getting dates about a young earth
- Thread starter Dan_473
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Greek verb used in the Gospel account of 'water to wine' inherently shows that a process was involved.
The Gen 1 account shows a creation process.
A sequence.
Completion of one creation cycle and then the commencement of another.
This is obviously intended to inform the reader of a process...a very long process.
The Gen 1 account shows a creation process.
A sequence.
Completion of one creation cycle and then the commencement of another.
This is obviously intended to inform the reader of a process...a very long process.
I think it a good possibility
It is very unusual for a Biblical passage not to mention the patriarch of the family, especially when a marriage takes place (Gen 24). Rebecca refers to herself as 'the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son'. Had Shem been alive she would have said she was his 'daughter'. In Josh 24.2 it may be that Shem no longer believed in YHWH, but the verse reads as though Terah and Nahor were the patriarchs who were alive. They were their 'fathers'. To have Shem living among them unnamed is against all ancient custom.
and genealogies of ten were a feature of the ancient world
The ages of the patriarchs in Gen 5 were mainly ending in 0 or 5. they were round numbers. Adam's was seventy short of 1000 (70 short of the ideal age). Enoch's was 365 (days of the year for a heavenly man). Lamech was 777. Contrast the other Lamech. He was the perfect Lamech.
They were describing pre-history, and the rapid fall in age after the Flood.
It is very unusual for a Biblical passage not to mention the patriarch of the family, especially when a marriage takes place (Gen 24). Rebecca refers to herself as 'the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son'. Had Shem been alive she would have said she was his 'daughter'. In Josh 24.2 it may be that Shem no longer believed in YHWH, but the verse reads as though Terah and Nahor were the patriarchs who were alive. They were their 'fathers'. To have Shem living among them unnamed is against all ancient custom.
and genealogies of ten were a feature of the ancient world
The ages of the patriarchs in Gen 5 were mainly ending in 0 or 5. they were round numbers. Adam's was seventy short of 1000 (70 short of the ideal age). Enoch's was 365 (days of the year for a heavenly man). Lamech was 777. Contrast the other Lamech. He was the perfect Lamech.
They were describing pre-history, and the rapid fall in age after the Flood.
does it indicate that fermentation was involved?
the headwaiter is operating on common sense. everybody knows wine takes time,
unless a miracle is involved.
looking at the earth with common sense,
maybe some geology,
would tell you this took billions of years,
unless a miracle is involved.
that would be the thinking of the example.
the headwaiter is operating on common sense. everybody knows wine takes time,
unless a miracle is involved.
looking at the earth with common sense,
maybe some geology,
would tell you this took billions of years,
unless a miracle is involved.
that would be the thinking of the example.
I was with you up 'til the very end.
it's certainly not obvious to me that the text indicates a very long process.
I would think that literal days is generaly how very conservative christians, very liberal christians, and non-christians would read it.
very conservative christians who generally read the bible literally,
very liberal christians and non-christians who wouldn't consider it a scientific text. a mythic form would be expected... so, sure, literal days works just fine.
what about the text leads you to say it's a long process?
it's certainly not obvious to me that the text indicates a very long process.
I would think that literal days is generaly how very conservative christians, very liberal christians, and non-christians would read it.
very conservative christians who generally read the bible literally,
very liberal christians and non-christians who wouldn't consider it a scientific text. a mythic form would be expected... so, sure, literal days works just fine.
what about the text leads you to say it's a long process?
ok, I can see those possibilities.
I think it would lean toward a figurative reading of the bible (I've experimented with it myself).
one thing I'm interested in other people is where to stop with symbols.
like, do adam and eve have to be real people, the first humans?
could they be mythic devices to explain why humans are they way they are?
I think it would lean toward a figurative reading of the bible (I've experimented with it myself).
one thing I'm interested in other people is where to stop with symbols.
like, do adam and eve have to be real people, the first humans?
could they be mythic devices to explain why humans are they way they are?
I do adhere to Ussher's 17th century dating of Adam being formed in God's Garden in 4004 B.C., his using the begats recorded from Christ back to Adam. E.W. Bullinger did this calculation too and arrived at the same 4004 B.C. date, which I'm pretty sure one can find his Appendix chart on that documentation.
That puts the flood of Noah's days around 2500 B.C., definitely not 10,000 B.C. (Bullinger has Noah having the ark built by 2348 B.C.).
In 2 Peter 3, Peter described 3 different divisions of ages upon the earth between destructions by God:
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
KJV
2 Peter 3:13
13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV
1. "the world that then was"
2. "the heavens and the earth, which are now"
3. "new heavens and a new earth"
I bring to attention Peter's description of, "... that by the word of God, the heavens were of old, the earth standing out the water and in the water."
I do not see that being about the flood of Noah's day, but about a flood of waters upon the earth described in Genesis 1:
Gen 1:2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV
Gen 1:6-9
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
KJV
At that point after God had moved part of those waters up off the earth to the sky, and then parted the waters left upon the earth to cause the dry land to appear, that... is where I interpret Peter speaking of "... the earth standing out of the water and in the water."
Notice also the phrase, "that by the word of God, the heavens were of old, ...." which is attached to that event timing of "the earth standing out of the water and in the water." In the beginning at Gen.1:1 is when God spoke and created the heavens:
Ps 33:6
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
KJV
2 Peter 3:5
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
That is why I refuse to simply assign that 2 Pet.3:5 Scripture to the time of the flood of Noah's days, because that shows Peter was actually pointing all the way back to the time of Genesis 1:1 when God in the beginning created those heavens. And immediately after Peter said that phrase he included the time of the earth standing out of the water and in the water, representing a flood of waters upon the earth right AFTER Genesis 1:1.
That puts the flood of Noah's days around 2500 B.C., definitely not 10,000 B.C. (Bullinger has Noah having the ark built by 2348 B.C.).
In 2 Peter 3, Peter described 3 different divisions of ages upon the earth between destructions by God:
2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
KJV
2 Peter 3:13
13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV
1. "the world that then was"
2. "the heavens and the earth, which are now"
3. "new heavens and a new earth"
I bring to attention Peter's description of, "... that by the word of God, the heavens were of old, the earth standing out the water and in the water."
I do not see that being about the flood of Noah's day, but about a flood of waters upon the earth described in Genesis 1:
Gen 1:2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV
Gen 1:6-9
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
KJV
At that point after God had moved part of those waters up off the earth to the sky, and then parted the waters left upon the earth to cause the dry land to appear, that... is where I interpret Peter speaking of "... the earth standing out of the water and in the water."
Notice also the phrase, "that by the word of God, the heavens were of old, ...." which is attached to that event timing of "the earth standing out of the water and in the water." In the beginning at Gen.1:1 is when God spoke and created the heavens:
Ps 33:6
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
KJV
2 Peter 3:5
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
That is why I refuse to simply assign that 2 Pet.3:5 Scripture to the time of the flood of Noah's days, because that shows Peter was actually pointing all the way back to the time of Genesis 1:1 when God in the beginning created those heavens. And immediately after Peter said that phrase he included the time of the earth standing out of the water and in the water, representing a flood of waters upon the earth right AFTER Genesis 1:1.
The Gospels and many parts of the Old Testament are based on a form of Jewish interpretation known as Midrash, (plural Midrashim). This is how the Holy Spirit guided the authors of the Scriptures. There are also four traditional levels of Jewish interpretation The Jewish view of biblical interpretation is to discover what a passage of Scripture means rather than only receive them all at a literal level. Scholars and Clergy have known about this for a long time, unfortunately it is only now being filtered down to Pew level
No.
The term 'child' can reach back to the womb...
Let's see...
If Adam came from dust...what do you think his appearance was? An appearance of age?
Lol...no.
If Eve came from some cells of Adam...what do you think her appearance was? An appearance of age?
Again....no.
You YEC's are really stretching it...
The term 'child' can reach back to the womb...
Let's see...
If Adam came from dust...what do you think his appearance was? An appearance of age?
Lol...no.
If Eve came from some cells of Adam...what do you think her appearance was? An appearance of age?
Again....no.
You YEC's are really stretching it...
What Hebrew words tell you otherwise...?
No.
Only a superficial reading of the text would cause someone to arrive at a 24hr day.
The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening...thus, from evening to morning, if taken literally, like you said, would mean each day is only 12hrs long, tops.
Is that what you want....?
No.
Only a superficial reading of the text would cause someone to arrive at a 24hr day.
The Hebrew day begins and ends in the evening...thus, from evening to morning, if taken literally, like you said, would mean each day is only 12hrs long, tops.
Is that what you want....?