Genesis By The Slice

[WebersHome]

-
Hello; and welcome to the very first book of the Bible.

I noticed when I signed on with Christian Chat that there's quite a bit of
interest in Bible reading; so I'm thinking, what the hay; I might just as well
get with the program by posting a systematic, daily-bread style commentary
on the book of Genesis, practically verse by verse, from the creation of the
cosmos to Joseph's burial in Egypt. I've done this several times on other
forums in the past so I have a ready archive of material all set to go.

Barring emergencies, accidents, vacations, unforeseen circumstances,
and/or insurmountable distractions, difficulties, computer crashes, black
outs, brown outs, Wall Street Armageddon, the dog ate my homework,
Executive Orders, brute force, Philae, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, gasoline
prices, and dumb luck et al; I'm making an effort to post something fresh
and new to read on this thread every day including Sundays and holidays.

All the really cool stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of
human life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the
first transgression, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first
baby, Cain and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the
origin of Yhvh's people.

Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael,
Rebecca, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here too. (Sorry, but Moses vs.
Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea are in Exodus; Samson and Delilah
are in Judges, and David and Goliath are in 1Samuel)

Buen Camino
/

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 1:1

-
The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to
Moses. Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410
BC; which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological history--
a mere 3,400 years ago. Since Moses penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's
conceivable that he also penned Genesis; but in reality, nobody really
knows.

Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far
back as Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation
than anybody, and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the
existence of a supreme being since he knew his creator like a next door
neighbor. That would explain why the book begins with an in-your-face
deistic account of the origin of the cosmos, rather than waste words with an
apologetic to convince atheists and agnostics that a divine architect is
responsible for the origin of the cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter,
and energy.

As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences
to the record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah
or one of his descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ
himself authenticated its divine inspiration by referring to it in his own
teachings. (e.g. Matt 19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51,
Luke 17:26-29 & 32, John 7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

†. Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The word for "God" is from the Hebrew 'elohiym (el-o-heem'). It's a plural
noun and means, ordinarily: gods. 'Elohiym isn't really the creator's personal
name, but an abstract deistic term that pertains to all sorts of gods, along
with, and including, the supreme one.

The "beginning" is mentioned again at 1John 1:1 which I believe safe to
assume compliments John 1:1-2

†. Gen 1:1b . . created the heaven and earth--

The word for "heaven" is from the Hebrew word shamayim (shaw-mah'
yim) and means: to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the plural (heavens) perhaps
alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher
ether where celestial bodies reside). So the word "heaven" is ambiguous and
can mean the breathable air in our planet's atmosphere as well as the
stratosphere and the vast celestial regions of space. Shamayim corresponds
to the "air" in the Navy SEAL acronym that stands for Sea, Air, and Land.

The Hebrew word for "earth" is 'erets (eh'-rets) which is yet another of the
Bible's many ambiguous words. It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or
the whole planet.

Anyway; Genesis 1:1 merely reveals the origin of the cosmos without going
into detail. It's a "Once upon a time" sort of statement with a story to
follow.

=================================

 

[tourist]

It's been a slice...

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 1:1

-
The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to
Moses. Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410
BC; which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's geological history--
a mere 3,400 years ago. Since Moses penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's
conceivable that he also penned Genesis; but in reality, nobody really
knows.

Genesis may in fact be the result of several contributors beginning as far
back as Adam himself; who would certainly know more about the creation
than anybody, and who entertained no doubts whatsoever about the
existence of a supreme being since he knew his creator like a next door
neighbor. That would explain why the book begins with an in-your-face
deistic account of the origin of the cosmos, rather than waste words with an
apologetic to convince atheists and agnostics that a divine architect is
responsible for the origin of the cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter,
and energy.

Deistic account? You were doing good until that point. Genesis is most definitely a theistic account of the creation filled with miraculous interventions over a 6 day period.

As time went by, others like Seth and Noah would add their own experiences
to the record, and then Abraham his, Isaac his, Jacob his, and finally Judah
or one of his descendants completing the record with Joseph's burial.

Actually you should look into the tablet theory. I'm with you, I believe Moses used pre-existing documents to compile Genesis, and there is textual evidence within the text itself to support this, in the dozen toledoth statements found in Genesis. These statements have names attached to them in most instances, and tablet theorists believe they are the names of the original authors of the documents (or tablets) Mose used. Here's a list of them.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created…. (Gen. 2:4a)
This is the written account of Adam’s line…. (Gen. 5:1a) (literally: this [is] the account of the book of Adam.)
This is the account of Noah. (Gen. 6:9a)
This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (Gen. 10:1)
These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. (Gen. 10:32a)
This is the account of Shem. (Gen. 11:10a)
This is the account of Terah. (Gen. 11:27a)
This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham. (Gen. 25:12)
This is the account of Abraham’s son Isaac. (Gen. 25:19a)
This is the account of Esau (that is, Edom). (Gen. 36:1)
This is the account of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. (Gen. 36:9)
This is the account of Jacob. (Gen. 37:2a)​

Henry Morris was an advocate of this theory as are most young earth creationists organizations (AiG, CMI, etc.).

...The word for "heaven" is from the Hebrew word shamayim (shaw-mah'
yim) and means: to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the plural (heavens) perhaps
alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher
ether where celestial bodies reside). So the word "heaven" is ambiguous and
can mean the breathable air in our planet's atmosphere as well as the
stratosphere and the vast celestial regions of space. Shamayim corresponds
to the "air" in the Navy SEAL acronym that stands for Sea, Air, and Land.

You're going a bit astray here also. Heaven is the upward expanse in which the heavenly bodies dwell, including clouds which can been seen moving through an open expense. There's nothing in the Bible to indicate heaven is limited to the atmosphere, and I doubt this is a concept the ancient writers understood.

The Hebrew word for "earth" is 'erets (eh'-rets) which is yet another of the
Bible's many ambiguous words. It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or
the whole planet.

I would dispute this as well. 'erets in my view, always refers to land and never a land sea unit, like a planet concept. You'll noticed that earth in the Bible is always in contrast to the sky and sea. (ex. 20:11 for example)

Anyway; Genesis 1:1 merely reveals the origin of the cosmos without going
into detail. It's a "Once upon a time" sort of statement with a story to
follow.

It may indeed be a once upon a time statement, but re'shyth can refer to a beginning period, rather than just an instance of beginning. It often is used to refer to the beginning periods of kings' reigns. What's actually going in Genesis chapter 1 is the detailed explanation of the creation of the heavens and earth. The six days is the beginning verse 1 refers to, but in great detail. Day 1 is the creation of the unformed and unfilled land and sky. Days 2 and 3 are the expanding of space and formation of the land and sea. days 4-6 are the filling of the sky land and sea. It's very logical and straightforward.

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 1:2-4a

-
†. Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an
energy that would make it possible for its particles to coalesce into
something coherent.

Curiously, scientists have not yet been able to figure out what gives particles
their mass. In point of fact, the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider was
constructed for the specific purpose of finding a special particle called the
Higgs Boson (a.k.a. the God particle) because it is believed by some that the
Higgs particle "creates" a field that grants other particles their mass. But of
course the Higgs itself is a mystery. Its field is alleged to grant all other
particles their mass, but if true; then what gives the Higgs its mass? Until
somebody figures that out, the Higgs field will remain an unproven theory.

†. Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This particular "deep" I believe can be safely assumed to be the void; viz:
the seemingly infinite space housing the known universe.

†. Gen 1:2c . . and Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the
waters.

The "waters" at this point in the earth's history probably weren't the liquid
commonly known as H2O. It's just a "place-holder" name; viz: a convenient
label for the colossal soup of freshly created particles that would eventually
be utilized to construct the universe's physical properties.

The Spirit's job, therefore, was as a sort of cattle wrangler circling the herd
and keeping all the various particles together so they didn't drift away and
get lost because as yet there were no forces at work keeping things
together.

†. Gen 1:3 . . Then God said: "Let there be light" and there was light.

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb states that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and galaxies
to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's statement
correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day of
creation; while glowing celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.

The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Genesis tells us that light's origin was supernatural; viz:
God did it. However, Genesis doesn't tell us "how" God did it. Well; thanks to
science we today know a lot more about how God did some things than the
author of Genesis.

Well; the creation of light was an intricate process. First of all; God had to
create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific
properties, including mass. Then He had to invent laws to govern how
matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of, other kinds of
matter in order to generate photons. The same laws that make it possible
for matter to generate photons also make other conditions possible too; e.g.
thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms, molecules,
magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature,
pressure, force, inertia, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light
was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

The interesting thing about the laws of physics is that they're not absolute
laws. No; they are created laws-- created as a companion to the created
cosmos to regulate how the cosmos, with all of its forms of life, matter, and
energy, behaves. In other words; just as God has power over all of nature
and all of nature's natural processes; he therefore has power over the laws
of physics and can make things in our world behave quite contrary to the
ways you'd expect. Take for example the floating axe head in 2Kgs 6:5-6.
Solid chunks of iron don't float. That's unnatural. Another example is the
fire-proof bush of Ex 3:2. A bush that's impervious to fire is unnatural. It
should have flared up and Moses knew it too but it didn't because God can
easily modify the behavior of everything He ever created, including, but not
limited to, the properties of fire and water.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
Peter Higgs' boson.

†. Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness always represents bad things in the Bible; while
light always represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.

=================================

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 1:2-4a

-†. Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good.
In point of fact, darkness always represents bad things in the Bible; while
light always represents good things. It's been an axiom from the very
beginning.

=================================

But He did say the light/dark cycle was good. God created the light, but then created day/night cycles. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that the night portion of this cycle was not good. In fact, God, after creating everything, called everything "very good." We need to be very careful trying to proclaim bad things existed prior to the fall.

 

[WebersHome]

Re: Gen 1:2-4a

But He did say the light/dark cycle was good. God created the light, but
then created day/night cycles. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that
the night portion of this cycle was not good. In fact, God, after creating
everything, called everything "very good." We need to be very careful trying
to proclaim bad things existed prior to the fall.

I appreciate your concern; however, regardless of your feelings about it;
darkness is always a figure of speech for bad things in the Bible. Bad things
don't eo ipso mean morally evil things but also disagreeable things, unfavorable
things, unpleasant things, harmful things, unhealthy things, sorrowful things,
untimely things, etc.

=============================

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 1:4b-5

-
†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God
called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to the Lord's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of
deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.

Anyplace there's light, there is no true darkness because light always dispels
darkness. However, darkness is powerless to dispel light. In other words;
science and industry have given the world a flashlight; but they have yet to
give the world a flashdark. So then, light is the superior of the two and rules
the dark; for example:

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend
it." (John 1:5)

The koiné Greek word for "comprehend" is katalambano (kat-al-am-ban'-o)
which basically means to take, seize, or possess eagerly. At 1Thess 5:4 it's
translated overtake (as a thief, in a sudden and/or unexpected way). At
Mark 9:18 it's translated seizure (as in demon possession). The idea is,
darkness is powerless to stop light from dominating it. Even a little kid with
a candle can conquer darkness; because light, even the light from a candle,
is impervious to darkness, and darkness has no way to fight it off and/or
beat it back. However, where there is no light, then darkness definitely has
the advantage.

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

The Hebrew word for "evening" is 'ereb (eh'-reb) which means: dusk. And
the word for "morning" is boqer (bo'-ker) which can mean either dawn (as
the break of day) and/or morning (as the early part of day)

The Bible's dusk is a bit ambiguous and somewhat different than Webster's
dusk. In the Bible, evening is actually anytime between high noon and
sunset when the sun is losing altitude as opposed to morning which is
anytime between sunrise and high noon when the sun is gaining altitude.

The terms evening and morning therefore are limited to daylight hours since
Gen 1:4-5 clearly defines Day as a time of light rather than a time of
darkness. Biblically; a civil day is no more than twelve hours (John 11:9).
However, as we're going to see very soon, a creation day is quite a bit
longer-- but the point to note is that creation's days were periods of light
rather than periods of darkness.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth. Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days
of creation were 24 solar hours in length; but scientific dating methods have
easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years.
So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent
epochs of indeterminable length rather than calendar days of 24 solar hours
apiece.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
solar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation were
longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and
not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning". The interesting
thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till the fourth day
when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest that the
expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to indicate the
simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another; and even
more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light only, rather
than periods of light and darkness together. In other words; none of God's
creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very significant.

NOTE: Some Bible students regard science an enemy of Genesis; but science
and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist
each other. Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than
enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words;
science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that
religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot
answer.

=================================

 

[WebersHome]

Gen 1:6-10

-
†. Gen 1:6a . . God said: Let there be an expanse

The word for "expanse" is from raqiya' (raw-kee'-ah) and means: a great
extent of something spread out, a firmament, the visible arch of the sky.

Raqiya' is distinct from shamyim in that it indicates the earth's atmosphere;
which is sort of sandwiched between the surface of the earth and the
vacuum of space.

†. Gen 1:6b-8 . . in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from
water. God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below
the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so.
And God named the expanse Sky.

At this point in time, I think we can safely assume that "water" is no longer
a place-card name for the colossal soup of particles God created in Gen 1:2
but the molecular combination commonly known as two parts hydrogen and
one part oxygen.

We can easily guess what is meant by water that's below the sky. But is
there really water that's above it? Yes, and it's a lot! According to an article
in the Sept 2013 issue of National Geographic magazine, Earth's atmosphere
holds roughly 3,095 cubic miles of water in the form of vapor. That may
seem like a preposterous number of cubic miles of water; but not really
when it's considered that Lake Superior's volume alone is estimated at
nearly 3,000.

Our planet is really big; a whole lot bigger than people sometimes realize. It's
surface area, in square miles, is 7,868,514,463. To give an idea of just how
many square miles that is: if somebody were to wrap a belt around the
equator made of one-mile squares; it would only take 24,900 squares to
complete the distance; and that's just a mere .000312% of the earth's total.
surface area.

Some of the more familiar global warming gases are carbon dioxide,
fluorocarbons, methane, and ozone. But as popular as those gases are with
the media, they're bit players in comparison to the role that ordinary water
vapor plays in global warming. By some estimates; atmospheric water vapor
accounts for more than 90% of global warming; which is not a bad thing
because without atmospheric water vapor, the earth would be so cold that
the only life that could exist here would be extremophiles.

How much water is below the expanse? Well; according to the same article;
the amount of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O contained in swamp water, lakes and rivers, ground
water, and oceans, seas, and bays adds up to something like 326.6 million
cubic miles; and that's not counting the 5.85 million cubic miles tied up in
living organisms, soil moisture, ground ice and permafrost, ice sheets,
glaciers, and permanent snow.

To put that in perspective: if we were to construct a tower 326.6 million
miles high, it would exceed the Sun's distance by 233.6 million miles.

†. Gen 1:8b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a second
day.

†. Gen 1:9 . . God said: Let the waters below the sky be gathered into one
area, that dry ground may appear. And it was so.

If you're a student of geology, then you know Gen 1:9 speaks volumes and
fully deserves some serious consideration. Shaping the earth's mantle in
order to form low spots for the seas and high spots for dry ground was a
colossal feat of magma convection and volcanism combined with the titanic
forces of tectonic plate subduction; all of which require beaucoup centuries
to accomplish.

At the ocean's deepest surveyed point-- the Challenger Deep; located in the
Mariana Islands group, at the southern end of the Mariana Trench --the
water's depth is over 11,000 meters; which is about 6.8 statute miles
(36,000 feet). That depth corresponds to the cruising altitude of a Boeing
747. At that altitude, probably about all you're going to see of the airliner
without straining your eyes is its contrail. Were Mt Everest to be submerged
in the Challenger Deep it would still have about 7,000 feet of water over its
peak.

The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near the summit of Mt Everest proves
that the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one
time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow
band" below Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made
from calcite sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions
of organisms who lived, not on dry land, but in an ocean.

"He established the Earth on its foundations, so that it shall never totter.
You made the deep cover it as a garment; the waters stood above the
mountains. They fled at your blast, rushed away at the sound of your
thunder-- mountains rising, valleys sinking to the place you established for
them. You set bounds they must not pass so that they never again cover the
Earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

Psalm 104 is stunning; and clearly way ahead of its time. It says that the
land masses we know today as mountains were at one time submerged; and
it isn't talking about Noah's flood. The speech of "mountains rising, and
valleys sinking" isn't Flood-speak, no, it's geology-speak. I seriously doubt
that the Psalmist knew about the science of tectonic plates, magma
pressure, and the forces of subduction, but he was clearly somehow aware
that the Earth's crust is malleable. And that's true. With just the right
combination of temperature and pressure, solid rock can be made to bend;
even forced to hairpin back upon itself like taffy.

†. Gen 1:10 . . God called the dry ground Land, and the gathering of waters
He called Seas. And God saw that this was good.

"good" meaning not that the dry ground and seas are moral, but rather,
perfectly suitable for the purposes that God had in mind for them.

NOTE: there are Hebrew words in the Bible for marshes, impoundments,
rivers, and streams; but I've yet to encounter one for natural lakes and ponds.
In other words "seas" suffices not only for oceans; but also for all the smaller
bodies of naturally occurring water.

=================================

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 1:2-4a

I appreciate your concern; however, regardless of your feelings about it;
darkness is always a figure of speech...

No, darkness is not always a figure of speech. If it often, but sometimes darkness is literal. In the case of Genesis, it is literal and the day night cycle is called "very good."

And think about it. There is no such thing as a word "always" being used figuratively. If it was, then the figurative meaning would actually be literal.

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 1:4b-5

Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

The Hebrew word for "evening" is 'ereb (eh'-reb) which means: dusk. And
the word for "morning" is boqer (bo'-ker) which can mean either dawn (as
the break of day) and/or morning (as the early part of day)

The Bible's dusk is a bit ambiguous and somewhat different than Webster's
dusk. In the Bible, evening is actually anytime between high noon and
sunset when the sun is losing altitude as opposed to morning which is
anytime between sunrise and high noon when the sun is gaining altitude.

The terms evening and morning therefore are limited to daylight hours since
Gen 1:4-5 clearly defines Day as a time of light rather than a time of
darkness. Biblically; a civil day is no more than twelve hours (John 11:9).
However, as we're going to see very soon, a creation day is quite a bit
longer-- but the point to note is that creation's days were periods of light
rather than periods of darkness.

WH, you're simply missing the easy straightforward and logical reading of this passage. 'ereb simply means the close of the daytime, while boqer means close of the nighttime. Thus it's very logical that 'ereb (evening) would be mentioned before boqer (morning). First came the close of the day—evening, then he close of the night—morning.

Dusks and dawns are the primary ingredients of days. They are what define the day night cycles, which is why they are mentioned. The question is, do you trust God's over man's.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth. Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days
of creation were 24 solar hours in length; but scientific dating methods have
easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years.
So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent
epochs of indeterminable length rather than calendar days of 24 solar hours
apiece.

In other words, even though God's word clearly says that days were literal evening morning days, you've opted to trust science over scripture. But I look at the history of science and see centuries of errors and mistakes by mere men. At one point, scientists used to believe the sun orbited the earth. Not the church, mind you (though many in the church trusted them), but the scientists of that day. They have been wrong from the beginning of time. Why do you think they're infallible now?

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
solar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation were
longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and
not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Which is a very common error that unfortunately, you've just repeated. But I'm glad you brought this up.

Any word in any language can be used in any way depending on context. yom in the hebrew is virtually identical to day in english. It can be used figuratively or literally, and context always determines its precise meaning. Check out this sentence for instance:

In my grandfathers day, he walked to school every day, and always made it home by the end of the day. ​

Did you notice there are 3 different uses of the word day there? Each is distinct, and each meaning is unchangeable in its particular context. You can't change he meaning of the 1st use to the 2nd, and can't change the 2nd to the 3rd, or 3rd the 1st. Language just doesn't work like that. Just because an alternative meaning exists, doesn't mean you can ignore context and cherry pick any meaning that makes you feel good. We are instead to look to the author to indicate the meaning of his own terms.

Again, WH, this is a faith issue for you. Do you place your faith in God or men? Medical science says men don't rise from the dead after 3 days. The Bible says Christ did just this, as well as many others such as Lazarus. And there are professing christians like Bishop Spong who deny a literal resurrection based on the very arguments you are making. But I would advise you to stop trying to fit the Bible into modern naturalism. Just let it say what it says and trust it.

Grace and peace.

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

it's a footnote of sorts, that the enemies of Christ Jesus, the liars** who are sons of their father hasatan the father of all lies,
claim (and push, and use) evolution and the processes and the such like and associated with ungdoly processes,
and teach them without deviance(changing though as errors are frequently pointed out) to the people they conquer,
the beast does also (the world false chruch).
**(communists, socialists, etc.... oppressive governments and religions)

do not even attempt to 'fellowship' with such evildoers as these... but instead reprove them - no, do not study them!.

the worldly, the carnal, the abominations on earth, the false prophet and false prophets all outnumber the truth, greatly, but still remain untrue.
yet, as long as there's money in it, many multitudes will willy nilly without thought about it just go right along to destruction.

 

[Calminian]

Well there are enemies to Christ to be sure, but there are also christians that struggle with faith in certain things and become deceived. I think one can be wrong about Genesis and still saved. Faith of a mustard seed is all that's required. But I also believe the church is missing a tremendous blessing rejecting the straightforward reading of Genesis. It's had a very damaging affect on subsequent generations to be sure. And it only makes sense. How can we tell our kids to believe the end of the Bible, when we reject the beginning.

 

[sealchan]

Which is more correct, the Bible's story of creation, heard of (from God/inspired), spoken by, written by and translated by man? A simple, straight-forward story based on an experience from a certain time forever static into the future? Or science's story of creation, read from the behavior of God's creation (pronounced 'very good' by Him) in an ever-evolving, developing complexity revealing more and more that this could be no work of man showing, furthermore, through its process man's fallibility to over simplify the subtlety and complexity that is the work of God?

Indeed, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, science's story of creation shows in many ways the incredible beauty, subtlety and mastery of God's creation much more profoundly than does the story in Genesis. The creation story is a simple, beautiful folk tune to science's ever-expanding symphony. Both stories give glory to God in that both are inspired by the work of God.

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

who do you know who teaches their children what is right ? whose children are ready to die today for the Gospel's sake (while many are ready to live and to die "for their country", why aren't they taught right to life and to die for the Creator by faith in Jesus ???!!!!))

remember the end >> as it is written>> even when 1/3 of men die from plague and war and famine, and children have parents put to death, and parents have each other put to death,
the REST OF MANKIND does not even think of turning to GOD FOR HELP ! (they don't even THINK OF IT!) i.e. NO REPENTANCE.... (except for the remnant, a few, as it is written several times)....

and, if children are lied to , and told that science is correct, (and their other teachers too- socialogy, economics, electronics, biology, politico, etc etc etc) then how are they EVER going to learn TRUTH !?!

Well there are enemies to Christ to be sure,..... I also believe the church is missing a tremendous blessing rejecting the straightforward reading of Genesis. It's had a very damaging affect on subsequent generations to be sure. And it only makes sense. How can we tell our kids to believe the end of the Bible, when we reject the beginning.

 

[WebersHome]

Re: Gen 1:4b-5

this is a faith issue for you.

Yes, it is a faith issue with me; and because of that, I'm just as convinced
that my comments speak for God as you are yours.

====================================

 

[Calminian]

....and, if children are lied to , and told that science is correct...

Science usually is correct. Science has given us many things. But science comes into error when it assumes God never intervenes, and happens to investigate an area where God has.

I think we need to be smart how we explain this to our kids.

 

[Calminian]

Re: Gen 1:4b-5

Yes, it is a faith issue with me; and because of that, I'm just as convinced
that my comments speak for God as you are yours.

====================================

Well perhaps we're talking about a different kind of faith. I'm not interested in stubborn belief. I want to approach God's word with an open mind, and let the text say what it says. I have no interested in coming to the Bible with preconceived notions, and then try to fit God's words into those ideas. I rather want my ideas to flow from the text, so I can rightly judge man's ideas, even my own ideas.

 

[Calminian]

Which is more correct, the Bible's story of creation, heard of (from God/inspired), spoken by, written by and translated by man? A simple, straight-forward story based on an experience from a certain time forever static into the future? Or science's story of creation, read from the behavior of God's creation (pronounced 'very good' by Him) in an ever-evolving, developing complexity revealing more and more that this could be no work of man showing, furthermore, through its process man's fallibility to over simplify the subtlety and complexity that is the work of God?

Well now be careful because the "very good" original world was made prior to the entrance of sin into the world. Revelation has been kept pure, but the world itself is now cursed, as are the minds of men trying to discern origins through naturalistic assumptions.

Indeed, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, science's story of creation shows in many ways the incredible beauty, subtlety and mastery of God's creation much more profoundly than does the story in Genesis. The creation story is a simple, beautiful folk tune to science's ever-expanding symphony. Both stories give glory to God in that both are inspired by the work of God.

I don't see the "scientific" (i.e. naturalistic) story as beautiful at all. It's a story death and suffering for millions of years. The fossil record reveals things like cancer and even cannibalism supposedly millions of years before man came on the scene and started sinning. In that world, sin is not the cause of death and suffering, for those things all preceded sin. That's not the biblical story, though. We know the origins of death. We know why suffering came about, if we'd only trust God and believe. Man was not a blip at the very end of creation, but made from the beginning.

Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

 

[WebersHome]

Well perhaps we're talking about a different kind of faith. I'm not interested
in stubborn belief. I want to approach God's word with an open mind, and
let the text say what it says. I have no interested in coming to the Bible with
preconceived notions, and then try to fit God's words into those ideas. I
rather want my ideas to flow from the text, so I can rightly judge man's
ideas, even my own ideas.

I am not afraid to get up here on the world wide web and profess that I am
convinced that my comments speak for God; but you have not yet publically
professed the same confidence in your own comments. I should think that if
you are not confident that your comments speak for God, then the
honorable thing to do would be to stop insinuating that others are unfaithful
just because they don't see things your way.

=====================================