Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

[Judy Taylor]

I know what he has shared publicly which is that he has a house Church and meets with believers in homes. He also ministers publicly on college campuses and in the streets. Kind of like Paul in the book of Acts who taught in his home for 3 1/2yrs as well as on the streets. What is your problem Lance?  You are all over DM like a rash.   On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:46:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tell me then Judy, what you actually know about the group with whom he worships. You appear confident that his 'group' is not a 'sect' so, let's hear what you actually KNOW. From: Judy Taylor   Lance you are truly an obdurant person.  DM has said over and over ad nauseum that he is not leading and does not belong to a sect. Why do you insist on using this type terminology. Do you really want to communicate with him or just to tweak him a little?  Because you are by your actions calling him a liar. Your belief about DM has nothing at all to do with reality along with your belief in some other areas.   On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS IS NOT A SHOT! Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which I'd see as the mantra of David Miller's sect. I believe he's part of a sect which, as they used to say, has hived off from the 'end times harlot church' so as to recover the true (his) gospel. From: Judy Taylor   If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ... I see that nowhere in scripture.  Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the Father.  This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD.  Unifying around rebellion is what the end times "harlot church" is all about.   On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy.   Right now,  unity inspite of diversity is all we've got.   Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist.  jd  From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Agreed!  I to hate all the isms and all the ologies. In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality.  Jesus was not referring to any "Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One Is "Unity in diversity" how you see the Godhead or "Trinity?" JD   On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint.  Henceforth and forever more,  I will be opposed to sectarianism.  The legal content of the sectarian is often different  --  but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes.   They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17.     There can be unity in diversity.  In sectarian circles,  the only unity that exists is one borne of the fear of reprisal.  jd   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   One other thought on the creation thread.   I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason.   My comments can stand on their own,  I believe.  I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such  -  for the reasons stated.  Could the earth be only 6000 years old.   I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such,  IMHO.   Is God the creator?   Now that is the real question.   I would think we all agree on the answer to that question.    End of the matter for me.   And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked.    Motivation be damned  --  in a biblical sense , of course.    jd     From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John wrote: > > To your first question , "no." > > If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. > > John wrote: > > To your second question, either you > > did not read my post or you have > > decided to insult my presentation? > > I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. > Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a > figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good > theology, in my opinion. > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses > the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but > ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days > are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with > the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as > being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and > morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly > extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative > chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants > created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious > explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. > > What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is > that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be > figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this > way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I > have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims > of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis > 1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation? > > David Miller > > ==================== > John, I have a couple questions for you. > > 1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the > length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even > discussed this perso nally with him before, but he comes from a theology > background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he > is accepted as a "t heologian." His arguments for why the day is not > figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > 2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day > figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying > that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there > is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a > theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what > would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1? > > David Miller > > ---------- > "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 > & lt; BR>> 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.