On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:25:44 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, I do not beleive that you believe that scripture interprets scripture. What you actually mean to say is "this scripture defuncts that scripture." I AM using scripture to define scripture just as surely as anything you do with scripture.Only in your own opinion JDHow do I know what they knew? Well, I guess all I know is what the scriptures reveal about their knowledge. From actually reading the text, Judy, I have no reason to believe that they considered "spiritual death" as something other than "physical death." Where is that terminology used -- "spiritual death?" In scripture or in JudySpeak?God is Spirit and when they died they lost His Image JD - it's elementaryWhen did Adam and Eve die spiritually, Judy. The insant they ate the fruit or at some other time. Did it take them 24 hours to die? Come on, dear -- admit that your position on this is simply impossible to defend.They died "in that day" as God said they wouldThe summary statemnt of 2:4-7 does give us a meaning for "day" that is not 24 hours. And how long does it take for God to speak things into existence -- 24 hours you say?If you refuse to accept God's Word for what constitutes a day - I am not foolish enough to believe that anythingI say would make the least bit of difference.... so carry onjd-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:24:59 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The pastor's comments in blood red.JD writes: More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period.1. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning.jt: So? Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"Why bother commenting if you are going to read the entire post? The language above "proves" nothing.To me it proves a lot in that it explains what the God of scripture means when he says "a day" - remember scripture must interpret scripture rather than some man's opinion.2. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time.Of course they did. Are you calling God a liar? In the day they ate they also died. Just because it was not a physical death does not mean that it did not happen. God is a Spirit; A&E were are created in His Image. Fallen minds always want to remake God into their own images.Adam and Eve know nothing of "spiritual deathHow do you know what they knew JD? Adam named all the animals didn't he? They mayhave known a whole lot more than you think.They were removed from the Tree of Life -- their death AT THAT TIME became immanent. Besides, the way you use "day" in this context, you really mean "instant," don't you. In the instant they eat, they die - I mean, that is when your spiritual death thingy happened , right?So why am I not allowed an opposing license?No what I mean is exactly what God commanded the man in Gen 2:16,17 "In the DAY thatthou eatest thereof...." Please don't put words in my mouth and try to tell me what I"really" mean JD3. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created...... not a 24 hour period.Wrong. Day is singular and refers to thefirst day of that week when God created the earth and the heavens, as just stated in Gen 2:4aOf course "day" is singular. That is my point. It is a single but summary statement of the creation story. And what is this "2:4a" business? The bibilcial thought extends from verse 4 thru v 7 -- thus a "summary " statement.Summary statement or not this does not change the length of a day which has beenclearly stated already.4. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun.So? Were you there JD? Do you know better than God who in Genesis speaks through his prophet Moses?No Judy, and neither were you !! But I can read. And that is what the text says -- IMHO.Adding to what is written makes one anything but humble JD. This is what the adversary did in Gen 3:4; the actual text says no such thing unless you read it in to try and conform reality to your extra Biblical hypothesis as demonstrated below.The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events.So just scrap the Genesis account? Is this what you are saying JD? Or are you saying that Genesis is flawed and that pagan scientists know more in their unbelief? Is Naturalism where it's at - does God now give mankind understanding through naturalism?Actually and again, you have completely missed the point of my post.OK JD, what was the POINT of your post?If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated.This is not McDonalds fast food culture JD; when you create some worlds yourself then you will know how long it takes. In the meantime we have a written record from the One who did create the worlds and it would behoove us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and quiet our racing carnal minds.Will DAvid now ask that you present substantive argument?As in a court of law JD - it is up to you to prove your thesis with substantive argument.I am on the other side - defending what is written ...Bishop J-------------- Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the
> idea that
> the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created
> roughly 10000
> years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God
> created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also,
> you are completely right:
>
> David:
> > I think your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
>
> That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a
> purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life
> getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for
> evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility,
> God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe
> that the
> universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very
> long time.
>
> Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven
> >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally.
> >
> > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the
> > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account
> > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to
> > the second creation account.
> >
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist,
> >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third
> >> option, which seems to be slow in coming.
> >
> > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a
> > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God
> > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution
> > is the only option.
> >
> > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but
> > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate
> > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
> >
> > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of
> > relatively recent origin.
> >
> > David Mil le r
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.
