Response plz?: When "evening and morning" are used with a day in Genesis it implies 24 hours


(John Warren) #121

What I mean is that Randy suggested that the Israelites wouldn’t be able to take in the idea of heliocentrism, but I disagreed. I think they had enough intelligence to understand it, if it were true. If the Earth really went around the Sun, God would have let us know in His Word. His Word wouldn’t indicate the opposite.


(John Warren) #122

So you think all young Earth creationists are out of their minds. I gathered that. Tell me, please, do you think Jesus rose physically from the dead?


(Luca) #123

We dont think you are out of your minds. We think the people from AIG and CMI are misinforming you. And that the reality is far different from what those groups say. If you search the forums for “can you be a christian and not believe Jesus rose” or something like that. You will find your answer.


(Luca) #124

But it does.


(George Brooks) #125

@John_Warren

Do you know why Unitarian Universalists are called Unitarian Universalists? I’m going to let you check the dictionary on these words … a theological dictionary maybe most helpful.

The New Testament word for “resurrection” is the same word for the following:

  1. Rising up from a Chair.
  2. A physical rising up from the Grave.
  3. Elijah’s ascent in a whirlwind.
  4. A spiritual rising up from the Grave.
  5. God’s ascent into the sky on a cloud.
  6. Rising up into a new kind of body at the End of Days.

Examples of item (2) are, of course, Lazarus, those who rose up from the tombs at the death of Jesus, and Jesus rising up from the slab in his tomb.

There is at least one example of (2) in the Old Testament, maybe two or three?


(George Brooks) #126

@John_Warren

Oh, I forgot to respond to this. I think Creationists who reject Heliocentrism are non-diagnose-able.

Why on Earth would you take such a position in the days when we send satellites to Jupiter? Do you really think NASA, and the other space programs of the Earth are lying to you?


#127

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

Yes, I agree. It is clear that a ‘Day’ is really a thousand years or, as the term “like a thousand years” is used, it could just as easily be a million or millions, etc.

Obviously, this is the case that to the Lord, “A day” also equated alternatively as a night and was symbolic of a much greater time period. This is a basic piece of information to use.

“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights” Gen7.4 translates as 'after seven thousand years the rains fell for eighty thousand years, approx.


(Joshua Hedlund) #128

I read this kind of claim on a geocentrist site once and I was curious… Wouldn’t that be just as true for a reference frame centered on Mars? Or on Venus? If that fact is true of multiple bodies, yet only one of them can be truly immobile with respect to the others, how does that fact tell us which is the immobile one?

While I have never found it personally compelling, I admire the conviction of your Biblical interpretation. Maybe you can help me understand something about your position - if all the verses about how the Earth “shall never be moved” are literally referring to its lack of physical movement, and not something else, how can it then be destroyed and replaced by a new earth in the future?


(Dennis Venema) #129

I prefer a Dennis-centered view, actually. I am immobile - the universe moves to bring things to me. When I get in my car, the universe moves more quickly to bring things to me. This is a perfectly valid frame of reference - it is the mathematical equivalent of the standard view.

Of course, everything we know about forces, gravity, causation etc etc go completely out the window, but mathematically it’s equivalent. And it’s also rather gratifying. If I want the universe to spin counterclockwise, or clockwise, or whatever, it does my bidding.

:slight_smile:


(Phil) #130

That must be useful when changing light bulbs. You can just hold up the bulb, and let the universe revolve around you- both ways!


(John Warren) #131

The physics works fine when you adopt a sun centric reference frame. Mach’s principle says you can adopt any reference frame. It’s just a lot easier to analyze satellites to Jupiter with a heliocentric frame. Neither frame is more true, from the modern scientific standpoint


(Randy) #132

Hm. I don’t get that from the Wikipedia reference. It’s in relationship to mass preponderance. And, it’s a hypothesis–not nearly as strong as the laws and theories of science. I am willing to learn more.


(George Brooks) #133

@John_Warren,

I think you and I are done conversing.


(Randy) #134

Thanks.

I agree that the Israelites were bright. For example, the Teacher in Ecclesiastes, Qohelet, was one I once used to tell my father shouldn’t be in the Bible because of his sad outlook–but after a while, I realized better what he was saying.

What I meant was that if God took the time to explain to the ancient Israelites heliocentrism, they 1) would be distracted from His purpose or 2) think it unscientific, based on their stories… What if God gave us moderns, with the belief of heliocentrism, Genesis for the first time, and he tried to explain geocentrism as the right way (presuming that’s correct)? We would totally miss the boat on His message, I think. We would probably think that it was gobbledegook, and reject it.

So, what was God’s message? The Bible is very deep, and there are many things we can dig out of it. CS Lewis said he thought there was more than he ever understood.

However, among other things, God, among other things, gives a message of love by contrasting with the pagan ones. Ancient Sumer, Ur and surrounding areas (Palestine) had terrible, pagan stories about how the Earth and people came to being.(this was the science of their day. It supported the pillars of the sky, the earth, hard dome of the firmament, etc). For example, whereas in the old stories, the gods made Man as slaves for them; whereas the chief god, Marduk, killed his mother and cut her in half to make the sky; whereas they exterminated people in the Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or Atrahasis because they were noisy, God said, “No!”

“I am One. I created you in fellowship, in My image, and only sin can separate us.”

Genesis’ message of a single God who cares about what his people do was revolutionary.

It’s my opinion that God wasn’t lying about the earth and Sun, any more than Hemingway or I am when I talk to my wife and remark at the sun rise, or muse about how its coming up again is like God’s resurrection. (credit for some of this is from Denis Lamoureux and Peter Enns)

It’s an interesting question about whether God’s wisdom trumps man’s. The difference appears to arise when we use our knowledge of science to interpret our understanding of the Bible–Bacon’s Two Books analogy–the Book of God in written form, understood with His work in physical form. How can we discuss our understanding of the world with other religions who hold as strongly to their interpretation and their books?
I was born in Nigeria, the son of Christian missionaries, and grew up in Niger, which is about 99% Muslim. While they were pretty peaceful, orthodox Islamic presuppositions are pretty strongly against us. For example, they say that the Christians corrupted the Old and New Testaments, including Psalms (Zabur) and Gospels (Injil) to worship Jesus. They say that we believe that God had relations with a woman and gave birth to a man–anathema to them. Many Muslims believe that all mankind are born Muslim, and convert to whatever worldview surrounds them. The Qur’an says that we worship 3 people–not the Holy Spirit, but God the Father, God the Son, and Mary. They say that the Qur’an was composed in Arabic before the world began. If we tried to tell them to the contrary about our Trinity definition. the relationship to God of Jesus, and that we didn’t corrupt the Bible to divert from the Qur’anic message, they wouldn’t believe us. After all, the Qur’an says that that is what we believe.

Hindus have similar prejudices. Some Brahmins, from my understanding, are the only ones who can read their Vedas and truly understand them. Trivedi and Chaturvedi are common names saying how many they can read (tri=three and chatur=4).

How can we discuss things clearly with them without the common ground of science? What language can we use other than “you are prejudiced” (a claim they can aim at us with equal force)?

This is where conflict seems to arise–assuming that everyone else has the wrong desire.

Thank you for your thoughts. In Christ, may God bless/Allah shi taimakemu (May God aid us).


(John Warren) #135

Okay, I had you mistaken for someone who believes Jesus rose physically from the dead.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #136

I haven’t understood nearly all that is involved in “mach’s principle”, but I do understand enough to know that these sentences above are simply not correct as science is commonly understood today. Had you said instead that “Neither frame is more true, from the mathematical standpoint”, you would then be nearer the truth. But the physics does not work just fine with an entirely heliocentric universe. Such a universe would have other stars and galaxies whirling around at unimaginable (much greater than light speed) velocities and accelerations.

The only way you can make that physics work (according to all that we understand now) is to multiply needless miracles upon miracles just to prop up this particular modern approach to Scriptures. And “this particular approach” demonstrates itself to be highly erroneous by ignoring so much basic science. It seems the locus of fallibility resides much more squarely on you here, than it does on scriptures or our understandings of God’s creation. Between thinking you right, or thinking Scriptures and science right, I have to go with scriptures and science. You haven’t given any compelling argument to think otherwise, Mach’s principle notwithstanding.


(Edward Miller) #137

I feel that it depends how one interprets Genesis 1-11. Is it to be taken literally or is it an allegory? If it is an allegory teaching moral trues before the actual history that begins with Genesis 12 and Abraham, then the days of Genesis are to be taken literally, i.e., if the text says “the evening and the morning of the first day,” then in an allegory that is what it means. Dr. Denis Lamoureaux imples that in his course. However, if we were to accept what Pat Robertson says, then Genesis 1-11 is literal history and a “Yom” can mean 24 hours, a solar day, a galactic day, etc. Also, if one is a YEC, the day would be considered a 24 hour day. It depends on how one interprets the first chapters of Genesis. We must take that into consideration. I believe the days of Genesis mean long periods of time since I take Genesis 1-11 somewhat literally. Please do not question me on the flat earth with a dome concept. I know it teaches that because the Hebrew writer(s) understood the universe that way, i.e., ancient science. I know that the earth is a sphere governed in space by our God. As I said my friends, it is all in the interpretation. When we are with Jesus, perhaps he will explain it. God bless everyone who reads this.

@biblical interpretation, @Open Forum


Definition of evolution and the distinction between micro/macro
#138

Jesus rose in his spiritual body and not in his physical body. It is sown a natural body and returns to the dust, and when it is raised in the ascension it is raised a spiritual body. The spiritual body is certainly not the body of dust.

“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” Cor 15.30


(Tom Larkin) #139

Thomas the apostle felt the wounds of Jesus when Jesus appeared before him. Would this be inconsistent with a non-bodily resurrection?


(Edward Miller) #140

In the Gospel of Luke after Jesus was raised from the dead, he appeared to his disciples. They were afraid because they thought they had seen a spirit; however Jesus said: feel my hands and see that it is I. For a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see me have. If I interpret the Holy Scriptures as you do, when we are raised from the dead and our spirits are reunited to our bodies, we will be two spirits-a spirit in a spirit? I do not believe that is good exegesis. Brother Jeremy, I feel you should use some Greek Bible Tools to interpret Jesus in Luke and the Apostle Paul in l Corinthians 15: 35-58. There must be some other understanding of the text here. A good Bible Dictionary or Commentary would be of great help here.
God bless all of you.
@TGLarkin