RE: Earth Basics

RE: Earth Basics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

[Poll]

Earth Basics

The Earth is round, and gravitational attraction is in force

34% (36)

The Earth is flat. You can fall off the edge.

1% (2)

The Earth does not rotate on an axis. It stands still

1% (2)

The Earth rotates around the Sun

31% (33)

Science is a tool of Satan, as is education in general

1% (2)

Science is neither moral nor immoral.

28% (30)

Total Votes : 105

(last vote on : 8/14/2008 10:02:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/15/2008 9:42:06 AM)
quote: Here's one: Psalm 90:4 This is the identical verse that Peter quotes as a simile or figure of speech in 2 Peter 3:8. The Hebrew word eleph can represent any very large number from 1000 to >1,000,000. In fact, it also is used 3 times in the OT to mean eleven! Furthermore, Psalm 90 is attributed to Moses who obviously understood the literal meaning of yom in Genesis 1 since he used yom in Psalm 90 in the very same passage as a 3-hour night watch. So what does your creationism believe, phosadaud, that Creation week was 18 hours, six days, six thousand or six million years long? Look, Kristin, I understand that you do not wish to interpret creation days literally because of your scientific presuppositions. I respect that position even though I strongly disagree with it. However, I have never heard from any Christian posting on these forums in 21 months how s/he decides to read the plain-sense meaning of "God created humans in His Image" while in the very same chapter decides to read "day" as some indeterminate period of time. Do you have a sensible explanation for your inconsistency?

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/15/2008 3:00:31 PM)
What inconsistency? Yom in Scripture means many things - literally. You and I may disagree on what specific definition is used in Genesis 1, but we can both read the text as inerrant God's Word and come to different conclusions. My argument has never been to convince people that my particular theory is correct (because I don't think it means a hill of beans in relations to someone's personal relationship with Jesus). The only reason I join these threads is to combat the attitude that there is only one way to read God's inerrant Word and it's my way or the highway because anything outside of AIG is practically demonic. And, I believe that God created humans in His image, but that His image is not a physical image (ie - God is not 2 legged, 2 armed, gray haired man sitting up on a chair looking down on earth). But, that's for another thread which I argued in somewhere else in the theo forums. If you're interested, I could look back and find which one. As far as how long those creation days were - I have no idea, but I believe that God is not on earth time so those days could be very long indeed. It really doesn't matter to me. A day is simply a measure of time and that measure of time will vary depending on the reference. You believe that reference is earth. I believe that reference is God. No big deal. To me, how long it is really doesn't matter and it really doesn't impact my view that Scripture is God's Holy Word and is Truth. It doesn't change Who I believe God is. It doesn't diminish who I am in Christ and what Christ did for us. It's kind of like the argument regarding what Jesus looked like. It's interesting to think about but means absolutely nothing in regards to my faith because my faith no more rests on what color hair Jesus had than it rests on what length of time "yom" means in Genesis 1.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/15/2008 4:11:40 PM)
quote: Yom in Scripture means many things - literally. No, it means one thing only in Scripture when qualified by evening and morning, the first-sixth day and interpreted by Scripture Itself in Exodus 20:11. quote: As far as how long those creation days were - I have no idea, but I believe that God is not on earth time so those days could be very long indeed. Then He would have inspired Moses to write one of numerous Hebrew words for "God time": quote: There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time. These include qedem which is the main one–word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used. quote: quote: Do you have a sensible explanation for your inconsistency? It's interesting to think about but means absolutely nothing in regards to my faith because my faith no more rests on what color hair Jesus had than it rests on what length of time "yom" means in Genesis 1. Thank you for your time, Kristin, but I didn't expect a sensible explanation from you either.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/15/2008 7:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Yom in Scripture means many things - literally. No, it means one thing only in Scripture when qualified by evening and morning, the first-sixth day and interpreted by Scripture Itself in Exodus 20:11. I already addressed this in an earlier post which you did not respond and will not spend an entire thread repeating myself. quote: quote: As far as how long those creation days were - I have no idea, but I believe that God is not on earth time so those days could be very long indeed. Then He would have inspired Moses to write one of numerous Hebrew words for "God time": I wasn't aware you were one of God's Bible-writing 101 teachers... There are a number of things in Scripture I would have worded differently, but God did His own thing anyway... quote: quote: quote: Do you have a sensible explanation for your inconsistency? It's interesting to think about but means absolutely nothing in regards to my faith because my faith no more rests on what color hair Jesus had than it rests on what length of time "yom" means in Genesis 1. Thank you for your time, Kristin, but I didn't expect a sensible explanation from you either. Wow. I've just been insulted for daring to disagree with the All Hallowed AIG. What a real shocker. Instead of discussing the issue, let's call people stupid... [8\|]

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 8:52:31 AM)
quote: I already addressed this in an earlier post which you did not respond and will not spend an entire thread repeating myself. You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. quote: There are a number of things in Scripture I would have worded differently, but God did His own thing anyway... Indeed, and it behooves us to interpret His Words correctly rather than "do our own thing"! quote: Instead of discussing the issue, let's call people stupid I'm not insulting you at all, Kristin, and I've never once even hinted that I consider you remotely stupid! On the contrary, I'm singularly disappointed that many intelligent, well-educated, sincere Christians appear unable to understand the magisterial use of Scripture over science, all the while claiming to uphold Biblical authority. This is an unsensible inconsistency! When you have a reasonable explanation to share, I'd be happy to continue the discussion!

AllForIsrael -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 10:19:11 AM)
As much as I hate to agree Kristin I do not think Doc meant' to insult you.

Veritas -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 11:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what.

AllForIsrael -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 12:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: drmark You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. OUCH! Sounds like he knows what hes talking about.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 2:25:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I already addressed this in an earlier post which you did not respond and will not spend an entire thread repeating myself. You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. Please re-read what I wrote. I never mentioned the sun. I said that the conditions for what we define as an "earth day" were not created until day 4. Even without the sun as part of the equation if that's important to you, the conditions were still not there on Day 1. Either way, whether you think the sun has something to do with a "day" or not, you are saying that God created following earth's timeline before earth's timeline was even created. While that is certainly possible, as God can do as He will, this is one of the many reasons that leads me to believe that the creation days are not 24 hour periods of time. quote: quote: There are a number of things in Scripture I would have worded differently, but God did His own thing anyway... Indeed, and it behooves us to interpret His Words correctly rather than "do our own thing"! I would agree. quote: quote: Instead of discussing the issue, let's call people stupid I'm not insulting you at all, Kristin, and I've never once even hinted that I consider you remotely stupid! On the contrary, I'm singularly disappointed that many intelligent, well-educated, sincere Christians appear unable to understand the magisterial use of Scripture over science, all the while claiming to uphold Biblical authority. This is an unsensible inconsistency! When you have a reasonable explanation to share, I'd be happy to continue the discussion! When someone tells me that "they don't expect a sensible explanation from me", I'm not sure how to take that other than as an insult. And I still do not understand what you think is so inconsistant. If you could further explain what you think I'm being so inconsistant about, I could maybe answer your question in a way that you get.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 2:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: drmark You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Thank you

unclemonkey -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 3:37:07 PM)
ORIGINAL:veritas quote: In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. How about a given location on earth. E.g. The location that was to be the Garden of Eden. There is certainly no time dilation problem there.

unclemonkey -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 3:38:48 PM)
ORIGINAL:AFI quote: quote: Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. OUCH! Sounds like he knows what hes talking about. Why am I not surprised?

unclemonkey -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 3:40:45 PM)
ORIGINAL:phosadaud quote: quote: Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Thank you This is rich. Desperation, like politics, makes for strange bedfellows.

AllForIsrael -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 4:22:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:phosadaud quote: quote: Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Thank you This is rich. Desperation, like politics, makes for strange bedfellows. I know your not saying now that the earth does not orbit the sun are you?

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/16/2008 6:11:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:phosadaud quote: quote: Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Thank you This is rich. Desperation, like politics, makes for strange bedfellows. [sm=sadquestion.gif][sm=sadquestion.gif][sm=sadquestion.gif]

everstudy -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 1:43:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey This is rich. Desperation, like politics, makes for strange bedfellows. Unc... Why do you even bother? You offer nothing to the discussion but irritation. For crying out loud....[sm=hammerhead.gif] ~ Everstudy

DanJames -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 1:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: drmark You glibly stated that 24-hr days required the existence of the sun. Numerous reasonable explanations have been advanced to refute this assumption. Since most of them are published by AiG and ICR, I will not waste my time linking them since you've made your disdain for YEC science so clear. Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Come on now, let's be thoughtful and stop using this argument. You argue that we should reinterpret the bible because of the latest uniformitarian paradigm, and then you support it by saying that there was no reference for a 24 hour day until day 4. Do you even know what you believe? Have you thought this view out? You DO believe that there was a sun on day one because you believe that the days represent long periods of time. The uniformitarian view is that the sun came before the earth, so there WAS a reference for 24 hours on day one. What do you who agree with this argument believe? Was there or wasn't there a reference for a 24 hour day on day one? We know what we believe. We believe that this is rediculous. If you needed the sun to make a 24 hour day, everybody that works in a building without windows would need to move their clocks outside. A day is 24 hours, 86,400 ticks of the clock. It's a silly argument. You don't believe it. Just stop using it.

DanJames -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 1:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:phosadaud quote: quote: Twenty-four hour days require the existence of the sun. The length of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun is 24 hours. Because the earth orbits the sun, the length of one rotation of the earth relative to the distant stars is a bit shorter. In order to talk about the length of time it takes for one rotation of the earth, you need to specify one rotation relative to what. Thank you This is rich. Desperation, like politics, makes for strange bedfellows. [sm=sadquestion.gif][sm=sadquestion.gif][sm=sadquestion.gif] He's saying that it's funny the things over which people can join forces when there is not much over which to agree. Oh and I'm pretty sure he's saying that the earth doesn't orbit the sun... gracious...

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 1:45:53 PM)
quote: Please re-read what I wrote. I never mentioned the sun. I said that the conditions for what we define as an "earth day" were not created until day 4. You never mentioned the sun? Okay, what else was created on day 4 that magically provides your preconceived conditions for an "earth day"? I promise you I will read carefully this time. quote: quote: Indeed, and it behooves us to interpret His Words correctly rather than "do our own thing"! I would agree. You may agree with proper hermeneutics, but you obviously don't practice them! quote: And I still do not understand what you think is so inconsistant. If you could further explain what you think I'm being so inconsistant about, I could maybe answer your question in a way that you get. One more time, phosadaud: it is inconsistent to claim Scriptural authority in one breath while interpreting the plain-sense meaning of yom in Genesis 1 to be some unspecified eon of time in the next breath. Likewise, it is inconsistent to believe that A&E were created in God's Image based on Genesis 1 while simultaneously claiming the very same chapter allows for millions of years of evolution. There is no sensible explanation for these inconsistencies!

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 4:34:36 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Indeed, and it behooves us to interpret His Words correctly rather than "do our own thing"! I would agree. You may agree with proper hermeneutics, but you obviously don't practice them! Wow. That's all I can say is wow. I'm assuming you don't think was intended as an insult either. [&:] quote: quote: And I still do not understand what you think is so inconsistant. If you could further explain what you think I'm being so inconsistant about, I could maybe answer your question in a way that you get. One more time, phosadaud: it is inconsistent to claim Scriptural authority in one breath while interpreting the plain-sense meaning of yom in Genesis 1 to be some unspecified eon of time in the next breath. Likewise, it is inconsistent to believe that A&E were created in God's Image based on Genesis 1 while simultaneously claiming the very same chapter allows for millions of years of evolution. There is no sensible explanation for these inconsistencies! #1 While in the temple courts, Jesus spoke the following words: John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.". The Jews at the time took him at the plain-sense meaning and thought He was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. He wasn't. He was referring to His body. Does this negate the authority of Scripture? Or does it show us that one cannot only read Scripture in a "plain sense" manner to get the truth of Scripture - in fact, only reading Scripture in a plain sense manner will actually lead us to interpret some of it incorrectly? What Jesus stated was 100% correct, but it was not "plain sense". That is how I can believe 100% in the authority of Scripture AND believe that "yom" in Genesis 1 doesn't have to mean a 24 hour period of time. There IS more than one definition of yom in Hebrew and those other definitions ARE used throughout Scripture. #2 I'll say this slow: Scripture does not tell us exactly what God creating us in His image looked like. It tells us He did. If you think I am incorrect, I would like you to give a detailed description of exactly what I would see if I was watching God create Adam and Eve. For this reason, theories as to how He did this are not inconsistant. God can make us in His image via a "poof" just as assuredly as He can make us in His image via a process. A digital camera uses a different process than a film camera, but both take images of subjects just as assuredly. And again, since God is spirit, the "image" in Genesis is not referring to 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head.

cow451 -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 4:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:cow451 quote: (since Scripture does not say that each day of creation was a 24 earth day or a God day which Scripture tells us is a lot longer than an earth day) A hermeneutic reading of Scripture tells us the days of creation were 24 hours each. Since you don’t agree then please cite the Scripture that tells us how long a “God day” is. quote: It's funny how people get so upset over science trying to describe something that Scripture doesn't describe. Actually what we object to is science trying to describe something using premises that contradict Scripture. Unc, for clarity and accuracy, you've jumbled quotes. I think you are probably responding to phosadaud, not me.

cow451 -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 5:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: It boggles the mind. Not really, cow. It's all clearly prophesied in 2 Peter 3:3-7. Why not go ahead and read verse 8, LOL?

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 5:13:59 PM)
quote: quote: You may agree with proper hermeneutics, but you obviously don't practice them! Wow. That's all I can say is wow. I'm assuming you don't think was intended as an insult either. Kristin, God and I know my intentions, you do not. I am stating simple facts, not making insults. I'm apparently unable to communicate in a way that you can tell the difference (that is also a simple fact, not an insult!). I'm sorry for my poor communication skills. quote: #1 While in the temple courts, Jesus spoke the following words: John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.". The Jews at the time took him at the plain-sense meaning and thought He was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. He wasn't. He was referring to His body. Does this negate the authority of Scripture? Can you honestly not see the fallacy of this argument? Jesus was speaking in parables for a specific purpose. The self-serving religious establishment failed to understand that then. Moses was writing historical narative for a specific purpose. The science-serving religious establishment fails to understand that today. Your argument supports the importance of proper hermeneutics, not the infallibility of universal literal interpretation! quote: Scripture does not tell us exactly what God creating us in His image looked like. It tells us He did. If you think I am incorrect, I would like you to give a detailed description of exactly what I would see if I was watching God create Adam and Eve. If you had been "watching God create Adam", you would have seen dirt assume the form of a man (but not the unseen Spirit Being responsible). This physical shell then received life when insufflated (again, with His unseen breath). No inorganic chemicals randomly forming forming DNA, no DNA accidentally asembling into a cell, no monocellular goo mysteriously evolving through zillions of years into Adam. That's exactly what God did NOT do according to the Bible!! BTW, Eve was fashioned from one of Adam's ribs, but I really think you know where all this is recorded, so please don't take my word for it. quote: God can make us in His image via a "poof" just as assuredly as He can make us in His image via a process. The question is not what God can assuredly do, Kristin, the question is what has He told us He already assuredly did once and for all! Are you really not getting this? quote: A digital camera uses a different process than a film camera, but both take images of subjects just as assuredly. And again, since God is spirit, the "image" in Genesis is not referring to 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head. So are you suggesting Jesus of Nazareth was a "digital image" of God? No, I didn't think so, so why are you making these irrelevant comparisons?

DanJames -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 5:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud #1 While in the temple courts, Jesus spoke the following words: John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.". The Jews at the time took him at the plain-sense meaning and thought He was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. He wasn't. He was referring to His body. Does this negate the authority of Scripture? Or does it show us that one cannot only read Scripture in a "plain sense" manner to get the truth of Scripture - in fact, only reading Scripture in a plain sense manner will actually lead us to interpret some of it incorrectly? What Jesus stated was 100% correct, but it was not "plain sense". That is how I can believe 100% in the authority of Scripture AND believe that "yom" in Genesis 1 doesn't have to mean a 24 hour period of time. There IS more than one definition of yom in Hebrew and those other definitions ARE used throughout Scripture. #2 I'll say this slow: Scripture does not tell us exactly what God creating us in His image looked like. It tells us He did. If you think I am incorrect, I would like you to give a detailed description of exactly what I would see if I was watching God create Adam and Eve. For this reason, theories as to how He did this are not inconsistant. God can make us in His image via a "poof" just as assuredly as He can make us in His image via a process. A digital camera uses a different process than a film camera, but both take images of subjects just as assuredly. And again, since God is spirit, the "image" in Genesis is not referring to 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head. No doubt God could have created through evolution, and I'm sure you're and others are thoroughly convinced that the Bible could be translated in the manner that you've described. But what Dr. Mark means by proper hermeneutics is that we have to translate a passage as it was intended. Because Genesis is a book of history, we wouldn't expect things to be explained in symbolism and parable. That's not to say that the author wouldn't use figures of speech and hyperbole, but entire allegorical passages... not in a history book. Your premise is correct, passages can take on different meanings to different people. Proverbs 16:1 The intentions of the heart belong to a man, but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord. This passage may take on a different meaning to just about every person that reads it. Are they all wrong? Probably not. But we must agree that there are some interpretations of this passage that are out of range of good hermeneutics. The same is true for Genesis 1. We can't just applaud every interpretation of the chapter simply because there are differences of opinion or because this or that interpretation lines up with the latest scientific paradigm. Like it or not, any good exegesis of Genesis 1-11 will be in conflict with uniformitarianism cosmology and geology, and Darwinian evolution. I don't think that makes anybody stupid or evil for believing that man evolved from apes, it just means that Satan is and always has been, a very crafty liar.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 5:40:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: #1 While in the temple courts, Jesus spoke the following words: John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.". The Jews at the time took him at the plain-sense meaning and thought He was referring to the Temple in Jerusalem. He wasn't. He was referring to His body. Does this negate the authority of Scripture? Can you honestly not see the fallacy of this argument? Jesus was speaking in parables for a specific purpose. The self-serving religious establishment failed to understand that then. Moses was writing historical narative for a specific purpose. The science-serving religious establishment fails to understand that today. Your argument supports the importance of proper hermeneutics, not the infallibility of universal literal interpretation! Wrong. This wasn't a parable. And even his disciples didn't get it. This happens throughout Scripture. And personally, I don't think "we" are any better than the Jews at the time of Jesus. I think "we" still get our knickers in a bunch over things that are non-issues (whether gleaning to eat was "work" on the Sabbath) and "we" read Scripture through cloudy glasses and refuse to even allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us because "we" think we know it all. And yes, being historical narrative does not mean that we can't misunderstand the meaning of a term. 24 hour day is not the only literal interpretation of yom. For instance: God tells Adam and Eve that the day, they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they will surely die. Now, a purely plain-sense interpretation of this Scripture would say that when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge, within 24 hours, they will keel over and start pushing up daisies. That's not what happened though. Does that throw the authority of Scripture out the window? Nope. Not at all. It just means that the plain-sense interpretation of those terms was not correct. Other literal definitions were what was meant. quote: quote: Scripture does not tell us exactly what God creating us in His image looked like. It tells us He did. If you think I am incorrect, I would like you to give a detailed description of exactly what I would see if I was watching God create Adam and Eve. If you had been "watching God create Adam", you would have seen dirt assume the form of a man (but not the unseen Spirit Being responsible). This physical shell then received life when insufflated (again, with His unseen breath). No inorganic chemicals randomly forming forming DNA, no DNA accidentally asembling into a cell, no monocellular goo mysteriously evolving through zillions of years into Adam. That's exactly what God did NOT do according to the Bible!! Really? And where does Scripture describe this process? quote: BTW, Eve was fashioned from one of Adam's ribs, but I really think you know where all this is recorded, so please don't take my word for it. Actually, it was his side. Rib is a translation error. quote: quote: God can make us in His image via a "poof" just as assuredly as He can make us in His image via a process. The question is not what God can assuredly do, Kristin, the question is what has He told us He already assuredly did once and for all! Are you really not getting this? I get what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree with it. There is a difference. quote: quote: A digital camera uses a different process than a film camera, but both take images of subjects just as assuredly. And again, since God is spirit, the "image" in Genesis is not referring to 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head. So are you suggesting Jesus of Nazareth was a "digital image" of God? No, I didn't think so, so why are you making these irrelevant comparisons? Jesus is the Word made man who was with God in the beginning (John 1). And you not understanding my point, does not make it irrelevant. Usually when I don't understand what someone's point is, I ask for clarification, but that's just me...

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>