6days
New member
Yes... a a thousand years as a day.
I suppose those who try confuse and compromise God's Word believe that Jonah was in the fish 3 thousand years? Or perhaps 3 long periods of time?
ECT Einstein's theory of Creation clears confusion!
- Thread starter iamaberean
- Start date
I suppose those who try confuse and compromise God's Word believe that Jonah was in the fish 3 thousand years? Or perhaps 3 long periods of time?
iamaberean
New member
6days,
It is you that says, in every case, a day is a day and a day to God is just 24 hours. According to scripture
you are wrong!
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Peter was telling them that they would be ignorant to think that a day to God is just 24 hours.
1Sa 3:12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
In that day God will perform all things he had spoken.
1Sa 3:13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
In that day God will judging his house forever!
1Sa 3:14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
God says Eli's house, the temple, will be purged with sacrifice forever.
To sum up the above, God is saying all things Eli has written will be fulfilled in that day and that day will last forever.
That day was the end of law and the beginning of the Church age.
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Last edited:
6days
New member
False... I have always argued the opposite of that.
The word 'day' (Yom in Hebrew) has a variety of meanings always determined by context. The context of the creation days though are clearly 24 hour periods of time.
If you wish, I can show that throughout the OT, the word YOM is used hundreds of times, in a variety of ways but defined by context.
iamaberean
New member
No division of light and darkness in the first 3 days since the diviision wasn't made until the forth day. How can one say there were 3 normal days.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Notice that here is the time one might possibly claim a 24 hour day. Do you feel this fits your context?
Shouldn't the question be: What sense of time did God apply when he told Moses about the Creation?
I don't have an answer to that.
6days
New member
God's Word has the answer.
Morning / evening / the first day
Morning / evening / the second day
Morning / evening / the third day
Morning..... Etc etc
For in 6 Days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Ex. 20:11
It's pretty clear. Unfortunately some try to compromise and add confusion to His Word.
Well, then all is solved ;-)
Yet for me this is not a salvation issue. What matters to me is that God created the world and us. And as soon as we got the chance we messed it up (Adam and Eve), though not unexpected for God who already had a perfect plan laid out.
I just think it's sad that we Christians spend so much time arguing with each other about things like this, while there are still billions of people living that are not saved yet.
6days
New member
relaff said:
We agree on much.*
But we disagree on the importance of the evolution issue. PEW Research did a large survey several years back of kids who have drifted from the church. A large factor was that parents and the church had not given satisfactory answers to questions on issues such as why we have death and suffering in our world...and over creation / evolution. They grew up believing that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says. They thought that if Genesis was allegorical then other parts of the Bible could be interpreted the same. For example, perhaps the Virgin birth was not true.*
In other words, *I believe Satan has deceived millions and millions of people by getting them to doubt scripture through the evolution issue. Evolutionism also causes Christians to perform mental gymnastics with the gospel. *It does not make sense for Christ to suffer physical death if death existed before sin, and was part of what God called very good. Believing in evolution does not prevent a person from trusting in Christ as their Savior. But, on the other hand evolutionism has kept millions of people from salvation.*
Evolution and God's Sense of time are two different discussions and most people that try to use evolution as an argument against creation have no clue what evolution actually is. Evolution does not say anything about how life was created and no scientist can throw a bunch of non-living matter into a beaker and turn it into life. Yet the bible doesn't say how God created life and I'd say if God didn't tell us, then it's probably not important. The bible is not a "how to" book on creating the world, because the world is already here and we couldn't create it anyway. So I'd rather not get into the debate over evolution right now.
God created everything. Again, I don't know how he created it, but I know he did. There is some discussion about what "days" mean in Genesis 1 and there is other parts in the bible that hint to us, that a day for God actually might be longer than 24 hours, even though they don't really are referring to Genesis. Just consider this: God was here before earth rotated around itself (and the sun), creating the 24 hour day. God was actually here before everything else. So all I'm saying is that he stands above time.
And just consider the opposite, God telling Moses for Genesis 1 instead of "the first day" something else, e.g. "2.6 billion year". I don't even think that there is a word in ancient Hebrew for billion and it wouldn't have mattered, because time doesn't matter for God and Moses would have understood it anyway. For all I know it could have been just a week ... or much longer. And God would obviously be able to make it look like it was much longer, even if he just needed six days. God being all powerful might have even done the whole thing in a millisecond. But from all the love he has for us and his creation he might have taken a bit longer to enjoy the whole thing. I simply don't know, because there is no way I could tell what God thinks.
And obviously in Hebrew, as in many modern language like ours, day can also mean something different than 24 hours. Actually even Genesis 1:5 uses day in two different meanings.
And of course there could be something to what our OP said about time differences (though I still think he's referring to time dilation, which means God would have been running around at light speed while creating the world).
illusions can't be real
glassjester
Well-known member
6days
New member
Ex. 20:11
6days
New member
Evolutionism is the belief that life came from a common ancestor. Evolutionism (and abiogenesis) contradicts God's Word.Relaff said:
We do get quite a few details...and details that contradict stellar, chemical and biological evolution.*Relaff said:
Hmmmmm...... that seems like a huge leap towards compromise of adding time to God's Word...and placing death and suffering before sin. Genesis 1 "days" are clearly 24 hour periods and there is a number of ways to determine this.*Relaff said:
One way to determine the meaning is context of the word in the various sentences, chapters and even within the entire books. James Barr, prof of Hebrew at Oxford says*
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11*intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience...."
Not only is that illogical but it contradicts God's Word. There are several words in Hebrew Moses could have used to say that God created over vast periods of time. But instead words and context were chosen that tell us God created in six days with evening and morning.*Relaff said:
There have always been people wanting to believe scripture does not mean what it plainly says. In Martin Luther day people were arguing that God created everything instantly.Relaff said:
Luther said "When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go."
Haha... yes! And... somewhat amusing that you acknowledge the word has different meanings. How do you know? You know because of context...it is easy to understand.Relaff said:
The gospel is not that difficult but compromise in Genesis weakens or destroys the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. We live in a world of sin, death and suffering as a consequence of Adams sin. Jesus, the Last Adam defeated death. We can partake of the resurrection and join Him where there is no death...no sorrow...and every tear will be wiped to those who have been cleansed / forgiven by the shedding of His blood.*
Derf
Well-known member
You may be surprised to hear this from me, but I actually think there's something to the idea of time dilation resolving the starlight problem. Russell Humphreys of Los Alamos Laboratories wrote an interesting book called "Starlight and Time" describing the phenomenon, and attempting to figure out the necessary math. Not too many people (probably none) on the secular side agreed with him, and some long-age Christians were quick to pounce on the idea. I don't think he ever got the math to work out completely, but the idea was an interesting one.
Humphreys is a strict creationist, who read the Genesis creation account literally--that each day was a full rotation of the earth with respect to a light source, but since the waters had to be separated from the waters to form the firmament, he suggested that all material in the universe must have come from "earth", which then would have been super-massive.
As the heavens were stretched out (like in Job 9:8 and Psalm 104:2) to separate the waters from the waters, the gravity of the part the was closer to earth would have been much greater, at first, than the part that was being moved away from earth. Therefore, due to Einstein's general relativity, time on earth (and nearby to it) would progress much more slowly than time in the heavens, making it possible to build stars and galaxies over billions of years of "away from earth time" and have the light from them travel to earth while the earth only experienced a day or two.
But the difference I see is that Humphreys didn't try to pour a different meaning into the words in Genesis. I think you get into trouble when you do that, trying to figure out a way to make the scripture say what you've already decided is the "truth".
Plus, didn't we already talk about your days of old/years of many generations dichotomy in another thread? I hope that's not what you like to do--start a conversation and then leave it when it doesn't go your way, only to start it up again with another title. Seems like a bait and switch tactic to me.
Regarding evolution: it's the word that was used and that I responded to. Evolutionism is an outdated term and concept no longer used by scientists (like they don't used new ice age and global warming any more, but climate change). But neither do explain the origin of life, just what (may or may not, depending on belief) happens to it once it is there.
That's getting way too long for me to deal with. I think there are valid biblical arguments for my point of view, but as I said earlier: It's not a salvation issue (unlike death and the original sin, which are - and I'm not switching any order here). I think many Christians spend way too much time hitting each other instead of trying to save more people (and defend what's left of our faith). We're basically on the same side, whether you want to hear that or not. So I will rather turn my attention to the other side, which needs to hear the Word.
So I leave the scene to you.
iamaberean
New member
What happens is that people get off subject. They have their agenda and it has nothing to do with the original post. Just as it has happened in this thread.
I have tried to make two points:
1. God does not lie and if he made the earth and bones of prehistoric animals appear to be more than 10000 years old, most of the times more, and they are not, then that would be deceit. In order to understand God's word is just to understand that to God a day is as a thousand years. Because a day is not qualified with a 1, 2, etc then the length could be any length. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then it agrees with scientific evidence.
2. Gen 1 is about creation. Gen 2 is about covenant creation. They are not the same. Too many differences to be that. We need to open our minds to these facts that are different:
a. Jehovah God refers to the covenant God. The first time Jehovah God is mentioned is in Gen 2. God and Jehovah God are one and the same, except for the function He preforms.
b. In Gen 1, man and woman were created by God, not Jehovah God, and told to go into all the earth and replenish it. In Gen 2, they were formed by Jehovah God and placed in a garden east of Eden knowing nothing about replenishing.
c. In Gen 1, God created all the animals of the earth. In Gen 2 Jehovah God formed the animals of the field (domesticated).
So instead of dwelling on the OP they start on evolution, which is their agenda, not mine. Thus, at times I just bail out.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Well, don't bail out this time. Think through what we write to you and see if you can respond if someone puts up an argument against it. I think your idea is worth discussing, but I don't agree with it at this point--so my arguments are going to be against it for the most part--that is going to be true for most that are posting on your thread. You have to convince us by countering what we say and going on to defend what you say, not by bailing out and starting over.
If you get a reply that has nothing to do with your OP, either ignore it or say it has nothing to do with it and explain why.
By the way, your response to me had very little to do with your OP--you've presented 2 different proposals, in my opinion.
- that Einstein's time dilation explains the difference in timing between modern science and the Bible's creation account
- that Gen 2:4 is a covenant beginning and therefore could have happened at anytime after the original beginning
iamaberean
New member
Let us start with this.
Did you actually read my last post?
Has anyone ever pointed out to you that God created man, but Jehovah God formed Adam?
Has anyone ever pointed out to you that God created the beast of the earth, but Jehovah God formed the animals of the field? Those animals were domestic.
Now, think on these these things without saying creating and forming are the same thing. Just ask yourself this: Could there have been a reason different words and meanings were used in the writting of Gen 1 vs Gen 2?
Read all of my posts rather than asking me to keep repeating myself.
Derf
Well-known member
I'll respond to each of those things, but take a look for an instant at the title of this thread and compare it to the words quoted from your last post. Does anything in the quoted post have anything to do with Einstein? Anything? So, if I'm supposed to get something out of your posts, wouldn't it help for them to stick with the topic, so you don't accuse me (and others) of hijacking your threads to talk about something else?????
Personally, I like to talk about Einstein's theory of relativity--I learn something almost every time.
In order:
I responded to your OP, so I'm not sure which "last post" you are talking about. I did read your OP.
I'll assume for the moment that you are not talking about 2 different gods, but that you are trying to draw a distinction between a general interaction with creation and a covenant interaction with God's chosen people, is that correct? (See, I did read your previous thread!
)Again, I'll try not to focus on the idea that first comes to mind: that you seem to be talking about 2 different gods. I think you are saying that there were 2 creation events, one which was more general, and one that was for the people of God, right?
:think::think::think: Ok, now I've thought about them. To answer your question, yes, there could have been a reason different words and meanings were used in the 2 passages. One is what I mentioned above--it could have been talking about 2 different gods, yes? Or, it could have been written by 2 different people (we talked about this in your other thread--don't you even read my posts? Please read all of my posts rather than asking me to keep repeating myself. Oh, wait, that's what you said to me, sorry I'm not very original.) Or, as you suggest, it could be talking about a different activity.
So, I'm willing to go down the road of that last option to see how it could play out.
First, even if it's 2 different activities, we still need to deal with Ex 20:11 that says God created both the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM in six days before He rested on the seventh day. This was being given to the children of Israel at Mt Sinai, so when it says "all that is in them" it can't mean all that was in them before some great catastrophe. The earth might have been destroyed and replenished several times, but according to It also seems like it doesn't make sense that God would refer to something that happened outside of His interaction with His chosen people to give them a covenantal connection to a special day set aside for them--the Sabbath--but that's not a show stopper.
Second, what does it mean to have Man created on day 6 and then have Adam created on some other day? For one thing, Adam's sin would not have the effect of causing all men to have to die, because some must have lived (and died, I expect) without any contact with Adam, if there was a separate creation. But by the first Adam came death, and sin, too (Rom 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned).
Third, the name "Adam" is taken from the word for dirt. So is the noun "man". The words (man and Adam) are very similar. I don't know Hebrew, but it seems to me that if both were so-called because God made them from dirt, then either God made 2 Adams or he only made one.
What do you think? I still haven't figured out how to get Einstein into this discussion--can you explain that connection?