our day.

Actually, I have a perfectly logical explanation for all this. But it's pretty complicated and I've never written it down. A discussion for another time, perhaps.

(And it doesn't involve making that particular text symbolic. :) )


**As per light, even science agrees that light is antecedent to stars... And as for the 'lesser' and 'greater' lights; yes it is against pagan thought at the time. Yet the moon does 'produce' less light than the sun...

This is true...but the light being broadcast from the stars did not precede the stars themselves.

We know the moon doesn't produce light, it reflects it. The ancients had a little different view; neither produced light, they were objects owned by day and night. In other words, they viewed both as the same type of object with respect to light.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 05:36 PM
This is true...but the light being broadcast from the stars did not precede the stars themselves.

We know the moon doesn't produce light, it reflects it. The ancients had a little different view; neither produced light, they were objects owned by day and night. In other words, they viewed both as the same type of object with respect to light.

It would have been light from two different sources, right. So when God says let there be light, and there is. And God then proceeds to create the 'lesser' and 'greater' lights; are we dealing with the same light? Just to simply say that the Biblical example of light appearing before the stars isn't so far fetched and not quite the problem people think it is.

The creation order of the sun, moon and stars is also entirely different in Genesis at it is in surrounding cultures. Simply to show those cultures wrong, or because that's how God really performed creation...

chisel
May 11th 2008, 05:40 PM
I agree that creating a universe complete doesn't equate to deceipt. When Jesus fed the 5000 people He essentially created mature, cooked fish and baked bread out of nothing, instantaneously. I submit that not one of those hungry persons looked at the food and cried out, "O great deceiver! This Jesus makes bread instantly, although it normally takes hours in the oven, in order to confuse us".

Lightyears is a distance and not a time. Nobody knows what the speed of light was during the days of creation. I think, that if God can create a universe, then creating a complete beam of light or accelerate it, to shine upon Adam and Eve is no problem whatsoever. God alone was there during creation. If He says He pulled it off in 6 days, then I'm cool with that, since He was the only eye witness and a trustworthy One at that.

We need to remember something here, Genesis is not a technical and scientific report of creation, but it is God's way of explaining to his children how He made everything.
If I had to explain an internal combustion engine to a child, I'm not going to go into a physics discussion on the expansion of gases and pressurised air, converts to kinetic bla bla bla bla.
I'l say something to this effect. "Kiddo, inside the car is something like a man on a bicycle, but the man's legs are made of fire and the legs of fire push the pedals which turns the wheels.", which would be a simple but accurate description of the combustion, the pistons, con-rods and the crank shaft...

But some clever scientist will probably ridicule such an explanation saying, "It's not fire but gas-expansion, and not legs but pistons. How stupid is the child that believes such a moron!"

It is not as important to God that we know the physics of creation as it is that we look at creation in wonder, and praise His glorious Name.

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 05:46 PM
Well I explained why the stars appear older than a literal 6 day creation - ut then science can't date the stars, they haven't gone to them to beable to do so :lol:

I'm going to assume that even if we could and we did, you wouldn't believe them.

Science can discern the distance to the stars...and thus, discern roughly how old they must be. All efforts to claim a variable (decreasing) rate of the speed of light face some serious problems that have yet to be explained.



All science does is try to come up with theory's (leaving Yahweh out of the picture and equation) to explain what they can't know.

All creationism does is try to poke holes in our level of knowledge, in order to keep Yahweh in a box that they can easily comprehend. And, it tries to tell science what it cannot discover and what it cannot know.
.


As far as carbon dating things on earth - big flaw in the interpretation of data:
THE FLOOD

Things DRASTICLY changed on the earth and in the atmosphere - so carbon dating can't accurately see beyond that bend.

There are so many problems with that theory...so many questions...so many holes...that it makes evolution look like simple fact. Even the most prominent Creationist geologists admit that they have a long way to go to prove otherwise.


If Yahweh didn't intend creation to be interpreted as 6 literal days - then why did He say
And there was evening and there was morning, the first (2nd, 3rd, 4th ...) day
He clearly defined literal days for creation.


It's a literary device. God was describing His work during creation in a way that was easily understood by them - the seven-day week. His work was being described in a way consistent with their work week. The seventh day is a way to get them to set aside a specific time, as a community, to focus on God and celebrate their place in His creation.

Evening and morning, of course, are elements that describe the day - the beginning and the ending. God began, and God was done.

Again - "day" means literally, "24-hour day". But the story is a set of literary devices designed to express the wonder of God's creation into a way that could be felt personally. How better than to tie it into their own week?

chisel
May 11th 2008, 06:13 PM
How better than to tie it into their own week?

No, you're committing a confusion of cause and effect fallacy.
God's account of creation is not to fit in with people's week. People have a week because God did His work in a week.

but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exo 20:10-11)

Why is the gap theory not considered deceit? That God says six days when He actually 'meant' billions of years?

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 06:30 PM
No, you're committing a confusion of cause and effect fallacy.
God's account of creation is not to fit in with people's week. People have a week because God did His work in a week.

No, we have a week because it the way days fit best in the cycles of year and month (which are governed, of course, by the position and appearance of the sun and moon, respectively).



but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exo 20:10-11)

Why is the gap theory not considered deceit? That God says six days when He actually 'meant' billions of years?

I'm not a gap theorist. God didn't deceive with the creation story because God didn't intend the creation story to be a literal account of how He created everything. It is an account intended to describe our place in creation.

It's also no big surprise why the passage above references the seven-day creation week; they had access to the same story we do. The idea, again, wasn't to cement a literal seven-day creation week, but to implement a day of rest as a way of honoring God. It really doesn't matter if the people of the time took it as a literal account or not; what matters is what God intended.

God no more deceived us than Christ did with imparting parables - because the point isn't to express an historical truth but a spiritual one.

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 07:05 PM
It would have been light from two different sources, right. So when God says let there be light, and there is. And God then proceeds to create the 'lesser' and 'greater' lights; are we dealing with the same light? Just to simply say that the Biblical example of light appearing before the stars isn't so far fetched and not quite the problem people think it is.

The creation order of the sun, moon and stars is also entirely different in Genesis at it is in surrounding cultures. Simply to show those cultures wrong, or because that's how God really performed creation...

Of course, you know that the scientific explanation of light before stars through the big bang is not really compatible with creationism. :)

There are ideas and worldviews from other cultures of the time peppered throughout the creation account. Each idea has the polytheistic ideas ripped out from it, though; created objects to not have any divinity, only God does. What seems obvious to me is that God is communicating through terms and ideas understood by the people of the time; yet, pulling the pagan influences from them, presenting them as created objects rather than powerful beings. Here are just a few examples:

1:2 "formless and void". This is consistent with the pagan accounts of creation from chaos into order, persistent through all Mesopotamian mythologies. Here, the chaos has no godly manifestation; it is simply a created thing.

1:2 "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" - brings up the pagan image of Marduk, chief god of the Babylonians, hovering over the chaos/sea god (Tiamat), prior to a huge battle. The sea was always views as "chaos" - it's churning, ever-changing waters in direct contrast to the stable land. Marduk defeats Tiamat, rips her in half to create the skies and the earth. In the Genesis account, the waters again have no godly manifestation; they are a created thing, and there is no battle - God says "let it be", and it is.

1:3-5 Again, light and darkness are simply containers called day and night, in which creation will be placed. This is consistent with other Mesopotamian cosmologies.

1:6-7 Mesopotamian cultures had the concept of a "firmament" - the area between the earth and seas (waters below), and the waters above. It envisioned the earth as a circle (disc), and the firmament as a dome stretching to the far ends of the disc. The wording here describes that cosmology perfectly.

1:9 - As mentioned above, in Babylonian mythology Marduk ripped Tiamat apart to create the earth and the skies.

...and so on. There are ties with every passage of Genesis 1 to some sort of pagan idea.

It's just amazing to me how well the ideas in Genesis fit with pagan cosmologies. Yet, the key is that all creation is accounted to God - there are no other agents involved. There is the creator, and there is the created. And there is no conflict - what the creator wills is done.

Also pointedly different is the place of man in creation. In other accounts, man is either an accident, or created to be a slave of the gods. Nowhere else is man the pinnacle of creation, purposefully set aside to rule over the rest of creation and given authority over it. This is the key of the entire account. It became obvious to me when I was studying this verse:


So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

I often wonder why this particular verse is written differently than the rest - in verse rather than poetic prose. The answer came to me while listening to Harry Chapin's "The Cat's in the Cradle": most notably, the bridge section near the end of the song.


And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me - he'd grown up just like me. My boy was just like me.

The song is a story, told in parts over the man's life of his relationship with his son. This bridge section, set apart rhythmically from the rest of the song, communications in no uncertain terms the "moral of the story" - what it all means. In a like manner, Genesis 1:27 has the same purpose; it is spelling out what the point of the story is. That doesn't make the rest unimportant, but it does set aside this part specially.

You see, the more I studied Genesis 1, the more I see how it fits as literature into its culture. I see why the story is told as intended; communicating a truth through metaphor. It is not "one-for-one" metaphor, where we can compare each day or each verse with some scientific truth; it itself is a metaphor in whole, telling the people of the time that God is responsible for everything, that NOTHING else is a god, that they are set above everything else and specially created for that purpose. It is a beautiful story, and as relevant today as it was then. And very obviously inspired.

Please note that in no way do I suggest that the Genesis account is a "copy" of pagan myth, or derivative of it. It is an entirely original piece of work, using their knowledge of the world around them as a basis for telling a story of truth. If God told the story today it would be vastly different because our understanding is so much greater - but it would still say the exact same thing.

moonglow
May 11th 2008, 07:46 PM
Ok you smart guys...how does this figure into what we see in regards to light reaching us from the stars: Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity E=mc2 speed of light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6N85lNgHY)

I will admit I haven't read through this whole thread..I am just really tired today but wanted to get into this discussion.


God bless

chisel
May 11th 2008, 08:10 PM
No, we have a week because it the way days fit best in the cycles of year and month (which are governed, of course, by the position and appearance of the sun and moon, respectively).

a 14 day week would also fit in with the lunar cycles, and so would a 28 day week, yet God chose 7 and according to the Bible it is because God finished creation in seven days. The Bible does not say, that we have a week because it fits in with the cycles of nature, it says we have a week because God did his work in a week. It couldn't be any clearer.

That there is a connection between the cycles of nature and the 7 day week, does not imply that the 7 day week was derived from the cycles of nature. The Bible is quite clear on the cause and effect, and what is derived from what.



I'm not a gap theorist. God didn't deceive with the creation story because God didn't intend the creation story to be a literal account of how He created everything. It is an account intended to describe our place in creation.

It's also no big surprise why the passage above references the seven-day creation week; they had access to the same story we do. The idea, again, wasn't to cement a literal seven-day creation week, but to implement a day of rest as a way of honoring God. It really doesn't matter if the people of the time took it as a literal account or not; what matters is what God intended.

God no more deceived us than Christ did with imparting parables - because the point isn't to express an historical truth but a spiritual one.
You cannot simply resort to simbolic interpretation when the literal interpretation doesn't suit you, friend. Where will you end up if you follow that trail? Will science convince you that Jesus resurrection was impossible and that the Biblical account was simply a parable? Was the virgin birth mere simbolism?

Parables are parables and history is history. Genesis is the history of creation, not simbolism or parable or poetry.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 08:19 PM
Of course, you know that the scientific explanation of light before stars through the big bang is not really compatible with creationism. :)

Oh I know, just a comparison. The idea that light can (and did, according to both systems) exist outside of stars.



There are ideas and worldviews from other cultures of the time peppered throughout the creation account. Each idea has the polytheistic ideas ripped out from it, though; created objects to not have any divinity, only God does. What seems obvious to me is that God is communicating through terms and ideas understood by the people of the time; yet, pulling the pagan influences from them, presenting them as created objects rather than powerful beings. Here are just a few examples:

Alright, let's see...
Hopefully I have enough time.



1:2 "formless and void". This is consistent with the pagan accounts of creation from chaos into order, persistent through all Mesopotamian mythologies. Here, the chaos has no godly manifestation; it is simply a created thing.

It was required of me to read a book by Victor P. Hamilton for one of my classes--Introduction to the Pentateuch. The book I had to read was Handbook to the Pentateuch. I distinctly remember while reading this book an excerpt by F. Derek Kidner (1967: 44), "The sombre terms of 2a ('without form of void, darkness, deep' and 'waters' stand alone and without explanation or commentary') throw into relief the mounting glory of the seven days." To assume, however, that these terms are reflective of a chaos, outside of God's creation and antagonistic to his divine plan, finds no justification's in the text.

I find the same sentiment echoed by Bruce C. Birch, Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim and David L. Petersen in A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (1999: 48): "The 'formless and void' is neither nothing nor an undifferentiated mass; the earth, the waters, the darkness, and the wind are discrete realities--the 'stuff' that God uses to bring about a new order. The earth ... is so described because it is desolate and unproductive ... The author does not deny that God created all things, but the origin of what is specified in verse 2 is of no apparent interest, except that God was present and active there."

'Formless and void' might be consistent with pagan accounts of creation from chaos into order, unfortunately such a position is not advanced nor advocated by the biblical text. Any attempt to force the text into such a position is eisegetical not exegetical in nature. The 'chaos' of these verses simply refers to the raw materials God uses to create. Not to battles with sea creatures, other gods, seas...



1:2 "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" - brings up the pagan image of Marduk, chief god of the Babylonians, hovering over the chaos/sea god (Tiamat), prior to a huge battle. The sea was always views as "chaos" - it's churning, ever-changing waters in direct contrast to the stable land. Marduk defeats Tiamat, rips her in half to create the skies and the earth. In the Genesis account, the waters again have no godly manifestation; they are a created thing, and there is no battle - God says "let it be", and it is.

Actually it's the reference to "the deep" that would be the (more) veiled allusion to Tiamat of Babylonian fame. Now conceding that this may be the case, I think one would be very hard pressed to find any obvious mythic allusions in the use of 'tehom' by Genesis' author. The deep is not viewed as an enemy of God, simply it is an inanimate part of the created order. Linguistically the text is very much against any sort of Tiamat comparison. Once again, the 'waters' are part of the material's God uses for creation; there is no unGodly chaos, no battle, no allusion to Tiamat.



1:3-5 Again, light and darkness are simply containers called day and night, in which creation will be placed. This is consistent with other Mesopotamian cosmologies.

Well the Genesis account of creation is sun, moon, stars. The Enuma Elish account of creation is stars, sun, moon. Where 'stars' are viewed as separate realities; not created. They have a divine attribute about them. The Genesis account treats them as matter of fact observations, a sort of, "He made the stars too..." The sun, moon and stars (in the Genesis account) all have a place in creation, given their orders and duty by God.

And no time... We agree that the accounts go very much against what was considered reality at the time. However the Genesis account was not simply a refutation of these accounts in the sense that it also didn't describe, literally, what God did. It is a literal, not a symbolic (or poetic), account of creation; that's just how the language is.

chisel
May 11th 2008, 08:26 PM
In terms of light before the sun, moon and stars...

The six day creation in Genesis follows a specific pattern. In the first 3 days the environments/realms were created and the following 3 days those realms were populated.

Realms
Day 1. The realm of light and darkness
Day 2. The realm of the water and sky
Day 3. The realm of dry land

Population of the realms
Day 4. Stars, planets, etc. Things that dwell in the realm of light
Day 5. Birds and fish. Things that dwell in the realm of water and sky.
Day 6. Livestock, beast of the earth etc. Things that dwell in the realm of the earth, including us.

A very neat and organised way of doing things.

That light existed before the sun and moon and stars is no problem whatsoever. God knew how long a day would be before he created the sun and moon, and therefore day and night as a concept of time isn't dependent on the celestial bodies that are merely indicators of time. The celestial bodies are there so that we can tell time, God knows how long a day and a night is.
Speed existed long before the speedometer, that isn't a problem, is it?

crawfish
May 11th 2008, 09:02 PM
'Formless and void' might be consistent with pagan accounts of creation from chaos into order, unfortunately such a position is not advanced nor advocated by the biblical text. Any attempt to force the text into such a position is eisegetical not exegetical in nature. The 'chaos' of these verses simply refers to the raw materials God uses to create. Not to battles with sea creatures, other gods, seas...

This is exactly the point I was making. "Chaos" is the worldview...it's how they saw existence before creation. The "raw materials", as you put it. The Genesis account uses established imagery here, to reference what existed before.


Actually it's the reference to "the deep" that would be the (more) veiled allusion to Tiamat of Babylonian fame. Now conceding that this may be the case, I think one would be very hard pressed to find any obvious mythic allusions in the use of 'tehom' by Genesis' author. The deep is not viewed as an enemy of God, simply it is an inanimate part of the created order. Linguistically the text is very much against any sort of Tiamat comparison. Once again, the 'waters' are part of the material's God uses for creation; there is no unGodly chaos, no battle, no allusion to Tiamat.

Again true. As in the "greater and lesser light" example, the exact word for tiamat is not used; but the idea is. The idea of God "hovering" over the deep is an allusion to the creative act. Again, the polytheistic elements have been stripped, leaving the natural, which again, provides the established imagery for the message to be imparted.



Well the Genesis account of creation is sun, moon, stars. The Enuma Elish account of creation is stars, sun, moon. Where 'stars' are viewed as separate realities; not created. They have a divine attribute about them. The Genesis account treats them as matter of fact observations, a sort of, "He made the stars too..." The sun, moon and stars (in the Genesis account) all have a place in creation, given their orders and duty by God.

And even again! The polytheistic elements are removed and they are simply created things.


And no time... We agree that the accounts go very much against what was considered reality at the time. However the Genesis account was not simply a refutation of these accounts in the sense that it also didn't describe, literally, what God did. It is a literal, not a symbolic (or poetic), account of creation; that's just how the language is.

They go against established reality in the way that they remove the supernatural elements from all created things. However, Genesis uses "established imagery" (I just thought of that term and I like it a lot, obviously) to get its point across. That imagery is not meant to be a literal accounting of things, but a literary accounting to explain them in a way easily understood by its immediate audience.

I think the fact that there are so many allusions to pagan worldviews, and such an avoidance of any connection with polytheistic entities, tells us a lot about the account - it was written after the aforementioned accounts, as both a response to them and a putting forward of basic ideas. It has lots of literary & poetic devices - "and it was morning and evening", "and it was good", "then God said", etc. As Vim mentioned in his last post, the days fit into the concept of days 1-3 as containers and 4-6 as filling those containers; another obvious literary device. Six is the number of man; in six days, the material world was created. Seven is the holy number; a seventh day was added to make the process a holy one, with special instructions to honor that last day.

Not to mention, when you take Genesis 1 and 2 literally you have to stretch meanings to keep them from conflicting with each other - which they do in a purely literal sense. To me, it is only a conflict if you take it literally - metaphorically, both accounts make perfect sense.

I don't feel that this view is a compromise of scripture at all. In fact, after this study I feel like I understand the scripture better than I ever did before, and I'm closer to the pure meaning God intended.

daughter
May 11th 2008, 09:05 PM
Not read this whole thread yet, so apologies if I'm repeating something someone else has said.



Pretty much every study indicating a variable speed of light has been smacked down pretty hard. There is no real evidence of that.



As far as I can tell, that's not what Xel naga was saying. He wasn't saying that the speed of LIGHT was variable, but that time itself has been variable. That actually has some proof scientifically... it's known that time changes around black holes, so time itself is obviously affected by extreme events in the fabric of space and time.

Probably the most extreme event in history would be the creation of the universe... I imagine time wasn't working quite in the ways we expect it to under "normal" operating conditions. Time may well have been more condensed in the beginning.

Not that I'm too bothered by it... Our understanding has always been, and will continue to be clouded until the day that God can show us what the truth is.

Until then, I don't mind speculating, studying, learning... but I won't build my faith around science, since it's always changing. I'll just keep an interest, and an open mind... but continue to believe in what God has said.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 09:14 PM
Not to mention, when you take Genesis 1 and 2 literally you have to stretch meanings to keep them from conflicting with each other - which they do in a purely literal sense. To me, it is only a conflict if you take it literally - metaphorically, both accounts make perfect sense.

No, not at all (literally speaking). Metaphorically the account might work fine within itself, but when you expose it to the whole of scripture you end up re-interpreting quite a lot; you end up undermining a lot of Christian doctrines. Literally, Genesis 1 and 2 make just as much sense as a 'metaphorical' interpretation might. It's the metaphorical interpretation that potentially runs into a plethora of problems...

MikeAD
May 12th 2008, 12:04 AM
If God could create a tree, a lion, and Adam at the age that they were, why couldn't he comparatively created a universe that was "billions of years old?"

Many here have mentioned that God created Adam and the trees "in fullness" so lets take that standard and apply it to the whole of the universe. The tree was probably 45 years old, Adam 20 something and the stars very old, or however old they needed to be to be "full" or send visible light to earth.

If you want to say this is deceptive, that’s fine, but you'd also have to say that creating Adam was deceptive or a tree or a snake or a rock.


thats my best response to you, Mranteater.

Roelof
May 12th 2008, 10:40 AM
crawfish

1987 was a special year in the history as well.

Can you please give me your source on:

In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 11:48 AM
crawfish

1987 was a special year in the history as well.

Can you please give me your source on:

In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away.

Sure. Here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_1987a

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 01:12 PM
Come on there Roelof, Canada isn't 168,000 lightyears away.
Funny how they talk about my birthday like it's some big deal...

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 01:53 PM
No, not at all (literally speaking). Metaphorically the account might work fine within itself, but when you expose it to the whole of scripture you end up re-interpreting quite a lot; you end up undermining a lot of Christian doctrines. Literally, Genesis 1 and 2 make just as much sense as a 'metaphorical' interpretation might. It's the metaphorical interpretation that potentially runs into a plethora of problems...

There are all sorts of problems taking some of the bible literally.

Look at Matthew 4:8: Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

What mountain did Satan take Jesus to in order to let him see "all the kingdoms of the world"? I see no reason to interpret "all the kingdoms of the world" as anything else but all the cultures of the world at the time - from Rome to China to the Mayans in South America. I also see nothing in the text to indicate that this is a vision or that Jesus was given "special sight" - honestly, if the latter was true would the high mountain be necessary?

How do you explain this?

KingFisher
May 12th 2008, 02:13 PM
Good thread! I've always liked these scriptures.

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its
inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a
curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:

“ I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
25 Who frustrates the signs of the babblers,
And drives diviners mad;
Who turns wise men backward,
And makes their knowledge foolishness;

IMO I think it's a valid scriptural point of "apparent age".

As others have stated was Adam created as a zygote or as a man?

What about Eve?
The garden did it grow from seed?

Then we have Christ making water into wine.
Wine that had every appearance of age or maturity.

It takes 30 something years, sometimes more for wine to normally mature.
Yet Christ did it within moments.

Time did not affect Christ...the one who spoke and it was...

Hope this helps,
KingFisher

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 02:16 PM
There are all sorts of problems taking some of the bible literally.

Look at Matthew 4:8: Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

What mountain did Satan take Jesus to in order to let him see "all the kingdoms of the world"? I see no reason to interpret "all the kingdoms of the world" as anything else but all the cultures of the world at the time - from Rome to China to the Mayans in South America. I also see nothing in the text to indicate that this is a vision or that Jesus was given "special sight" - honestly, if the latter was true would the high mountain be necessary?

How do you explain this?Matthew 2:1 -Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

It's right at the beginning. ;) Just as John the Apostle was also 'led up' by the Spirit and saw the vision of Messiah's revelation.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 02:41 PM
Matthew 2:1 -Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

It's right at the beginning. ;) Just as John the Apostle was also 'led up' by the Spirit and saw the vision of Messiah's revelation.

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted there by the devil.

It sounds like we're told exactly where the spirit led him. Or, does somehow "wilderness" mean "a vision"? You don't think the spirit always leads you into a vision?

Now, I want to point out that I'm not trying to question the accuracy of the bible. I fully believe that these were visions. But the problem is, you don't get that from the text. You have to read into the text to see it that way.

Now...let's say your an average 1st century Christian who hears this story. You might have heard that some thought the earth was a sphere...but it's likely you hadn't, and it was far from proven. Would you question that there was a mountain from which "all the kingdoms of the earth" could be seen? Would it even occur to you to question it?

You see, the only reason you don't take it literally is because you know better. There is absolutely, undeniable proof that there is no mountain on the face of the earth from which you can see everything. So, rather than taking the scripture at face value, you understand it as something different. And there's no problem with this. The truth is, though, that as long as there is the least little opening, people will insist on holding to the literal view; but once the evidence has been closed, we will continue on with our belief with no problems.

HisLeast
May 12th 2008, 02:45 PM
...in just how big creation actually is, attached is an animated gif.

You're actually going to have to downloaded to get the animation effect. :(

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 03:40 PM
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted there by the devil.

It sounds like we're told exactly where the spirit led him. Or, does somehow "wilderness" mean "a vision"? You don't think the spirit always leads you into a vision?

Now, I want to point out that I'm not trying to question the accuracy of the bible. I fully believe that these were visions. But the problem is, you don't get that from the text. You have to read into the text to see it that way.

Now...let's say your an average 1st century Christian who hears this story. You might have heard that some thought the earth was a sphere...but it's likely you hadn't, and it was far from proven. Would you question that there was a mountain from which "all the kingdoms of the earth" could be seen? Would it even occur to you to question it?

You see, the only reason you don't take it literally is because you know better. There is absolutely, undeniable proof that there is no mountain on the face of the earth from which you can see everything. So, rather than taking the scripture at face value, you understand it as something different. And there's no problem with this. The truth is, though, that as long as there is the least little opening, people will insist on holding to the literal view; but once the evidence has been closed, we will continue on with our belief with no problems.Crawfish, it does not merely say He was led into the wilderness. It says He was LED UP by the Spirit into the wilderness. So, yes, I believe a first century believer would have (just as we do) believed it was a vision. ;)

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 04:03 PM
Crawfish, it does not merely say He was led into the wilderness. It says He was LED UP by the Spirit into the wilderness. So, yes, I believe a first century believer would have (just as we do) believed it was a vision. ;)

It depends on the version you read. KJV and its descendants say "led up", newer original translations including the NIV say "led into". I'm one who loves the beautiful, flowery language of the KJV, but people I trust (with the World Bible Translation Center here in my hometown, experts in Hebrew and Greek who work on translating the bible into new languages) have told me that we have a lot better understanding of the entire translation process today, and that the KJV not as accurate as the newer translations. Thus, I'll trust the NIV and NLT to give the more accurate reading. You can study the original Greek here (http://biblos.com/matthew/4-1.htm), if you so choose. (if you want to argue this point, I suppose we can do it in another thread, although I admit I'm not an expert; I just have experts whom I personally trust).

I doubt the early readers assumed a vision because they had no reason to. I know people today who think it's literal and not a vision...

moonglow
May 12th 2008, 04:03 PM
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted there by the devil.

It sounds like we're told exactly where the spirit led him. Or, does somehow "wilderness" mean "a vision"? You don't think the spirit always leads you into a vision?

Now, I want to point out that I'm not trying to question the accuracy of the bible. I fully believe that these were visions. But the problem is, you don't get that from the text. You have to read into the text to see it that way.

Now...let's say your an average 1st century Christian who hears this story. You might have heard that some thought the earth was a sphere...but it's likely you hadn't, and it was far from proven. Would you question that there was a mountain from which "all the kingdoms of the earth" could be seen? Would it even occur to you to question it?

You see, the only reason you don't take it literally is because you know better. There is absolutely, undeniable proof that there is no mountain on the face of the earth from which you can see everything. So, rather than taking the scripture at face value, you understand it as something different. And there's no problem with this. The truth is, though, that as long as there is the least little opening, people will insist on holding to the literal view; but once the evidence has been closed, we will continue on with our belief with no problems.


Studyin'2Show.Crawfish, it does not merely say He was led into the wilderness. It says He was LED UP by the Spirit into the wilderness. So, yes, I believe a first century believer would have (just as we do) believed it was a vision.

What?! I can't believe you guys think this was nothing more then a vision...you really think Jesus did not experience the desert and forty days of fasting and the temptation of satan? Or do you mean the 'vision' was only for seeing all the kingdoms of earth?

I don't think you would find any bible commentary that agreed with either of you on this. Look...think for a minute...we are talking about 2000 plus years ago...how many kingdoms were there to even be looked upon? Not very many. Second, the bible ONLY talks about certain kingdoms...not kingdoms in China (if there were any then...I think their might have been but not sure) There were no kingdoms in the USA. The 'world' back then was very small compared to now and the bible only deals with mostly that small part of the world. The Palestine area.

Adam Clark's bible commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=004)
Verse 8. An exceeding high mountain, and showeth him
If the words, all the kingdoms of the world, be taken in a literal sense, then this must have been a visionary representation, as the highest mountain on the face of the globe could not suffice to make evident even one hemisphere of the earth, and the other must of necessity be in darkness.

But if we take the world to mean only the land of Judea, and some of the surrounding nations, as it appears sometimes to signify, (see on Luke 2:1,) then the mountain described by the Abbe Mariti (Travels through Cyprus, prospect in question. Speaking of it, he says, "Here we enjoyed the most beautiful prospect imaginable. This part of the mountain overlooks the mountains of Arabia, the country of Gilead, the country of the Amorites, the plains of Moab, the plains of Jericho, the river Jordan, and the whole extent of the Dead Sea. It was here that the devil said to the Son of God, All these kingdoms will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Probably St. Matthew, in the Hebrew original, wrote haarets, which signifies the world, the earth, and often the land of Judea only. What renders this more probable is, that at this time Judea was divided into several kingdoms, or governments under the three sons of Herod the Great, viz. Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip; which are not only called ethnarchs and tetrarchs in the Gospels, but also βασιλεις, kings, and are said βασιλευειν, to reign, as Rosenmuller has properly remarked. See Matthew 2:22;; 14:9.

A better example crawfish would be this:

Revelation 1:16
He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance.

It goes on to explain what these things stand for:
20 This is the meaning of the mystery of the seven stars you saw in my right hand and the seven gold lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

But it doesn't explain what the two-edged sword is...at least not right there. There are other verse though that explain the Word of God is called the Sword.

Jesus also uses the sword in another example:

Matthew 10:34
“Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

Now we know Jesus doesn't mean a literal sword here..its symbolic. The bible is very symbolic c in fact and not just in prophecies either.

Oh by the way...first century Christian in fact understood the scriptures and all their symbolic meanings much better then we do now. Those in third world countries understand the bible better then we do! We just don't live like they did then and don't understand the meaning to alot of what Jesus was saying. I see no reason why the people then wouldn't think the world was round...anyone standing on a hill can see the curve in the horizon and the curve in the sky!

anyway..shutting up now... :rolleyes:

God bless

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 04:05 PM
...in just how big creation actually is, attached is an animated gif.

You're actually going to have to downloaded to get the animation effect. :(

Our God is amazing, isn't He? Imagine how much "bigger" God is to us now than he was 2-3 thousand years ago; we know more of the unfathomably massive scale of His creation; we know the tiny little building blocks of matter, and the genetic codes that describe every living thing. Sure, just like them we know "God created it all", but "all" to us has a much larger connotation.

Nice post!

HisLeast
May 12th 2008, 04:12 PM
Our God is amazing, isn't He? Imagine how much "bigger" God is to us now than he was 2-3 thousand years ago; we know more of the unfathomably massive scale of His creation; we know the tiny little building blocks of matter, and the genetic codes that describe every living thing. Sure, just like them we know "God created it all", but "all" to us has a much larger connotation.

Nice post!

And at the same time, our job is harder. When we can see so clearly that Earth isn't the center of creation, and that we dont' even have the language to describe how small humanity is in the grand scope of the universe, how then do we show people that mankind matters to a God who can create such magnitude.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 04:21 PM
What?! I can't believe you guys think this was nothing more then a vision...you really think Jesus did not experience the desert and forty days of fasting and the temptation of satan? Or do you mean the 'vision' was only for seeing all the kingdoms of earth?

Oh, I should clarify that I do NOT think Jesus going into the desert was a vision, or his fasting didn't happen. I also believe that he fasted a literal 40 days and 40 nights, in this case because that would be the holy amount of time to fast (40 might be a way to refer to an unknown amount of time for the sake of purification in writing, but it would also be the amount of time a person would literally use when pre-planning such a purification).

I'm going to guess that S2S probably feels the same way (except for the numbers part, which he takes literally in all cases).

In Jesus' weakened state, he would be susceptible to visions. He would still have to make the choice to do the right thing, even if the events were only a divine hallucination.



I don't think you would find any bible commentary that agreed with either of you on this. Look...think for a minute...we are talking about 2000 plus years ago...how many kingdoms were there to even be looked upon? Not very many. Second, the bible ONLY talks about certain kingdoms...not kingdoms in China (if there were any then...I think their might have been but not sure) There were no kingdoms in the USA. The 'world' back then was very small compared to now and the bible only deals with mostly that small part of the world. The Palestine area.


Can we make this assumption when Genesis states "the whole world was flooded"? :) My point is how we take the bible literally, and literally speaking, there were kingdoms all over the face of the earth.


A better example crawfish would be this:

Revelation 1:16
He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance.

It goes on to explain what these things stand for:
20 This is the meaning of the mystery of the seven stars you saw in my right hand and the seven gold lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

But it doesn't explain what the two-edged sword is...at least not right there. There are other verse though that explain the Word of God is called the Sword.

Jesus also uses the sword in another example:

Matthew 10:34
“Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

Now we know Jesus doesn't mean a literal sword here..its symbolic. The bible is very symbolic c in fact and not just in prophecies either.


I think many people who take Genesis and much of the rest of the bible literally still see Revelation as symbolic, so while I agree with you in principle, it's not as good an example as text that sits in an historical account that we are forced to re-interpret the content in order to get it to match reality. Thanks for the example, though.


Oh by the way...first century Christian in fact understood the scriptures and all their symbolic meanings much better then we do now. Those in third world countries understand the bible better then we do! We just don't live like they did then and don't understand the meaning to alot of what Jesus was saying. I see no reason why the people then wouldn't think the world was round...anyone standing on a hill can see the curve in the horizon and the curve in the sky!

anyway..shutting up now... :rolleyes:

God bless

I agree to a point. The ancient Hebrews had dramatically different views than we do today; they didn't see things in terms of historical accuracy (although they believed in what they were reading), but saw things in terms of symbolism. I think it wouldn't surprise them, for instance, to know that the numbers weren't the true amounts, but they would wonder why we thought that was inaccurate; after all, the numbers communicated the meanings.

I think most people understood the curve of the earth, but didn't really think of the earth as a sphere. It would not be outrageous to most of the non-scholarly types to think that there might be a mountain where you could see all the earth.

Don't shut up, I enjoy reading your posts. Feel free to add anything you see fit. :)

moonglow
May 12th 2008, 04:33 PM
And at the same time, our job is harder. When we can see so clearly that Earth isn't the center of creation, and that we dont' even have the language to describe how small humanity is in the grand scope of the universe, how then do we show people that mankind matters to a God who can create such magnitude.

To God, the earth (us) IS the center of the universe...but not in the literal sense as the Catholic church first thought. They got pretty upset with Galileo because he discovered the earth was not the center of the universe nor alone in the universe. The Catholic church took scriptures to the literal extreme...and to say anything different was putting your life on the line...literally! Though Galileo lucked out and just endured house arrest in his remaining years...better then being burned at the stake! :rolleyes: Yet the earth IS the center of the universe! lol. To God..from HIS point of view. My son is the center of my world..yet people could say I was wrong on that account too.

God bless

moonglow
May 12th 2008, 04:53 PM
Oh, I should clarify that I do NOT think Jesus going into the desert was a vision, or his fasting didn't happen. I also believe that he fasted a literal 40 days and 40 nights, in this case because that would be the holy amount of time to fast (40 might be a way to refer to an unknown amount of time for the sake of purification in writing, but it would also be the amount of time a person would literally use when pre-planning such a purification).

I'm going to guess that S2S probably feels the same way (except for the numbers part, which he takes literally in all cases).

In Jesus' weakened state, he would be susceptible to visions. He would still have to make the choice to do the right thing, even if the events were only a divine hallucination.




Can we make this assumption when Genesis states "the whole world was flooded"? :) My point is how we take the bible literally, and literally speaking, there were kingdoms all over the face of the earth.



I think many people who take Genesis and much of the rest of the bible literally still see Revelation as symbolic, so while I agree with you in principle, it's not as good an example as text that sits in an historical account that we are forced to re-interpret the content in order to get it to match reality. Thanks for the example, though.



I agree to a point. The ancient Hebrews had dramatically different views than we do today; they didn't see things in terms of historical accuracy (although they believed in what they were reading), but saw things in terms of symbolism. I think it wouldn't surprise them, for instance, to know that the numbers weren't the true amounts, but they would wonder why we thought that was inaccurate; after all, the numbers communicated the meanings.

I think most people understood the curve of the earth, but didn't really think of the earth as a sphere. It would not be outrageous to most of the non-scholarly types to think that there might be a mountain where you could see all the earth.

Don't shut up, I enjoy reading your posts. Feel free to add anything you see fit. :)

Ok thanks for explaining that on Jesus literally being in the desert..I thought I was going to have to sic my mean and scary dog, Buster on you...:lol:

Oh and on the numbers things..oh very good point they had a totally different view point of numbers for sure as you mentioned. Also their alphabet was numbered..in both Greek and Hebrew..a person could literally write a sentence using numbers only and others could read it. (though I realize that wasn't what you were talking about..just made me think of that).

Ok instead of using Revelation...lets look at the OT for examples of verses not to be taken literally:

Exodus 19:3-5

3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Just taking what I put in blue..we know this isn't literal. God didn't put all of the Hebrews or even Moses on a real eagles wings and bring them to Him. Its an expression...while they were literally saved from the Egyptians we know they were saved by sitting on a giant eagle! That one is pretty obvious I think.

Psalm 17:7-9

7 Show Your marvelous lovingkindness by Your right hand,
O You who save those who trust in You
From those who rise up against them.
8 Keep me as the apple of Your eye;
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,
9 From the wicked who oppress me,
From my deadly enemies who surround me.

Does God have wings? No the bible tells us in literal terms that God is a spirit..why would God need wings? Yet David uses this expression time and time again. We even see Jesus say this:

Matthew 23
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.

Its an expression. The OT is actually extremely symbolic and John in Revelation uses that expression language...if people don't know the OT well they aren't going to understand Revelation. And they won't fully understand many of Jesus teachings either as He quoted alot from the OT and used symbolic language that the Jews would know well from the OT.

Well here just read this:

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible (http://www.carm.org/bible/ms_science.htm)

Many people doubt the Bible for various reasons. One of them is that the Bible is not accurate scientifically. But this just isn't so. The Bible is not a book about science, but when it does speak scientifically, it is accurate. In fact, it was far ahead of any other writing of its time. Please consider the following:

1. The Shape of the Earth
1. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
1. This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
2. The Earth is suspended in nothing
1. "He spreads out the northern[skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing,"(Job. 26:7, NIV).
1. This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
3. The Stars are Innumerable
1. "He took him outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be'" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).
4. The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
1. "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).
5. The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
1. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
6. The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
1. "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
7. The Hydrologic Cycle
1. "He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job. 26:8, NIV).
2. "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV)
3. "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
8. The Concept of Entropy
1. "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded" (Psalm 102:22-26, NIV).
9. The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness
1. The listing for this section is too large for this page. But the scriptural references are Leviticus 12-14.
***********************************

Now notice how these verses were written...they don't sound literal...look at this one:

4. The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
1. "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils" (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).

Yet..it is literal! While I can't say God actually blasted these paths with the breath of His nose...(I image that is expression language but who knows! doesn't matter in this case anyway)...we know there are valleys in the seas. Pretty cool uh?

Here is another link:
Scientific Accuracy of the Bible (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0027_Scientific.html)

I think once people get the hang of the bible expressions it make it easier to understand what they were saying.

God bless

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 05:22 PM
Ok thanks for explaining that on Jesus literally being in the desert..I thought I was going to have to sic my mean and scary dog, Buster on you...:lol:

Am I supposed to read that the way I think I'm supposed to read it?

If so, you sound totally different over here. I never would've guessed. :)

moonglow
May 12th 2008, 05:59 PM
Am I supposed to read that the way I think I'm supposed to read it?

If so, you sound totally different over here. I never would've guessed. :)

Its only symbolic what I said...now figure it out...:lol:

Or is it?

:lol:


What do you mean I sound different 'over here'...where is here? On this thread? I sound different as compared to where else? :hmm:

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 06:13 PM
Its only symbolic what I said...now figure it out...:lol:

Or is it?

:lol:


What do you mean I sound different 'over here'...where is here? On this thread? I sound different as compared to where else? :hmm:

I chat with a poster called "busterdog" on ChristianForums.com every now and then...I thought maybe you were saying that was you?

teddyv
May 12th 2008, 07:15 PM
Exodus 19:3-5

3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Just taking what I put in blue..we know this isn't literal. God didn't put all of the Hebrews or even Moses on a real eagles wings and bring them to Him. Its an expression...while they were literally saved from the Egyptians we know they were saved by sitting on a giant eagle! That one is pretty obvious I think.


Sorry for a derail, but somewhat of a serendipitous moment. We had a sermon on this part of Exodus this past Sunday. Our pastor indicated it an allusion to how a young eaglet is taught to fly by the mother carrying the eaglet on her back and then dropping it (and catching it). In this way God was teaching the Israelites who He was on the journey from Egypt to Sinai where He more fully revealed himself and established his covenant with the people.

Anyway, continue on.:)

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 07:33 PM
There are all sorts of problems taking some of the bible literally.

Look at Matthew 4:8: Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

What mountain did Satan take Jesus to in order to let him see "all the kingdoms of the world"? I see no reason to interpret "all the kingdoms of the world" as anything else but all the cultures of the world at the time - from Rome to China to the Mayans in South America. I also see nothing in the text to indicate that this is a vision or that Jesus was given "special sight" - honestly, if the latter was true would the high mountain be necessary?

How do you explain this?

We're talking about Genesis, not Matthew. So before I answer this question (and a very poor one it is), why have you jumped out of Genesis and into Matthew? You surely aren't suggesting that when one says they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, they believe the entire Bible literally... I've yet to see trees clap...

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 07:52 PM
We're talking about Genesis, not Matthew. So before I answer this question (and a very poor one it is), why have you jumped out of Genesis and into Matthew?

Well, I ended up answering my question before you replied (above). The point is to show how we "decide" to not take some passages literally because we find out they can't be literal. In the Matthew 4 case, the text can't be taken literally because we know it's impossible view the entire earth from the top of any mountain. If you didn't KNOW that it was impossible then you wouldn't have any reason to think it was anything but literal; however, since you know it can't be literal, you make implications from scripture that it wasn't meant to be literal in the first place. The same thing I do with Genesis.

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 08:31 PM
Well, I ended up answering my question before you replied (above). The point is to show how we "decide" to not take some passages literally because we find out they can't be literal. In the Matthew 4 case, the text can't be taken literally because we know it's impossible view the entire earth from the top of any mountain. If you didn't KNOW that it was impossible then you wouldn't have any reason to think it was anything but literal; however, since you know it can't be literal, you make implications from scripture that it wasn't meant to be literal in the first place. The same thing I do with Genesis.

Here's the difference: I decide what 'is' or 'isn't' to be taken literally in Scripture because of what Scripture says. I will or will not take Matthew to be a literal event (a spiritual event?) because of what the text says, not because of what something outside of the text says. Very different than you and Genesis, where you decide how to interpret Genesis not because of other Scripture, but because of science.

I'm using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
You're using science to interpret Scripture.

What I mean is this: You didn't look at Matthew and decide Genesis wasn't literal. Otherwise you'd look at every other 'unbelievable' thing in Scripture come to the same conclusion, and you haven't. You look at science and in light of science you reinterpreted Genesis.

Just to reiterate; I haven't stated my belief on Matthew 4.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 09:36 PM
I'm using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
You're using science to interpret Scripture.

What I mean is this: You didn't look at Matthew and decide Genesis wasn't literal. Otherwise you'd look at every other 'unbelievable' thing in Scripture come to the same conclusion, and you haven't. You look at science and in light of science you reinterpreted Genesis.


That's a little simplistic. I use science to determine if I need to reevaluate my interpretation of scripture. Whatever that reevaluation leads me to, the final interpretation is purely based on scripture.

I think the Matthew 4 example explains this a little more clearly. When reading that scripture, there is really nothing internally to indicate that what is happening isn't literal. The wording doesn't indicate it can be taken any other way but literally. However, the reality (science) is that the earth is a sphere, and there exists nowhere on it a mountain from which you could see every kingdom that existed at that point in time. So, when I read it, I realize I must come to a different conclusion.

It seems only a few options are possible:

1) Jesus naturally saw what would be capable of being seen from whatever mountain he was taken to. The term "all the kingdoms of the world" was an exaggeration to highlight the offer that Jesus was turning down.

2) The entire temptation sequence was in a vision, and Jesus essentially was given a divine hallucination by which he saw what was described.

3) Satan bent space and the laws of nature to allow the entire earth to be seen at one time.

4) It never happened.

So, from the text - knowing that Jesus was fully human, and any human who fasted for 40 days and nights in a desert would be extremely weak and subject to hallucinations, I feel #2 is the best option. Not as a matter of faith, because we aren't given enough information; I don't claim that this is absolutely true, only that it's likely.

And the remarkable thing is, no matter which the option above (save #4, which my faith rejects), the core message of the text is unchanged. From a theological point of view, the unknown details don't really matter; what matters is that Jesus was tempted and did not succumb.

I hope this explains why I mentioned Matthew 4. That is the point I wanted to make - and how I apply science to Genesis. I know that what it says cannot be literally true, so I have reevaluated it and come up with different conclusions, and the core message of the text remains unchanged. "Science", in this view, is simply "reality". God is the creator and His nature is evident in creation. Nature cannot contradiction scripture, and scripture cannot contradict nature. When they seemingly do, and when it is obvious that the view of nature is true, then it becomes obvious to me that I need to reevaluate my understanding of scripture to see if it holds up to this new reality. And I've always found out that it does...even though it might change some of my core theology. Which is fine - if my core theology contradicts reality, then it is false and must be reevaluated.

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 09:49 PM
That's a little simplistic.

When you examine it, yes, it is very simple; why do we make things so hard? It goes like this; science tells me that a man can't die and raise Himself from the dead after three days--here I am believing such a thing.

Why is it that outside of the resurrection, no one wants to believe what the Bible says? It's all got to be metaphorical and allegorical... Otherwise it doesn't conform to 'reality'.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 10:20 PM
When you examine it, yes, it is very simple; why do we make things so hard? It goes like this; science tells me that a man can't die and raise Himself from the dead after three days--here I am believing such a thing.

Why is it that outside of the resurrection, no one wants to believe what the Bible says? It's all got to be metaphorical and allegorical... Otherwise it doesn't conform to 'reality'.

You understand, I fully believe that God performed miracles in the past and performs them today (in less obvious ways). God established a natural law; and God steps in, when needed, to break that natural law, in order to achieve His purpose among the humans he's granted free will. Nearly every miracle in the bible is of this nature; performed through a human interceder, in front of a particular audience, for the purpose of displaying God's will among men.

However, those one-time occurrences have something in common: they don't permanently alter the landscape of creation. Science cannot make a judgement on those events because there is no way it can detect such events; by their very nature they are unrepeatable and untestable. They have no ramifications in the physical world.

The accounts of creation and the flood, however, are markedly different. Their truth would, in fact, have very real and lasting effects on the nature of our world. They represent things that can be tested for, and tested against. My problem with accepting them as literal is NOT with God's ability to do them; he could've created it all in 7 days, 7 years, 7 nanoseconds or 7 hundred billion years. My problem is that the reality states that he did not do it that way. Thus, I read the scriptures to find that, in fact, they do not require the literalness of the events inside them to be true. All science has done is limit the possibilities of what those scriptures could mean; they don't drive the meanings themselves.

The ramifications of what I believe are not as big as you think. I still accept miracles and the sovereignty of God. I'm probably not all that different from you in my spiritual beliefs about worship, God's grace and such. I don't place God in any smaller role in the universe that you do.

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 10:21 PM
What?! I can't believe you guys think this was nothing more then a vision...you really think Jesus did not experience the desert and forty days of fasting and the temptation of satan? Or do you mean the 'vision' was only for seeing all the kingdoms of earth? Oh no! I mean yes! :lol: You are misunderstanding. I do believe He physically went out to a desolate place and fasted for forty days. Scripture tells us that He was tempted in every way as a man. I don't know about you but Satan has not come to me and physically taken me places. What he has done is put ideas and visions in my head of things I can have or do. Crawfish, was commenting that there is no mountain high enough to look down from and see 'all the kingdoms of the earth'. He stated that there was 'nothing' within the text to state that this 'mountain' was not literal. I was simply showing him that the very first verse in the passage gives us an idea that there is a vision coming. Much like John the revelator was actually in Patmos, on the Lord's Day yet what followed was a vision our Lord gave to him, so Yeshua was actually in the desert having fasted forty days yet the 'mountain' or the 'Temple visit' IMO is not intended to be taken as physical trips. I hope that clears things up. ;)

Blessings! :)

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 10:31 PM
You understand, I fully believe that God performed miracles in the past and performs them today (in less obvious ways). God established a natural law; and God steps in, when needed, to break that natural law, in order to achieve His purpose among the humans he's granted free will. Nearly every miracle in the bible is of this nature; performed through a human interceder, in front of a particular audience, for the purpose of displaying God's will among men.

However, those one-time occurrences have something in common: they don't permanently alter the landscape of creation. Science cannot make a judgement on those events because there is no way it can detect such events; by their very nature they are unrepeatable and untestable. They have no ramifications in the physical world.

It's a belief of convenience, though. Science tells us Genesis 1 can't be literal, therefore it must be metaphorical, allegorical. Science tells us a man can't be brought back to life after three days of being completely dead.. But oh, God intervened in this instance and so science can be done slightly ignored. And why? Because Genesis would leave a discernible footprint; the resurrection won't. At least, it won't in a 'testable' way, but the footprint of the resurrection is quite large disallowing that. It is, in other words, a belief only because science can't comment on it. One wonders what you would belief if science could?

Now, I admit God could have created the world in however amount of time He wanted to create it. Problem is that the text tells us how He created and how long it took him to create. I'm not limiting God insomuch as I'm believing what God told me He did (not saying you accused me of limiting God). There is no need for Christ if Genesis isn't literal; Christianity is useless, what God saw as 'good' is an extremely horrible thing. I'm not saying you aren't saved, I completely believe you are, but you can't ignore the ramifications of such a view; they are inescapable.

The foundation of the cross is found in the first eleven chapters of the Bible. If those chapters mean anything but what they mean in a literal sense, then Christianity is effectively destroyed.

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 10:57 PM
Now, I admit God could have created the world in however amount of time He wanted to create it. Problem is that the text tells us how He created and how long it took him to create. I'm not limiting God insomuch as I'm believing what God told me He did (not saying you accused me of limiting God). There is no need for Christ if Genesis isn't literal; Christianity is useless, what God saw as 'good' is an extremely horrible thing. I'm not saying you aren't saved, I completely believe you are, but you can't ignore the ramifications of such a view; they are inescapable.

The foundation of the cross is found in the first eleven chapters of the Bible. If those chapters mean anything but what they mean in a literal sense, then Christianity is effectively destroyed.

Well...assuming your profile age is accurate, 20 years ago when I was your age I believed pretty much the same thing. It's taken a lot of time and a lot of study to come to my current conclusions. I hope you don't take this as an insult or slight in any way; I'm just saying, I've been where you are and I feel differently now, and my faith is stronger than ever. I have found that the gospel is valid, and Christ's sacrifice essential, without a literal creation account; I see no conflict.

I hope you'll pray that I'll come around to the right way of thinking. And I'll pray that if you ever come to see the evidence like I do, then you, too will be strong enough to face it and keep your faith intact. I'm sure that will more than cover us both. ;)

Studyin'2Show
May 12th 2008, 11:05 PM
Well...assuming your profile age is accurate, 20 years ago when I was your age I believed pretty much the same thing. It's taken a lot of time and a lot of study to come to my current conclusions. I hope you don't take this as an insult or slight in any way; I'm just saying, I've been where you are and I feel differently now, and my faith is stronger than ever. I have found that the gospel is valid, and Christ's sacrifice essential, without a literal creation account; I see no conflict.

I hope you'll pray that I'll come around to the right way of thinking. And I'll pray that if you ever come to see the evidence like I do, then you, too will be strong enough to face it and keep your faith intact. I'm sure that will more than cover us both. ;)Ironically, 20 years ago when I was 20, I believed what you do. :D It took years of study to come to the my current conclusions. So, in my view, Xel'Naga's 20 years ahead of the the game! :lol:

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 11:16 PM
Well...assuming your profile age is accurate, 20 years ago when I was your age I believed pretty much the same thing. It's taken a lot of time and a lot of study to come to my current conclusions. I hope you don't take this as an insult or slight in any way; I'm just saying, I've been where you are and I feel differently now, and my faith is stronger than ever. I have found that the gospel is valid, and Christ's sacrifice essential, without a literal creation account; I see no conflict.

I hope you'll pray that I'll come around to the right way of thinking. And I'll pray that if you ever come to see the evidence like I do, then you, too will be strong enough to face it and keep your faith intact. I'm sure that will more than cover us both. ;)

My age is accurate, yes ;)
No insult taken... I know that in 20 years I'll believe what I believe now concerning creation, Genesis and the interpretation of the Bible. In 20 years, however, it will be a much deeper view :P

crawfish
May 12th 2008, 11:52 PM
Ironically, 20 years ago when I was 20, I believed what you do. :D It took years of study to come to the my current conclusions. So, in my view, Xel'Naga's 20 years ahead of the the game! :lol:

Who knows? As long as we all end up in the same place...

:pp

moonglow
May 13th 2008, 02:24 AM
Oh no! I mean yes! :lol: You are misunderstanding. I do believe He physically went out to a desolate place and fasted for forty days. Scripture tells us that He was tempted in every way as a man. I don't know about you but Satan has not come to me and physically taken me places. What he has done is put ideas and visions in my head of things I can have or do. Crawfish, was commenting that there is no mountain high enough to look down from and see 'all the kingdoms of the earth'. He stated that there was 'nothing' within the text to state that this 'mountain' was not literal. I was simply showing him that the very first verse in the passage gives us an idea that there is a vision coming. Much like John the revelator was actually in Patmos, on the Lord's Day yet what followed was a vision our Lord gave to him, so Yeshua was actually in the desert having fasted forty days yet the 'mountain' or the 'Temple visit' IMO is not intended to be taken as physical trips. I hope that clears things up. ;)

Blessings! :)

I always took them as literal...this was a major confrontation going on here...what in the passage suggest neither the temple or mountain were just visions? As I said, I have never heard anyone saying that before and haven't read that in commentaries either. (sorry if this is getting off topic too much...guess we could start a new thread on bible chat on it...discuss what is literal and what might have been a vision). Seem odd to me that satan could cause Jesus to have a vision...doesn't seem right at all...

God bless

Studyin'2Show
May 14th 2008, 10:18 AM
I always took them as literal...this was a major confrontation going on here...what in the passage suggest neither the temple or mountain were just visions? As I said, I have never heard anyone saying that before and haven't read that in commentaries either. (sorry if this is getting off topic too much...guess we could start a new thread on bible chat on it...discuss what is literal and what might have been a vision). Seem odd to me that satan could cause Jesus to have a vision...doesn't seem right at all...

God blessUnfortunately, Satan gives me visions all the time. Then I do want scripture tell me, speak God's word on the subject and cast down those vain imaginations. ;) Yeshua was tempted as we are; as a man. Either way though, He WAS tempted.

Blessings! :)

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 12:23 PM
Unfortunately, Satan gives me visions all the time. Then I do want scripture tell me, speak God's word on the subject and cast down those vain imaginations. ;) Yeshua was tempted as we are; as a man. Either way though, He WAS tempted.

Blessings! :)

Great point. He was tempted in ALL ways like we are. Sometimes, that's easy to forget.

moonglow
May 14th 2008, 12:54 PM
Unfortunately, Satan gives me visions all the time. Then I do want scripture tell me, speak God's word on the subject and cast down those vain imaginations. ;) Yeshua was tempted as we are; as a man. Either way though, He WAS tempted.

Blessings! :)

Oh my! I am sorry to hear that...:( That must be tough. I never heard of that happening to anyone...didn't know it was possible either. I will keep you in my prayers on this.

Yes Jesus was tempted.

God bless

Studyin'2Show
May 14th 2008, 03:19 PM
Oh my! I am sorry to hear that...:( That must be tough. I never heard of that happening to anyone...didn't know it was possible either. I will keep you in my prayers on this.

Yes Jesus was tempted.

God bless:lol: I'm not sure what you think I was saying but any prayers my way are always welcomed. :D I think you have some picture of someone having some sort of satanic fantasy but that is not what I meant at all. How are you tempted? If it's with a chocolate cake, do you possibly lick your lips and imagine yourself digging into a huge piece that you know you shouldn't. This is the concept I am referring to. This is how I am tempted when I am tempted. When you initially think of something that you know is against God you have two choices. Either accept the thought as no big deal or cast it out with the word of God. You know, get thee behind me satan and then quote the scripture that applies. I prefer the latter which scripture says will allow me to 'cast down vain imagination.' Anyway, thanks for the prayer, but I think we ALL need it because we ALL deal with temptation. ;)

Blessings! :)

Studyin'2Show
May 14th 2008, 03:23 PM
Great point. He was tempted in ALL ways like we are. Sometimes, that's easy to forget.That's it! He was tempted JUST AS we ARE tempted. So a key to understanding how the temptation worked with Him is understanding how WE are tempted. ;) Uh oh! I think I see a huge derail. :lol: