RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Tree of the knowledge of good and evil - RightNation.US

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tree of the knowledge of good and evil Discussion of "original sin" Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 07 April 2019 - 04:37 PM

Part I: Tree of the knowledge of good and evil

Well folks this is to be my first post on RN. I had thought about doing so before but due to my lack of writing skills (compared with others here), decided to pass. Recently though I said to myself, ah what the heck might as well give it a shot. So hereís goes -- the topic that Iíd like to throw out is referred to as ďoriginal sinĒ, with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life, as its central foundations. The sin that resulted from Adam and Eveís action with regards to the tree, was, and is, the point of departure for pretty much the entire Bible and underscores and triggered all of its events. These trees along with Adamís and Eveís actions can be perceived as an upside-down pyramid in terms of biblical understanding. However, after reading the Bible (and the Bible alone) closely on this topic, certain factors have come to light which significantly changed my understanding of exactly what the Bible is actually teaching us, and which seems to differ significantly from other commentaries Iíve read on the topic Letís begin by examining the biblical verses where these trees are introduced to us:

[Gen 2:16-17 KJV]
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

To begin, let me say that the ďdeathĒ being spoken of above is eternal spiritual death Ė the worst death possible, not physical death. Now for the moment, letís focus on the name of the tree because that reveals so much extremely critical information: ďthe tree of the knowledge of good and evilĒ Ė the tree God had warned them NOT to eat from. But, what can that name really mean and imply when we drill down into it? (and we know that everything written in the Bible is there for a reason and that there are no errant words and nor words where God isnít communicating something very significant to us), so we must ask ourselves what is it that can possibly bring forth the knowledge of ďgood and evilĒ ? The only factor that can meet the criteria which is able to do that -- to distinguish and define good from evil isÖ the law Ė more specifically, the Law of laws. Which Law I will identify further later. What makes this so terrible (besides of course being that God had told them not to eat from it), is that by so doing, the desire to achieve the law thru their own works was also imparted unto them, and with that, sin, because Godís command that was intended to protect them, had been violated. One symbolism God uses is the word ďeatĒ: to eat or ingest is to make the Law a central part of their being.
This is to say, Adam and Eve could NOT have been convicted of any sin by God, no matter what, unless and until the Law of law came into existence( or came to life) through the ďeatingĒ, the which Law convicted them (and us) of trespasses immediately after the eating because law was then present. And after it (the Law of law) was activated, it would continue to be present to judge and measure everyone born from that point onwards until Christ. Interestingly, we continue to symbolically eat from that tree but the opportunity to not eat from it, is no longer a possibility to us by our own efforts, even if it may seem that it is Ė this illusion is what makes it so terrifying and unobservable to us without having the Bible as a roadmap and guide for understanding. Even then, without Christ and the Holy Spirit, it is impossible.
So to summarize to this point then,it was not sin which brought in the law Ė it was the Law of law as the centerpiece of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which brought in sin.

[Gen 3:1-5 KJV]
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons....

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

We can easily observe from the above verses, that it was Satan who encouraged Eve (and Adam ) to ďeatĒ of the tree (from the Law).Consequently, we can also easily infer then that the Law of law was Satanís device and not Godís. Satanís devices are anathema to those of God (and visa versa), especially where eternal spiritual life and death are concerned. Unfortunately, most people love and trust the Law of law for salvation as though it had come from God when it actually came from Satan -- we love it because we are under it and it is a major part of us. And so, we, without even realizing, are worshipping Satan and not God because we are following Satanís doctrines.

As can sometimes happen, conclusions may start to sound like gobble-de-gook which my post might. If so, please just let me know and I will try to clarify.

Post 2 to follow if it seems like there are any interest/questions in post 1
.
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 07 April 2019 - 06:04 PM

View Postrogerg, on 07 April 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

Well folks this is to be my first post on RN.


Huh? You have more than 800 posts here. I think you must mean this will be the first thread you've started.

As for discussing the subject itself, I hope people more familiar with the Bible do join in. Sounds very interesting. But before I join in I must ask a few questions, so that I'll know whether or not my own positions will be offensive and I should therefore stay out of it altogether:

Do you believe the entire universe was created during a period of 6 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? Were there two actual human beings named Adam and Eve? Was there an actual location called The Garden of Eden? Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe?

You see, I like you Roger, and I don't want to mess up your thread. But if you do believe all those kinds of things, then I would have lots of other questions, here's just one example: If God didn't want humans to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did He create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place??

See what I mean?

B)
0

#3 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 07 April 2019 - 06:45 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 07 April 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

Huh? You have more than 800 posts here. I think you must mean this will be the first thread you've started.

As for discussing the subject itself, I hope people more familiar with the Bible do join in. Sounds very interesting. But before I join in I must ask a few questions, so that I'll know whether or not my own positions will be offensive and I should therefore stay out of it altogether:

Do you believe the entire universe was created during a period of 6 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? Were there two actual human beings named Adam and Eve? Was there an actual location called The Garden of Eden? Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe?

You see, I like you Roger, and I don't want to mess up your thread. But if you do believe all those kinds of things, then I would have lots of other questions, here's just one example: If God didn't want humans to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did He create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place??

See what I mean?

B)


Yeah sorry started guess is correct, I didn't have the terminology right - that's what I actually meant.

And no problem re any questions - thought that's the purpose of the RN threads ? I'll do my best to answer.

"Do you believe the entire universe was created during a period of 6 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? Were there two actual human beings named Adam and Eve? Was there an actual location called The Garden of Eden? Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe?"

Yes

"If God didn't want humans to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did He create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place??"

Adam and Eve were the only people ever created who truly had perfect free will in terms of things spiritual. Were this not so God would have been under an obligation
not to have created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... but with free will the choice was entirely and completely theirs with no reflection upon God.



I like you too MontyPython
0

#4 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 07 April 2019 - 08:26 PM

View Postrogerg, on 07 April 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

"Do you believe the entire universe was created during a period of 6 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? Were there two actual human beings named Adam and Eve? Was there an actual location called The Garden of Eden? Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe?"

Yes


Then I'm afraid we have very little common ground, religiously.

I am a Christian. I absolutely believe in God. I absolutely believe Jesus Christ was his divine Son, sent to save us from sin. I have absolutely accepted Jesus as my personal Savior.

But I don't for one second believe the Bible presents a literal history of the world, intended to be taken as a word-for-word account incapable of fault or inaccuracy. There are just too many inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, too much undeniable proof the earth is billions of years old, too much undeniable proof of evolution, etc etc etc.

I fully respect everybody's right to accept the Bible as incapable of error, inaccuracy or contradiction. But I cannot in good conscience agree with them.


Quote

"If God didn't want humans to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did He create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place??"

Adam and Eve were the only people ever created who truly had perfect free will in terms of things spiritual. Were this not so God would have been under an obligation
not to have created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... but with free will the choice was entirely and completely theirs with no reflection upon God.


Here I just plain don't grasp what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're saying under other circumstances God would have been obligated to not create that tree. But it still doesn't answer why He did create it under the given circumstances.

B)
0

#5 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 07 April 2019 - 09:20 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 07 April 2019 - 08:26 PM, said:

Then I'm afraid we have very little common ground, religiously.

I am a Christian. I absolutely believe in God. I absolutely believe Jesus Christ was his divine Son, sent to save us from sin. I have absolutely accepted Jesus as my personal Savior.

But I don't for one second believe the Bible presents a literal history of the world, intended to be taken as a word-for-word account incapable of fault or inaccuracy. There are just too many inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, too much undeniable proof the earth is billions of years old, too much undeniable proof of evolution, etc etc etc.

I fully respect everybody's right to accept the Bible as incapable of error, inaccuracy or contradiction. But I cannot in good conscience agree with them.




Here I just plain don't grasp what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're saying under other circumstances God would have been obligated to not create that tree. But it still doesn't answer why He did create it under the given circumstances.

B)



"But I don't for one second believe the Bible presents a literal history of the world, intended to be taken as a word-for-word account incapable of fault or inaccuracy. There are just too many inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, too much undeniable proof the earth is billions of years old, too much undeniable proof of evolution, etc etc etc."


Don't you think the God of creation would be capable of creating it in whatever timeframe and however He wanted it to be created ? Did the Creation create itself ?

Here I just plain don't grasp what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're saying under other circumstances God would have been obligated to not create that tree. But it still doesn't answer why He did create it under the given circumstances.


Okay, relative to your last point I might have been clearer:
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter why He decided to create it. It only matters that He told them NOT to eat of it, and they perfectly understood that before they became under its curse. Later in Romans, thru Paul God informs us that sin was in the world so the fact that it was there (and is here now) is insufficient to hold God responsible -especially for them (more than anyone else). The eating of it, when they ate was not a sin itself, but it did bring in that by which sin is reckoned and accounted: the Law of law. This is the entire point of my post. But just to expound a little further -- the Law is a/the law all unto itself. This THE Law Christ's sacrifice was to nullify for those He was to save -- the Law of law

This post has been edited by rogerg: 07 April 2019 - 09:35 PM

0

#6 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 07 April 2019 - 10:10 PM

View Postrogerg, on 07 April 2019 - 09:20 PM, said:

Don't you think the God of creation would be capable of creating it in whatever timeframe and however He wanted it to be created ? Did the Creation create itself ?


Yes, I do indeed believe God could have created the universe in any manner and at any speed He preferred. It could have been an instant like the snapping of fingers, it could have been six 24-hour days, it could have been billions of years, and it could have been anywhere in between. So it doesn't really matter. But if we look at all the proofs and facts and evidence He left of His creative design, there is no possible logical conclusion except that it took billions of years.

And keep in mind that doesn't contradict the Bible. It's important to remember the Bible wasn't written in English. When the Bible was written there was no such thing as an "English Language". The main three languages of the original Biblical writings were, I believe, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and ancient Aramaic. Therefore in the original language of the book of Genesis, they didn't use the English word "Day" in the description of Creation. The word was "Nom". And back then they used the word "Nom" in a similar fashion as we use "Day" now - in other words, as you know "Day" can mean a 24-hour period ("one day"), but it can also mean a long period of indeterminate length ("Back in my day"..."In the day of the dinosaur"..."In the day of chivalry and knights in armor"...etc etc etc.) Well "Nom" was used similarly: It was sometimes used to describe a single 24-hour period, but was just as often used to describe a long period of indeterminate length! Therefore the assertion that the universe is billions of years old DOESN'T contradict the account of the creation given in Genesis as originally written.

It was only when imperfect humans translated the Bible into other languages that somebody made the mistake of making it sound like it was done over a period of merely six 24-hour days.


View Postrogerg, on 07 April 2019 - 09:20 PM, said:

Okay, relative to your last point I might have been clearer:
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter why He decided to create it. It only matters that He told them NOT to eat of it, and they perfectly understood that before they became under its curse. Later in Romans, thru Paul God informs us that sin was in the world so the fact that it was there (and is here now) is insufficient to hold God responsible -especially for them (more than anyone else). The eating of it, when they ate was not a sin, but it did bring in that by which sin is reckoned and accounted-- the Law of law. This is the entire point of my post.


And I'm looking forward to seeing how others (those who believe there really was a specific person named Adam and a specific person named Eve who lived in a specific location called The Garden of Eden) approach that subject. I will certainly be reading along, but since I don't believe those specifics, I'll probably not enter that discussion.

B)

This post has been edited by MontyPython: 07 April 2019 - 11:07 PM

0

#7 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 02:47 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 07 April 2019 - 10:10 PM, said:

Yes, I do indeed believe God could have created the universe in any manner and at any speed He preferred. It could have been an instant like the snapping of fingers, it could have been six 24-hour days, it could have been billions of years, and it could have been anywhere in between. So it doesn't really matter. But if we look at all the proofs and facts and evidence He left of His creative design, there is no possible logical conclusion except that it took billions of years.

And keep in mind that doesn't contradict the Bible. It's important to remember the Bible wasn't written in English. When the Bible was written there was no such thing as an "English Language". The main three languages of the original Biblical writings were, I believe, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and ancient Aramaic. Therefore in the original language of the book of Genesis, they didn't use the English word "Day" in the description of Creation. The word was "Nom". And back then they used the word "Nom" in a similar fashion as we use "Day" now - in other words, as you know "Day" can mean a 24-hour period ("one day"), but it can also mean a long period of indeterminate length ("Back in my day"..."In the day of the dinosaur"..."In the day of chivalry and knights in armor"...etc etc etc.) Well "Nom" was used similarly: It was sometimes used to describe a single 24-hour period, but was just as often used to describe a long period of indeterminate length! Therefore the assertion that the universe is billions of years old DOESN'T contradict the account of the creation given in Genesis as originally written.

It was only when imperfect humans translated the Bible into other languages that somebody made the mistake of making it sound like it was done over a period of merely six 24-hour days.




And I'm looking forward to seeing how others (those who believe there really was a specific person named Adam and a specific person named Eve who lived in a specific location called The Garden of Eden) approach that subject. I will certainly be reading along, but since I don't believe those specifics, I'll probably not enter that discussion.

B)


"But if we look at all the proofs and facts and evidence He left of His creative design, there is no possible logical conclusion except that it took billions of years."

Except that as a part of the creation effort, God chose to manifest the Creation as being fully formed from the beginning to include having its "evidence" to look that way too -- just like Adam and Eve (maybe not a good example for you since you don't perceive them that way), but were created as fully formed mature adults from the beginning and not as infants which then grew into maturity. As said previously, it was in God's power and prerogative to create it any manner He chose to. But why that way ? Because God purposefully placed within the Bible A LOT of points which at first blush appear to contradict each other. To some readers, those contradictions pose questions and provide motivation to dig deeper and deeper to reconcile them, which to a large extent they will achieve. To others, they will dissuade from looking further and possibly to set the Bible at naught. The "logical conclusion" you speak of though is only "logical" while it is viewed solely within the context of the physical Creation itself, but that's not all that was involved with it -- a force outside of that ( God) who created (the Creation), guided the result apart from the physical laws (hope that makes sense) -- so in looking just at the earthly "evidence" it actually becomes illogical (no offence intended).

Please observe:

[Luk 8:10 KJV] 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.


"And keep in mind that doesn't contradict the Bible. It's important to remember the Bible wasn't written in English. When the Bible was written there was no such thing as an "English Language". The main three languages of the original Biblical writings were, I believe, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and ancient Aramaic. Therefore in the original language of the book of Genesis, they didn't use the English word "Day" in the description of Creation. The word was "Nom". And back then they used the word "Nom" in a similar fashion as we use "Day" now - in other words, as you know "Day" can mean a 24-hour period ("one day"), but it can also mean a long period of indeterminate length ("Back in my day"..."In the day of the dinosaur"..."In the day of chivalry and knights in armor"...etc etc etc.) Well "Nom" was used similarly: It was sometimes used to describe a single 24-hour period, but was just as often used to describe a long period of indeterminate length! Therefore the assertion that the universe is billions of years old DOESN'T contradict the account of the creation given in Genesis as originally written."


So then based on the above, you would not exclude the possibility that creation did occur in a six day, twenty-four period, right ? And at best you'd have to call both possibilities a draw.


Kinda tired right now so I'm sure I didn't say everything I wanted to say about it, or in the best way, so I may have to edit tomorrow somewhat

This post has been edited by rogerg: 08 April 2019 - 06:11 AM

0

#8 User is offline   LollyMpl 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 25-June 18

Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:11 AM

Regarding day and its different meanings...yes, it has different meanings....but Genesis is clear in saying, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day". It says that for each of the days of creation. So I'm not sure how that use of day is seen as anything other than a 24 hour day. I know it is, and people have all their thoughts and ways of explaining. I like seeing the simpleness of it....without twisting and turning and trying to make other things try to fit. I guess for me....I don't care that the world seems billions of years old. It's not something that causes me to wonder and question....God can do whatever He wants to....even speak rocks into existence which would date as billions of years old. I mean, God took Jesus (Who was in the beginning...with God and as God...John 1) and turned Him into an embryo which grew into a baby which eventually became the man Who would die on the cross for my sins. Some things just make no sense as to why or how. We see through a glass darkly...and one day, I expect that we will understand. Though it is sometimes fun to wonder how, why, what?!?!
0

#9 User is offline   Wag-a-Muffin (D) 

  • Still clinging bitterly. . .
  • View blog
  • Group: Blog Moderator
  • Posts: 19,668
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:17 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 07 April 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

Huh? You have more than 800 posts here. I think you must mean this will be the first thread you've started.

As for discussing the subject itself, I hope people more familiar with the Bible do join in. Sounds very interesting. But before I join in I must ask a few questions, so that I'll know whether or not my own positions will be offensive and I should therefore stay out of it altogether:

Do you believe the entire universe was created during a period of 6 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? Were there two actual human beings named Adam and Eve? Was there an actual location called The Garden of Eden? Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe?

You see, I like you Roger, and I don't want to mess up your thread. But if you do believe all those kinds of things, then I would have lots of other questions, here's just one example: If God didn't want humans to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did He create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place??

See what I mean?

B)

Maybe they just weren't supposed to eat the fruit YET. Maybe they were supposed to wait? And just for full disclosure. I believe it was an literal fruit that they ate. That it changed their bodies and made them susceptible to physical death. And that their choice to transgress that commandment (don't eat the fruit of this tree) made them susceptible to spiritual death. I don't believe that "eating the fruit" means "having sex."

This post has been edited by Wag-a-Muffin (D): 08 April 2019 - 08:18 AM

0

#10 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:13 AM

View PostWag-a-Muffin (D), on 08 April 2019 - 08:17 AM, said:

Maybe they just weren't supposed to eat the fruit YET. Maybe they were supposed to wait? And just for full disclosure. I believe it was an literal fruit that they ate. That it changed their bodies and made them susceptible to physical death. And that their choice to transgress that commandment (don't eat the fruit of this tree) made them susceptible to spiritual death. I don't believe that "eating the fruit" means "having sex."


I believe God gave an unequivocal command not to eat the fruit of the tree - from what I can see God did not mince any words about that.
As for it being a literal fruit, if we review the Bible it looks to me like fruit implies something symbolic.
The fruits of the Serpent as depicted by the fruits of the tree are, I believe, one in the same.
While there are many, many hits on the word "fruit" the following may be reasonable representative examples:


[Mat 13:23 KJV] 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
[Mat 7:15-20 KJV] 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


Edited to include: It doesn't seem logical to me that a tree named tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would produce a literal fruit.
The name itself seems to me to be a symbolic representative of the concept of the Law of law

This post has been edited by rogerg: 08 April 2019 - 09:38 AM

0

#11 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,056
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:14 AM

I remember being told when I actually tried to sort out religion a few things that made sense to me. Someone said the actual Hebrew word they translated to day can also translate to period of time. If thatís the actual case it would be 7 periods of time. I donít know if that is the case but it would make more sense. It was also pointed out to me where the Bible says something a bout time related to god. A blink of an eye is 100 yrs to him or something. I know thereís a verse in there something to that extent. Iím not up on my Bible enough to actually remember the verse and location. But that being the case if itís 7 periods of time or 7 days to god how long is Godís day time wise. That was all told to me by a science teacher that was a Christian and made sense when I asked him. He also believed the seventh day when god rests is the end, basicly that we havenít reached that point yet. That also makes sense to me, I donít think gods resting or taking time off yet. As far as a great flood every religion mentions it, along with all scientific fact. So yeah I believe there was a flood even atheist scientist believe it. But most of all the older Iíve gotten the more I identify as Christian and the less Iím worried about questions I canít answer in the Bible.

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 08 April 2019 - 09:16 AM

0

#12 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:15 AM

View PostLollyMpl, on 08 April 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

Regarding day and its different meanings...yes, it has different meanings....but Genesis is clear in saying, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day". It says that for each of the days of creation. So I'm not sure how that use of day is seen as anything other than a 24 hour day. I know it is, and people have all their thoughts and ways of explaining. I like seeing the simpleness of it....without twisting and turning and trying to make other things try to fit. I guess for me....I don't care that the world seems billions of years old. It's not something that causes me to wonder and question....God can do whatever He wants to....even speak rocks into existence which would date as billions of years old. I mean, God took Jesus (Who was in the beginning...with God and as God...John 1) and turned Him into an embryo which grew into a baby which eventually became the man Who would die on the cross for my sins. Some things just make no sense as to why or how. We see through a glass darkly...and one day, I expect that we will understand. Though it is sometimes fun to wonder how, why, what?!?!


With respects to Monty, I agree with you
0

#13 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 09:23 AM

View PostSquirrel, on 08 April 2019 - 09:14 AM, said:

I remember being told when I actually tried to sort out religion a few things that made sense to me. Someone said the actual Hebrew word they translated to day can also translate to period of time. If thatís the actual case it would be 7 periods of time. I donít know if that is the case but it would make more sense. It was also pointed out to me where the Bible says something a bout time related to god. A blink of an eye is 100 yrs to him or something. I know thereís a verse in there something to that extent. Iím not up on my Bible enough to actually remember the verse and location. But that being the case if itís 7 periods of time or 7 days to god how long is Godís day time wise. That was all told to me by a science teacher that was a Christian and made sense when I asked him. He also believed the seventh day when god rests is the end, basicly that we havenít reached that point yet. That also makes sense to me, I donít think gods resting or taking time off yet. As far as a great flood every religion mentions it, along with all scientific fact. So yeah I believe there was a flood even atheist scientist believe it. But most of all the older Iíve gotten the more I identify as Christian and the less Iím worried about questions I canít answer in the Bible.



[Gen 1:5 KJV] 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
0

#14 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 08 April 2019 - 02:08 PM

OK, two more observations:

1) Re - The "young earth" that is just made to look billions of years old: To me that is one of the least plausible arguments ever presented. Why? Because I don't for one second believe in a "dishonest" God; a "trickster"; a God who would deliberately leave solid proof and facts and evidence of a several-billion-year-old planet when the planet isn't several billion years old. I just can't buy that assertion, because I'd have to believe God deliberately tried to trick us.

2) Re - The "evening and the morning were the first day": How could "day", even in that quote, represent the 24-hour period of time between two risings of the sun when the sun itself wasn't created until the fourth day?

B)
0

#15 User is offline   LollyMpl 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 25-June 18

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:21 PM

...yet God spoke adult animals and birds and fish and plants into existence. He didn't speak seeds and expect them to grow. Speaking rocks and earth into existence would mean they would have the layers that older earth/rocks/formations would have. He created an adult man and woman, not babies. Obviously, there were grown, fruiting trees....wonder how many tree rings they had from the day they were spoken into being?

But wouldn't it be a dishonest god who said an evening and morning was the first day....but then it really meant a different meaning of time? When the Bible says there is light and dark, and they are called day and night, and it says it's a day....but the sun is not created yet....I tend to say, ok, yep, allrighty then. And I say it's a day. I'm not sure why that's so hard. God also made the sun stay shining for a whole 'nother day once...and not set... He made a donkey talk. He made 3 men in a fire come out alive, not burned, and not smelling like smoke. Some things are pretty weird....and cool....and make zero natural sense. But then, I don't care to serve a natural God....I follow One Who is Supernatural.
0

#16 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:21 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 08 April 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

OK, two more observations:

1) Re - The "young earth" that is just made to look billions of years old: To me that is one of the least plausible arguments ever presented. Why? Because I don't for one second believe in a "dishonest" God; a "trickster"; a God who would deliberately leave solid proof and facts and evidence of a several-billion-year-old planet when the planet isn't several billion years old. I just can't buy that assertion, because I'd have to believe God deliberately tried to trick us.

2) Re - The "evening and the morning were the first day": How could "day", even in that quote, represent the 24-hour period of time between two risings of the sun when the sun itself wasn't created until the fourth day?

B)


1)"The "young earth" that is just made to look billions of years old:"

Made to look old to whom ? As far as I know, God never said or mentioned, documented or substantiated anything about age "evidence", except for what he said. . That was an assumption made totally of mankind a nd not a statement of God's. If He did, where is it?

2 "Re - The "evening and the morning were the first day": How could "day", even in that quote, represent the 24-hour period of time between two risings of the sun when the sun itself wasn't created until the fourth day?"

I may be missing something but the sun had nothing to do with the rendering of the duration of the length of a day. It had been established as 24 hours I think. In a subsequent verse, God choose to secondarily use the Sun and Moon to make that same delineation, but the duration remained the same. All we need to know is that the time between the darkness and the light was/is 24 hours -- the "how" was changed, not the "what". How that darkness and light occurred and was measured is not germane for your point. On day four, God began using the Sun and the Moon to make the delineation instead of what He had been using.


Anyway, it seems to me we're all getting somewhat off the tread's point (is thread the correct terminology here ?) since the title is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not the duration of a day?

This post has been edited by rogerg: 08 April 2019 - 03:34 PM

0

#17 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:36 PM

View Postrogerg, on 08 April 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

1)"The "young earth" that is just made to look billions of years old:"

Made to look old to whom ? As far as I know, God never said or mentioned or documented anything about "evidence" regarding age. That was an assumption made totally of mankind not a statement of God's.


So you arbitrarily dismiss provable facts because they aren't mentioned in the Bible...? To the best of my recollection, airplanes are mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Do you therefore arbitrarily dismiss the existence of airplanes?


View Postrogerg, on 08 April 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

2 "Re - The "evening and the morning were the first day": How could "day", even in that quote, represent the 24-hour period of time between two risings of the sun when the sun itself wasn't created until the fourth day?"

I may be missing something but the sun had nothing to do with the rendering of the duration of the length of a day. It had been established as 24 hours I think. In a subsequent verse,
God choose to use the Sun and Moon to make that delineation, but the duration remained the same. All we need to know is that the time between the darkness and the light was/is 24 hours. How that darkness and light occurred and was measured is not germane for your point. On day four, God began using the Sun and the Moon to make the delineation instead of what He had been using.


OK again I must point to the provable facts that the earth is billions of years old. You yourself openly acknowledged back in post #7 that "you'd have to call both possibilities a draw" (meaning the possibilities of a creation over billions of years, and a creation that was completed in six 24-hour days.) Well we have mountains of proof that the earth is billions of years old. Where can "proof" of a 6-day creation be found outside the Bible (especially while keeping firmly in mind that the billions-of-years assertion doesn't contradict the Bible as originally written)?

B)
0

#18 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:43 PM

View Postrogerg, on 08 April 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

Anyway, it seems to me we're all getting somewhat off the tread's point (is thread the correct terminology here ?) since the title is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not the duration of a day?


That's a very good point. I'll bow out now, unless you want to continue our discussion. Rest assured I can present plenty more Biblical contradictions and translation mistakes and such which haven't been mentioned yet.

As I said earlier - I am a Christian, I believe in God, believe Jesus Christ is His Son and our Savior. He is certainly my own personal Savior. My point here is not to suggest otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that while the Bible is a great book full of wonderful lessons and instructions on how to live a good and worthy life (as well as lots of exciting stories and adventures), it mustn't be taken literally, as though it was a historically accurate account of mankind.

B)
0

#19 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:43 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 08 April 2019 - 03:36 PM, said:

So you arbitrarily dismiss provable facts because they aren't mentioned in the Bible...? To the best of my recollection, airplanes are mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Do you therefore arbitrarily dismiss the existence of airplanes?




OK again I must point to the provable facts that the earth is billions of years old. You yourself openly acknowledged back in post #7 that "you'd have to call both possibilities a draw" (meaning the possibilities of a creation over billions of years, and a creation that was completed in six 24-hour days.) Well we have mountains of proof that the earth is billions of years old. Where can "proof" of a 6-day creation be found outside the Bible (especially while keeping firmly in mind that the billions-of-years assertion doesn't contradict the Bible as originally written)?

B)


"So you arbitrarily dismiss provable facts because they aren't mentioned in the Bible...? To the best of my recollection, airplanes are mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Do you therefore arbitrarily dismiss the existence of airplanes?"


Yes. I work exclusively from the point of view that the Bible is the ONLY source of divine spiritual revelation written exclusively by God for man's edification -- each and every word. God put in it what He put in it for very particular reasons and left out what He left out for the same and He did it purposefully -- how else could it be trusted to communicate His eternal salvation plan to man?


"OK again I must point to the provable facts"

Guess it would depend upon what you consider "proof" to be. Man's science as opposed to God's power ?

This post has been edited by rogerg: 08 April 2019 - 03:46 PM

0

#20 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,806
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 08 April 2019 - 03:49 PM

View Postrogerg, on 08 April 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

"So you arbitrarily dismiss provable facts because they aren't mentioned in the Bible...? To the best of my recollection, airplanes are mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Do you therefore arbitrarily dismiss the existence of airplanes?"


Yes. I work exclusively from the point of view that the Bible is the ONLY source of divine spiritual revelation written exclusively by God for man's edification -- each and every word. God put in it what He put in it for very particular reasons and left out what He left out for the same and He did it purposefully -- how else could it be trusted to
communicate His eternal salvation plan to man?


Then what about the direct contradictions found in the Bible? For the most obvious example: "Thou Shalt Not Kill", even though God specifically condones killing in LOTS of places in the Bible - Gideon and the Midionites, Joshua at Jericho, David and Goliath and plenty more; And what about all the sins spelled out in Leviticus where God's specifically instructed punishment is death?

There are more, but that seems like a good place to start.

B)
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users