the creation story a myth????

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24884)
(tim_from_pa;24880)
Be careful of your reasoning here. I believe there was a gap of time and it does not bother me if you do not. However, lack of a straightforward statement in the bible, or even silence for that matter does not prove this was not the case. In other words, silence about a matter does not mean it does not exist.An example: People who deny the virgin birth (which the gospels clearly teach) claim it was not so because Paul did not mention it and therefore could not have happened. No, it merely means he did not mention it (nor did he mention the parables for that matter). This does not mean it did not occur.
The difference there is that the Bible explicitly talks about the virgin birth. To knowingly teach against it fails the test of reason and logic when lining up the teaching to the scriptre. That is the test of any teaching. Line it up with the literal interpretation of scripture, if the teaching fails to line up then its a teaching you should probably avoid.The Bible says creation in 7 days, not creation in two years and seven days. Therefore the teaching fails the test of logic as God is not a liar, nor a deceiver.I take it the fact that you want to stay in the surface of the text. The milk of the Word. And those days are not literal anyway. Not 144 hours of creation and a 24 hour rest.Jag

 

[jkdjr25]

Then you are saying God lied. The Bible cannot be both 100% inerrant and 100% figurative. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy as the two are mutually exclusive.Consider the definitions in·er·rant (ĭn-ěr'ənt) Pronunciation Key adj. Incapable of erring; infallible. Containing no errors. fig·u·ra·tive (fĭg'yər-ə-tĭv) Pronunciation Key adj. Based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical: figurative language. Containing many figures of speech; ornate. Represented by a figure or resemblance; symbolic or emblematic. Of or relating to artistic representation by means of animal or human figures. It can't be both because symbolism is subject to the interpretation of the reader and their interpretation will be colored by personal viewpoints and experiences. The Bible MUST be literal, though there are places that use figurative language, to be 100% inerrant.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24890)
Then you are saying God lied. The Bible cannot be both 100% inerrant and 100% figurative. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy as the two are mutually exclusive.Consider the definitions in·er·rant (ĭn-ěr'ənt) Pronunciation Key adj. Incapable of erring; infallible. Containing no errors. fig·u·ra·tive (fĭg'yər-ə-tĭv) Pronunciation Key adj. Based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical: figurative language. Containing many figures of speech; ornate. Represented by a figure or resemblance; symbolic or emblematic. Of or relating to artistic representation by means of animal or human figures. It can't be both because symbolism is subject to the interpretation of the reader and their interpretation will be colored by personal viewpoints and experiences. The Bible MUST be literal, though there are places that use figurative language, to be 100% inerrant.
II Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.What is saying here is 1000 human years is one Day to God.Jag

 

[jkdjr25]

(thesuperjag;24891)
II Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.What is saying here is 1000 human years is one Day to God.Jag
That's not an uncommon interpretation, its not the literal meaning of that sentance though.Peter is refering to time sent with the Lord, in fact it says that quite plainly and specificly. If Peter had meant that to God a thousand years was one day he would have worded the sentance differently. Notice that Peter very clearly says that "one day WITH the Lord is as a thousand years". This refers to our future time with Him. If Peter had meant what you say he does then the sentance would have been worded more like "that one day TO the Lord is a thousand years." Here we see the difference. The subtraction of the word "as" and subsition of the word "with" to "to" changes the meaning of the sentance to what you believe that it says.Since the Bible doesn't word it in the manner that would support your teaching, the teaching is incorrect.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24892)
(thesuperjag;24891)
II Peter 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. What is saying here is 1000 human years is one Day to God. Jag
That's not an uncommon interpretation, its not the literal meaning of that sentance though.Peter is refering to time sent with the Lord, in fact it says that quite plainly and specificly. If Peter had meant that to God a thousand years was one day he would have worded the sentance differently. Notice that Peter very clearly says that "one day WITH the Lord is as a thousand years". This refers to our future time with Him.If Peter had meant what you say he does then the sentance would have been worded more like "that one day TO the Lord is a thousand years." Here we see the difference. The subtraction of the word "as" and subsition of the word "with" to "to" changes the meaning of the sentance to what you believe that it says.Since the Bible doesn't word it in the manner that would support your teaching, the teaching is incorrect.Did you not realized that nobody in this world or bible times ever lived a whole day?Jag

 

[crooner]

good point

 

[jkdjr25]

(thesuperjag;24894)
Did you not realized that nobody in this world or bible times ever lived a whole day?Jag
That is completely nonsensical. God created 24 hour days. It says that right in Genesis, "there was evening and there was morning the first day". This refers quite plainly to a 24 hour period, not 1000 years. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need a thousand years to do anything. He spoke it into being and it was.To say otherwise to say that God lied or at the very least deceived us. Since that is not the case, again the teaching fails the test of logic, making it false.I don't know what else to say except look at the scripture and test what it says on a logical, literal level. If the teaching doesn't line up, then the teaching is wrong.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24898)
(thesuperjag;24894)
Did you not realized that nobody in this world or bible times ever lived a whole day?Jag
That is completely nonsensical. God created 24 hour days. It says that right in Genesis, "there was evening and there was morning the first day". This refers quite plainly to a 24 hour period, not 1000 years. God, being omnipotent, doesn't need a thousand years to do anything. He spoke it into being and it was.To say otherwise to say that God lied or at the very least deceived us. Since that is not the case, again the teaching fails the test of logic, making it false.I don't know what else to say except look at the scripture and test what it says on a logical, literal level. If the teaching doesn't line up, then the teaching is wrong.If you say so. I do know that Earth is over 6,000 years old.Jag

 

[jkdjr25]

If that's what you choose to believe, that's what you choose to believe. I believe otherwise, and that belief is solely based on the literal interpretion of scripture.

 

[crooner]

good stuff

 

[Jordan]

jkdjr25, Can you tell me of the serpent in Genesis 3:1, is it a talking snake?Jag

 

[crooner]

Snake s sym language for satan isnt it?

 

[jkdjr25]

:naughty:I can tell when someone is trying to mock me you know, but I'll play along for now.Either Satan took the form of a serpent to deceive eve, OR he possessed one to do so. Either explanation lines up both logically and through use of deductive reasoning. I go back to my point that if a teaching does not line up logically with scripture then the teaching is in error.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24931)
(thesuperjag;24926)
jkdjr25, Can you tell me of the serpent in Genesis 3:1, is it a talking snake?Jag
:naughty:I can tell when someone is trying to mock me you know, but I'll play along for now.Either Satan took the form of a serpent to deceive eve, OR he possessed one to do so. Either explanation lines up both logically and through use of deductive reasoning. I go back to my point that if a teaching does not line up logically with scripture then the teaching is in error.Thank you for the appreciated answer. You know more than me. Can you explain please on what Ezekiel 28:12-14 please jkdjr25. I really need to know.Jag

 

[Jonous]

Apparently the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" equation is meant to show that the time of God has no relation to ours. God is timeless, he has always been and always will be, this state cannot be measured. As for the 6 days literal creation creation I say this, the million years of creation are as possible as the literal 6 days. As God is timeless both durations are possible. Was it difficult for God to create all that is, in 6 human days? Of course not. After all the bible is written for men and is meant to be read by men. Then again in Apocalypse we read "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel." Apoc. 21:17We see that the bible makes it specific here that it measures according to the measure of a man. So one cannot be certain but neither should be bothered with such issues

 

[jkdjr25]

(thesuperjag;24933)
Thank you for the appreciated answer. You know more than me. Can you explain please on what Ezekiel 28:12-14 please jkdjr25. I really need to know.Jag
The entirety of Ezekial 28 appears to be both a satirical comment and prophecy to the King of Tyrous at that particular time. Its also generally accepted to be an description of Satan.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24937)
(thesuperjag;24933)
Thank you for the appreciated answer. You know more than me. Can you explain please on what Ezekiel 28:12-14 please jkdjr25. I really need to know.Jag
The entirety of Ezekial 28 appears to be both a satirical comment and prophecy to the King of Tyrous at that particular time. Its also generally accepted to be an description of Satan.I'm so confused Mr. jkdjr25, How can there be King of Tyrus at Eden the Garden of God?We got the King of Tyrus, the serpent and the cherub, Which three was talking to Eve? You know the answer. But please do me a favor...since I don't know, can you provide me scriptures please?Jag

 

[jkdjr25]

(thesuperjag;24940)
I'm so confused Mr. jkdjr25, How can there be King of Tyrus at Eden the Garden of God?We got the King of Tyrus, the serpent and the cherub, Which three was talking to Eve? You know the answer. But please do me a favor...since I don't know, can you provide me scriptures please?Jag
It was Satan who was talking to Eve through the serpent. Now the King of Tyrous was never in Eden and that was the point. As I said, the text of Ezekial 28 is both satirical and prophetic. The King of Tyrous was acting like he had been there and seen everything as it played out. God was calling him on his arrogance by use of satire.

 

[Jordan]

(jkdjr25;24941)
(thesuperjag;24940)
I'm so confused Mr. jkdjr25, How can there be King of Tyrus at Eden the Garden of God?We got the King of Tyrus, the serpent and the cherub, Which three was talking to Eve? You know the answer. But please do me a favor...since I don't know, can you provide me scriptures please?Jag
It was Satan who was talking to Eve through the serpent. Now the King of Tyrous was never in Eden and that was the point. As I said, the text of Ezekial 28 is both satirical and prophetic. The King of Tyrous was acting like he had been there and seen everything as it played out. God was calling him on his arrogance by use of satire.If the King of Tyrus is not there in Eden, the Garden of God, why did God say He was there...Look...Ezekiel 28:12-13 - Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;...Jag

 

[jkdjr25]

(thesuperjag;24942)
If the King of Tyrus is not there in Eden, the Garden of God, why did God say He was there...Look...Ezekiel 28:12-13 - Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;...Jag
As I said it was satire. God was chastising him for his arrogance. Look at the language used and the context in which it is used. Content and context. Its like I've been saying all along. You have to let the Holy Spirit guide you and then use deductive reasoning to test the teaching. If the teaching and the scripture fail because of content or because they ignore the context of the language then the teaching fails the test of logic aligning with scripture and is therefore false.