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


As far as I understand it yes. The ascension saw him rise into heaven in his spiritual body. What happened prior was his miracle of appearing before his disciples in the physical body as far as I read it.

(Edward Miller) #142

I still believe you need some Bible Tools here. A spirit in a spirit. I do not think so. Oh, I forgot something. If Jesus’ physical body did not rise, why was his tomb empty?


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

If Christ had a body of flesh and bone and appeared as such, that body did not in my mind raise to heaven but, as is told clearly, the spiritual body did at the ascension.

(Edward Miller) #144


I would also advise both of you to read Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2. It sounds rather physical to me.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #145

Slightly overdue response here, but here goes.

If you look carefully, you may find that we are trying to determine what Scripture actually said in context. We find that, when understood in this way, it does not conflict with common descent or billions of years. It’s not necessary to say that science trumps scripture, nor is it necessary to start with the science and read it back into Scripture.

I have, too — but, eventually, science is self-correcting. Someone’s pet theory in a particular subfield in the 1990s or even 1970s is debunked and fallen out of favor by the 2010s. The problem with calling on the “herd mentality” is that, when we’re discussing billions of years and common descent, these are theories that are supported by multiple converging lines of evidence from multiple fields, and have gone essentially unchallenged for over 150 years. If the evidence had been false or the conclusions unwarranted, you wouldn’t still be hearing about these theories centuries later, because science loves nothing like a debunking — which is why we don’t still teach things like phrenology, epicycles, the Bell Curve, ether, phlogiston, etc.


“Wake up, O sleeper, rise up from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” Ephesians 5:14

Yes, the earth shall give birth to her dead. The dead in the heart or the sinful and spiritually asleep. “let those who dwell in the dust wake up”

(Edward Miller) #147

This text again is speaking of a physical resurrection-one from the earth. Again, are you saying we shall have two spirits. This is what happens at death: Eccleisiastes 12:7. The body sleeps in the grave until the resurrection and the spirit goes to live with God until the Second Advent. Now, back to the main question. At the Second Coming will we have two spirits. It is odd that Jesus said he had a body of flesh and bones after his resurrection. Our resurrection will be the same. The Gospel of John also shows that Jesus has a physical body. What did Paul really mean by spiritual body? Theologian Millard Erikson might be of some help.

(Richard Wright) #148

Hi Edward.

I used to hold that the days in Genesis 1 were long periods of time, but I now take the view held by Denis Lamoureux, that you elucidated quite nicely. My question for you is how can one hold your view in light of the following 2 passages:

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

(Edward Miller) #149

This is a very good question and also one hard to answer. It seems that the Exodus writer is holding to a view of ancient science. He is taking Genesis 1-11 in a strictly literal sense. Moses or whoever wrote Exodus takes the Genesis account as if it explained scientific fact. I tend to walk the line between Progressive Creationism and Evolutionary Creationism. God still did it, but what method did our Lord and Savior take? Dr. Lamoureux is a very fine scholar and my talks with him have been very interesting. What I did not like about Charles Darwin as well as his father was they seemed to want to divorce themselves from the Christian concept of God. Charles was more of a liberal theist or even a deist. He was later an agnostic in my opinion. That is one of the reasons so many people objected to his theories. If he had stayed with Jesus, perhaps his theories would have been more acceptable. Now, I should say something about my view of Genesis 1-11. This isn’t easy, but I still feel that the six days are long lengths of time and the writer of the verses you mention uses his ideas since he talks about “yom” quite literally, where I do not. I wish to thank you Richard for writing to me. It was a pleasure. Oh, I wish to say something else. I could hold the views of Dr. Lamoureux too. Genesis 1-11 can relate to moral teachings about sin and that God created everyone; however, he talks to the people at a level that they understand. God bless.


In Luke 24 we read,

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

So after the resurrection Christ was indeed very physical. But if only a spiritual body ascended into heaven, what happened to the resurrected one? Did the physical body die again?

Note that a physical resurrection and ascension are part of Christian orthodoxy.

(Edward Miller) #151

You are one hundred percent right, my dear friend. Jesus’ resurrection body was physical; otherwise, there would be already a spirit of Jesus in paradise before his physical resurrection. The Gospel of Luke said that Jesus’ raised body had flesh and bones. He certainly would not have two spirits.


Thanks! And it’s a good time to talk about the ascension of Christ, for today is the feast of the Ascension, celebrated 40 days after Easter.

(John Warren) #153

Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Flesh and blood won’t inherit the kingdom, but flesh and bone will.

(Richard Wright) #154

Hello again Edward,

Thanks for your response.

The 6-day creation isn’t based on ancient science, but on Genesis 1. The writer in both of the Exodus passages quotes Moses, who himself quotes God in 20:11.

I find the evidence for biological evolution undeniable, having first come across it at a graduate-level course, at the time a Christian who didn’t believe in it. Everything I’ve studied since then has reinforced it, especially the genetics. I’m wondering if you’ve ever formally studied evolution.

Darwin went back and forth it seems from, “almost-theist” to, “almost-atheist”. The belief in God was a sincere struggle for him and he wasn’t out to promote atheism with evolution. That said, it shouldn’t make a difference even if he was - the science is still the same.

Yes, and I’m wondering why you don’t. :slight_smile:

Yes, God could have been taught the history of origins and theology if He had wanted to, but apparently He didn’t think the science was all that important, since he used the science of the day, the 3-tiered universe, to couch the theology, to make it easier for them to understand.

For me, the only views that can be true are a literal account or it’s all theology, because concordism, your view, simply doesn’t work. That’s because concordism says that God is teaching science, so that must be true for every generation that reads Genesis. But that’s not the case, since nobody even knew that creation didn’t take place in 6 literal days until the year ~1,500. If we date the chapter to ~2,000 BC, then what you’re saying is that God allowed people to believe scientific lies for 3,500 years, even though, as you claim, the text teaches scientific truths. That simply cannot be the case.

I wrote near 40-page paper challenging concordism, and promoting the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 that you can read here if you like. I’d be interested to see what you would think of it.

(Luca) #155

Jesus rose with a body that was spiritual but also physical. We don’t know what kind of “meat” that is.

(Edward Miller) #156

If you are talking about the word “meat” in the appearance where Jesus reunited with his disciples, it means food. Is that the word you are referring to in Luke? Fleisch is the German word for meat in Early Modern English; flesh is the cognate word. Jesus was asking for something to eat to prove he was raised from the dead. It was not just his spirit without a raised body. In Early Modern English, people would ask each other: “what type of flesh are you having for dinner?” Meat meant all food. As you probably know, languages evolve too.

(Edward Miller) #157

I have studied the concept of evolution. When I was a child, my father and mother purchased me my own small laboratory. I used to do experiments and dissect dead animals that were in the laboratory. Men like Richard Dawkins destroyed much of my interests by denying God. That I will never do. I will never deny God.

Atheistic Evolution: nothing + nothing = still nothing

Christian Theistic Evolution: The Christian God + Creatio ex nihilo = Life and all Creation seen and unseen

It has been nice discussing this with you. I hope to hear from you again.


What does this mean?


An interesting article by by Abigail Rine Favale from First Things.

Who knew this was so widespread?

Evangelical Gnosticism

From First Things, May 2018, by Abigail Rine Favale

(George Brooks) #160

Well, @beaglelady, I’m sort of surprised Ms. Favale is making such a big deal about this.

Why would I say such a shocking thing? Well, it has always struck me that the “sectarian group” most closely associated with the idea of a “physical body” for the general resurrection [ End of Days ] was the Pharisees.

And while there were certainly early Christians who saw things the way the Pharisees did, there were plenty of Christians who didn’t.

So, which Council of the church fathers actually comes out and says, “you are all getting a brand new car - - and the best “meat suit” the cosmic Father can get for you!”

Isn’t there undue emphasis on how Jesus was “lifted out” of the mortal sphere? He went “up up up” the way Elijah did, and presumably the way Enoch did (and maybe even Moses - since that is why nobody could find the grave of Moses).

As I’ve said before, the Essene wing of Judaism held the belief that seems to be commonly held by the masses of Western/Christian countries, and for obvious reasons - - when it comes to discussing modern Western society!: how can your recently departed husband, wife or son be your “guardian angel” … if he needs a body to have consciousness in the afterlife?