The length of creation days: 24 hours
gabriel
The length of the creation days
Grudem gives a few of the young-earth arguments in support of
literal days (Grudem 1994, pp. 295�297). He says that the
repeated refrain of �there was evening and there was morning, the
Xth day� in Genesis 1 is a �strong argument from context.� But he
then objects that we could not have evening and morning before
the sun was created on Day 4. He fails to note that all that is
needed is a source of light external to the earth on the first
three days. And God made that light on Day 1. Can our
supernatural God not create the phenomenon of light without the
sun? He did so in the middle of a sunny day to blind Saul on the
road to Damascus (Acts 9:4 and 22:6) and will do so in the new
creation (Revelation 21:23 and 22:5). Why not on Day 1 (Genesis
1:3)?
As noted at the beginning of this essay, Exodus 20:8�11 is a very
important passage for the defense of young-earth creationism, and
Grudem says that it �is hard to avoid� our conclusion. However,
he attempts to neutralize these verses by saying that the passage
teaches that the Jews were to work six days because God set a
pattern of working six successive periods and resting on the
seventh period (Grudem 1994, pp. 295�296). But if God created
over six long ages of time and was only establishing a pattern of
6 + 1 for the Jewish work-week, He could have (and would have)
used an indefinite time word or phrase,57 rather than the only
Hebrew word that means a 24-hour day. Also, Grudem declares that
in the very next sentence (and commandment, Exodus 20:12) ��day�
means �a period of time�.� However, that verse does not use �day�
singular, but �days� plural, and everywhere else �days� (Hebrew,
yamim) is used in the Old Testament, the context shows that it
always means literal days. Furthermore, when the commandment says
that our �days may be prolonged� it does not mean that the days
will be longer than 24 hours (and Grudem agrees), but that we
will live a greater number of (literal) days, that is, a longer
life. So, Grudem�s comments fail to refute the creationist
argument from the fourth commandment.
His arguments against literal days and for the day-age view
include the fact that Genesis 2:4 is a nonliteral use of y�m
(day) in the creation account and y�m sometimes has a nonliteral
meaning elsewhere in the Old Testament. But all his verses
supporting the latter point have y�m connected to nouns in the
construct state (for example, day of God�s wrath, day of battle,
day of harvest, etc.). Furthermore, none of these verses prove a
nonliteral meaning for y�m, because these phrases can also just
as legitimately be interpreted as the first literal day of a
longer time period (for example, battle, harvest, etc.). Also, in
Genesis 1 (as in Exodus 20:11) we do not have this grammatical
construction (nouns in the construct state with y�m). Rather, in
Genesis 1 we find y�m modified by number, which everywhere else
in the Old Testament always means a literal day. A similar
argument applies to Genesis 2:4 where the construction is beyom
(literally, �in day�), an adverb (functioning as a prepositional
phrase) which is not used in Genesis 1 with respect to each day
of creation. Numbers 7:10�84 provides a similar use of beyom (in
verses 10 and 84, referring to a 12-day period of Jewish
sacrifice) in context with y�m + number (verses 12, 18, 24, etc.
where the days are literal, when each Israelite tribe
sacrificed). So, the nonliteral beyom in Genesis 2:4 does not
negate the literal interpretation of y�m in Genesis 1.
Grudem also raises the old (and frequently refuted) objection
that too much happened on the sixth day of creation to fit into
twenty-four hours. But no time duration for the events is given
in the text. The miraculous events of creation (creating all the
land animals, making the Garden of Eden, creating Adam, putting
Adam to sleep and creating Eve) were instantaneous or required
only minutes, at most. Surely, putting Adam in the Garden (for
the purpose of caring for it)58 and telling him not to eat from
one tree took at most two minutes to accomplish. Grudem assumes
that an �incredibly large number of animals� were named (Grudem
1994, p. 294). But what is that number? The text does not inform
us of the number of �beasts of the field� and �birds of the sky�
God brought to Adam to name (he did not need to name sea
creatures, �beasts of the earth,� or creeping things). They may
have only been only the animals that Adam would domesticate.
Naming at the leisurely pace of six animals per minute, Adam
could have effortlessly named 3,000 animals and birds in ten
hours as God brought them by Adam (Genesis 2:19). Nor does the
text require us to think that the names were technical (for
example, double- Latin), taxonomic names based on extensive
scientific observations, rather than simple names like dog, pig,
cow, goat, horse, duck, chicken, or robin, which have no
connection to the morphology or behavior of the animals. So there
is no logical or textual justification for saying that these
events of Day 6 could not happen even in just twelve hours.
Contrary to Grudem�s assertion, the �contextual considerations�
(Grudem 1994, p. 294) do not support the day-age view.
The fact that the seventh day of creation does not have the
phrase �there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day�
does not necessarily imply that it is continuing through to the
present time, as Grudem suggests, and that therefore the six days
of creation were not literal (Grudem 1994, p. 294). The phrase�s
absence may be a literary device to reinforce the fact that God
completed His creation and did not resume creation activities on
the eighth day of history. The parallel of the creation week to
the Jewish week in Exodus 20:8�11 confirms that the seventh day
in both weeks was completed, and it was the same length as the
previous six days. Also, the past tense verbs59 of Genesis 2:1�3
and Exodus 20:8�11 show that Moses is looking back at past
completed days long before he wrote either book. Furthermore,
Adam was created on the sixth day and lived on the seventh day
and all the literal days of his literal life totaled 930 years of
days (Genesis 5:5). So, if the seventh day is still continuing,
then Adam is not yet dead. But also, if we accept that the
seventh day of creation week continues to our time, then this
means that God is not now creating but is resting. Consequently,
the processes that scientists study today are not God�s creation
activities, but rather His resting activities of providence.
Therefore the old-earth theories, which rely on evolutionist
geological and astronomical interpretations of and extrapolations
from present-day processes to say how things came into existence
and how long ago, are false.
Another objection raised by Grudem to the literal-day view is
that although God could have used other time words in Hebrew
(rather than y�m), if He wanted to say He created over long ages,
�the original readers knew that the word �day� could mean a long
period of time,� so there was no need to use one of those other
words (Grudem 1994, pp. 294�295). But how does Grudem know that
the Israelites at the time when Moses wrote Genesis knew this? He
offers no biblical or logical justification for this assertion.
None of the poetic or prophetic books of the Old Testament where
a nonliteral y�m is used (and which Grudem cited earlier) were
written at that time. So we can just as well say that the Jews
only had literal uses of y�m to reference. Besides, orthodox Jews
took the creation days literally until they, along with most
Christians, accepted the idea of millions of years in the early
nineteenth century).
Grudem acknowledges that the young-earth argument from Jesus�
words in Mark 10:6 �has some force.� His one-sentence reply is
that �Jesus is just referring to the whole of Genesis 1�2 as the
�beginning of creation,� in contrast to the argument from the
laws given by Moses that the Pharisees were depending on (verse
4)� (Grudem 1994, p. 297). But this is precisely what
creationists believe, so this does not refute their argument.
Grudem expresses hesitancy about his views on the age of the
earth more than once (Grudem 1994, pp. 297, 308) and this is
understandable, given his admitted need for further study. But
given his uncertainty about the age of the earth, how can he be
so confident in telling Christians that the age of the earth is
not important and �that God may not allow us to find a clear
solution to this question before Christ returns,� so that
therefore old-earthers and young-earthers should just work
together in peace? If the Bible teaches a young earth, then it is
very important that we believe it and not compromise with
contrary ideas.
Read more at:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
LuckyLuke
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
>
Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
gabriel
Apocalypse 5:1?
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 KJV
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day
remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old
testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is
upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail
shall be taken away.
Yes, when people turn to the Lord they will stop thinking "six
days" means 13.7 billion years.
Jude Alexander
dictated by God to Moses. Therefore, it is logical to assume that it was
dictated in a way Moses would understand. It doesn't matter if the ancients
believed that the sun literally rose and set. It doesn't matter if the
source of light wasn't created yet. It is a time span supposedly dictated
and understood by Moses by the words morning/evening."
IF YOU BELIEVE THE STORY, it was a solar day.
Jude Alexander
"LuckyLuke" <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgqj8c$on9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Okay, if I multiply 5 x 1 = 5, and then add 2 = 7
Okay, if I multiply 3 (14-16) = 6
What do I do next?
Bob LeChevalier
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
>
>The length of the creation days
is utterly irrelevant to anything educational, even if it were
knowable. And all of the blather you posted won't change that.
[blather deleted]
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>All this is meaningless.
Of course.
>Why?
Because it really doesn't matter.
>Because the Creation Story was supposedly dictated by God to Moses.
Says who? How do they know?
>Therefore, it is logical to assume that it was dictated in a way Moses would understand.
Why is that logical? And who says that God would abide by any sort of
logic that WE would understand?
>It doesn't matter if the ancients believed that the sun literally rose and set.
It also doesn't matter if they believed their myths about the creation
of the world.
>It doesn't matter if the source of light wasn't created yet.
None of it matters, unless you are concerned about internal
consistency of a story.
>It is a time span supposedly dictated and understood by Moses by the words morning/evening."
So what? If it includes false or contradictory statements, it is
false.
>IF YOU BELIEVE THE STORY,
then you are someone who is willing to accept self-contradictory
nonsense that is utterly useless outside of any moral lessons (and
Aesop demonstrated that moral lessons do not require stories to be
factual).
>it was a solar day.
It was a fable, and thus irrelevant to science.
Jude Alexander
First of all, I wasn't addressing anybody who DOESN'T BELIEVE THE STORY.
Therefore, you even responding to me is ridiculous. From what I said, you
OUGHT to have been able to realize I don't believe in the Creation Story.
To THOSE WHO BELIEVE, they are compelled to believe it was a solar day
(AGAIN) given what they believe and they DO believe in the story.
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:su12j5518c19kg0jj...@4ax.com...
gabriel
<what...@thispoint.why> wrote:
> I really don't think you realize that your responses are ridiculous.
>
> First of all, I wasn't addressing anybody who DOESN'T BELIEVE THE STORY.
> Therefore, you even responding to me is ridiculous. From what I said, you
> OUGHT to have been able to realize I don't believe in the Creation Story.
>
> To THOSE WHO BELIEVE, they are compelled to believe it was a solar day
> (AGAIN) given what they believe and they DO believe in the story.
Correct. In fact it takes far more faith to believe the science
fiction story that
- nothing created everything
- life "just happened"
- populations of fish once upon a time eventually evolved over
generations into hippos, eagles, giraffes and people (via
amphibians, reptiles, and so on)
- meaningfully encoded instructions (for example, like computer
programs or DNA), along with the ability for them to be
meaningfully decoded and acted upon to build organic machines
could "just happen," rather than more accurately being logical
proof of intelligent design
- more complicated and thousands of times more complex
meaningfully encoded instructions could "just happen" if you just
corrupt simpler sets of instructions over and over again millions
of times
- that the countless perfect conditions for life here to be even
possible "just happened," where any one of them being any
different would equate to life not being sustainable on Earth.
You'd have better odds of playing the powerball every time there
is one, and winning it every single time for your entire life. To
the rational, that's called "that's impossible" - to the
irrational, that's called "give it enough time - eventually it
would happen"
The fish to man version of evolution is not observable in action,
and cannot be shown in any test cases - one can only believe in
it - or one can only give into all the hatred and personal
attacks by those who demand you believe in it, convincing some
professing Christians to be ashamed of Christ's Words and God's
Words instead.
Luke 9:23-26 KJV
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but
whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world,
and lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his
own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
John 5:45-47 KJV Jesus said,
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
Unfortunately, many professing Christians do not believe Moses'
writings - and Jesus condemned the Pharisees for the same thing.
LuckyLuke
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
>> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
>> >
>>
>> Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
>
> Apocalypse 5:1?
There is a book with seven seals. Only Christ can remove the seals. For
those who don't have Christ, that book remain sealed. They read it but they
can't understand cause is sealed by God.
The Christian elephant in the room
Even the greatest theologians don't know what that originally meant.
So what makes you think you do, smarty?
dolf
13.7 billion years...
On 23/12/09 1:11 AM, gabriel wrote:
> Yes, when people turn to the Lord they will stop thinking "six
> days" means 13.7 billion years.
Nevertheless, a variation of the 22/7 {= 3.1428571...} equation as
rational PI computation and the 364 day cycle from the DATE(1996,3,20) +
(5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) gives the Equinox of
Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) as commencing the Sabbath year and the reprise
associated to the following schema as a transcendent negation of the
Gregorian cycle of 400 years x 365.2425 as the basis for replacement
theology, which is as 146097 days evenly divisible by seven:
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS (Zeus and Hera
marriage based Pythagorean religious Symbolic Number Mysticism [Acts
14:12-18]) autonomic transformative prototype and symbolic planetary
associator to the series #15 - Saturn, #34 - Jupiter, #65 - Mars, #111 -
Sun, #175 - Venus, #260 - Mercury, #369 - Luna ... #2000 Y2K
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
#1 = [the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of
Universal Law}, which contains the law of that will:
7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth cycle of the Temple priestly service
divisions = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the hypothetical 'constant
sequence of sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days
x 2 = 2184 days] +
#2 = [the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity - HEAD OF STATE}, which contains the command to behave in
accordance with the law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the
law:
x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or 293 x 365.2423 years - Vernal Equinox
Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and] +
#3 = [the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of
Autonomy}, which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as
right in the case at hand: ... 6,000 tropical years as Telos ('achariyth
as 122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c� [9(9�+1)/2]:
has #369 with Septet #41 {ie. #81 - #27 - #9 - #3 - #1} centric on {ie.
20 March 1996 + (5*364) + 182 = 12 Sept 2001 as 1st day of 7th solar
month = #0 - Zero point} 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri
5762. ref: "On [Sunday 16 September 2001 as] the 1st day of the [21st
priestly] course of Jachin {he that strengthens and makes steadfast} on
the 29th day of lunar month, on the 5th day of the 7th solar month."
[4Q321]] +
#4 = 'OTH Chronological Elements = #10 as {Totality of Nature = Formula
of Progression of individual phenomena: #1 = {0: 1} + #2 = {0: -1, 1: 1}
+ #3 = {0: 0, 1: 1} + #4 = {0: 1, 1: 1} = #10 = {0: 1, 1: 0, 2: 1}}
vCube Balanced Ternary System distribution: #1 = {0: 1}; #41 = {0: -1,
1: -1, 2: -1, 3: -1, 4: 1}; #81 = (0: 0, 1: 0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:1}
- http://www.grapple.id.au/images/toth9.gif
Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 tropical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c� [9(9�+1)/2]
"For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man
(image of male and female)--and birds and four-footed beasts and
creeping things." [Deuteronomy 4:15-19; Romans 1:20]
"We are telling you the good news (ie. GOSPEL as compliant with the
writings of Moses [John 5:46-47; Acts 15:21] and the prophets [Daniel
9:11-13]) to turn from these worthless things (HETEROS -- Zeus and Hera
marriage based Pythagorean religious symbolic number mysticism and
asceticism [Matthew 19:12]) to the living God, who made heaven and
earth, the sea, and everything in them. In past generations he allowed
all the nations to go their own ways, yet he has not left himself
without a witness by doing good, by giving you rain from heaven and
fruitful seasons, and by filling you with food and joyful hearts. Even
by saying this it was all they could do to keep the crowds from offering
sacrifices to them." [Acts 14:12-18]
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
My only interest in gemetria as a ternary number conception are in the
hebrew and greek associated categories of understanding which are
produced by deploying a computation structure which harmonizes the
greco-roman magic square of antiquity with the religious mysteries given
by a Chinese understanding published in 2 BCE which assigned 4.5 days to
each square and corresponds to the lunar calendar of 103 BCE. This
paradigm provides a completely embedded solution as categories derived
from the bible and demonstrates that the traditional Hebrew kabbalah
whilst cleverly providing a focal point of conception, is a fabrication.
That same thing can be obtained by using PI against the Gregorian view
of the calendar.
Bob LeChevalier
>I really don't think you realize that your responses are ridiculous.
>
>First of all, I wasn't addressing anybody who DOESN'T BELIEVE THE STORY.
This is Usenet. You are addressing everyone who reads any of the 4
newsgroups you posted to, regardless of what they believe.
>Therefore, you even responding to me is ridiculous.
You post to the education groups, you are fair game for a response
from me.
>To THOSE WHO BELIEVE, they are compelled to believe it was a solar day
>(AGAIN) given what they believe and they DO believe in the story.
Depends on the meaning of "believe". It is possible to believe
something without believing it to be literal truth. The classic
example is "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".
Jude Alexander
> "Jude Alexander" <what...@thispoint.why> wrote:
>>I really don't think you realize that your responses are ridiculous.
>>
>>First of all, I wasn't addressing anybody who DOESN'T BELIEVE THE STORY.
>
> This is Usenet. You are addressing everyone who reads any of the 4
> newsgroups you posted to, regardless of what they believe.
>
>>Therefore, you even responding to me is ridiculous.
>
> You post to the education groups, you are fair game for a response
> from me.
I didn't start the cross post. Look, I really don't care. I just thought
it strange that you didn't get that one has to bring oneself to the level of
the Fundie to make sense to them, and that, furthermore, I didn't believe in
the story.
gabriel
<fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3pk1j5htn7pinp4um...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
> >> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
> >> >
> >>
> >> Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
> >
> > Apocalypse 5:1?
>
> There is a book with seven seals. Only Christ can remove the seals. For
> those who don't have Christ, that book remain sealed. They read it but they
> can't understand cause is sealed by God.
Ok - where did you get that name from the Bible of the book?
Also, why did you mention 5:1 - is that as in "chapter 5, verse
1" ?
Thanks!
gabriel
Only God does - and God let's us know what things mean through
the indwelling Holy Spirit.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but
the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is
judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that
he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 KJV
Even when we hear things preached, or read commentary, we need to
meditate over the verses ourselves and pray to God for wisdom on
the meaning of verses.
The Christian elephant in the room
news:2gc7k5lb3d1tsvije...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:46:55 +1100, "The Christian elephant in
> the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> gabriel wrote:
>> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
>> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, when people turn to the Lord they will stop thinking "six
>> > days" means 13.7 billion years.
>> >
>>
>> Even the greatest theologians don't know what that originally meant.
>> So what makes you think you do, smarty?
>>
>
> Only God does - and God let's us know what things mean through
> the indwelling Holy Spirit.
>
Many believers say they gain truths this way, yet so far none have shown
anything except that the so called 'Holy Spirit' (voice in their heads)
tells them exactly what they want to hear - what they already believe.
And some of the things that even sincere Christian preachers and evangelists
say are real whoppers.
Jim Jones and scores of other crazies fell for this very thing.
You don't just call any voice in your head the "Holy Spirit'. The first
voice you always hear is the negativistic inner ego voice because that's got
the loudest voice.
No Christian to date has said anything remarkable after claiming to have had
revelations of truth from the Holy Spirit which shows that most just hear
their own ego voice.
95% of this source is unfortunately just fantasy and self delusion based on
personal interpretations and biased/adopted false beliefs.
Biblical scholars can see through all of this by their unbiased and critical
approach (which is the only real approach that can gain truth). You
believers need to consult them to at least give yourself some chance of
finding the truth.
>
> "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
> have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
> prepared for them that love him.
>
> But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit
> searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
>
Can you honestly say that you only listen to the *true* Spirit and pay no
attention whatsoever to your personal inner ego voice/beliefs and acquired
doctrines/dogmas?
What if the Holy Spirit told you that the Bible contains some
beliefs/laws/traditions of man, and that even many of the divine parts, if
not edited, have been misinterpreted and misunderstood? Would you accept
that or would you still reject them even though it came from the Spirit?
Have you ever heard anything from that voice that was contrary to your
current personal belief at all? If not then that's already a red flag.
>
> For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
> which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but
> the Spirit of God.
>
> Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
> which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
> given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words
> which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
> comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
>
Be careful not to just assume that what you receive is from the Spirit of
God.
>
> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
> God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
> because they are spiritually discerned.
>
> But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is
> judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that
> he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
> 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 KJV
>
>
> Even when we hear things preached, or read commentary, we need to
> meditate over the verses ourselves and pray to God for wisdom on
> the meaning of verses.
>
If you have done this and you still haven't discovered the truth then
something must have gone wrong with your procedure.
You have likely depended too much on religious assumptions based on popular
traditional biblical doctrines and dogmas.
Do you thoroughly question everything you come to believe as well as your
true motives for believing?
Are you a truly spiritual person?
Are you putting aside all your preconceptions about God?
Are you ensuring that you are being 100% realistic and rational and not
simply indulging in religious fantasies like some Muslims with their 72
virgins etc?
Bob LeChevalier
>> Even the greatest theologians don't know what that originally meant.
>> So what makes you think you do, smarty?
>
>Only God does - and God let's us know what things mean through
>the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Then God lets different people know different things that they mean,
since in fact the greatest theologians don't agree.
Or do you somehow claim that YOU are getting the story from the Holy
Spirit more straightforwardly than the devout theologians who gave
their entire lives to studying Scripture (and still could not agree).
That sounds like the sin of pride to me.
>But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
He revealed different things to different theologians then.
>Even when we hear things preached, or read commentary, we need to
>meditate over the verses ourselves and pray to God for wisdom on
>the meaning of verses.
And you have no clue at all whether what results will be the result of
God's giving you wisdom or you giving yourself a brain-fart.
The rest of us know from the quality of your argumentation on net,
that the odds of a brain fart are extremely high.
LuckyLuke
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:44:51 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:3pk1j5htn7pinp4um...@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
>> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
>> >> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
>> >
>> > Apocalypse 5:1?
>>
>> There is a book with seven seals. Only Christ can remove the seals. For
>> those who don't have Christ, that book remain sealed. They read it but
>> they
>> can't understand cause is sealed by God.
>
> Ok - where did you get that name from the Bible of the book?
??????????????
> Also, why did you mention 5:1 - is that as in "chapter 5, verse
> 1" ?
yes.
gabriel
<fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:mdc7k5deo9odo7a7n...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:44:51 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> news:3pk1j5htn7pinp4um...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> >> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> >> news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
> >> >> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
> >> >
> >> > Apocalypse 5:1?
> >>
> >> There is a book with seven seals. Only Christ can remove the seals. For
> >> those who don't have Christ, that book remain sealed. They read it but
> >> they
> >> can't understand cause is sealed by God.
> >
> > Ok - where did you get that name from the Bible of the book?
>
> ??????????????
The name "Apocalypse" - that is the name of the book with the
seven seals? If so, where did you find the name of that book.
>
> > Also, why did you mention 5:1 - is that as in "chapter 5, verse
> > 1" ?
>
> yes.
>
Chapter 5 verse 1 of Apocalypse? The same book that only Christ
can remove the seals?
LuckyLuke
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:17:59 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
> <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:mdc7k5deo9odo7a7n...@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:44:51 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
>> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> news:3pk1j5htn7pinp4um...@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:57:30 +0100, "LuckyLuke"
>> >> > <fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >> >> news:lci1j5h2kjp129d90...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apocalypse 5:1 + 2Corinthians 3:14-16
>> >> >
>> >> > Apocalypse 5:1?
>> >>
>> >> There is a book with seven seals. Only Christ can remove the seals.
>> >> For
>> >> those who don't have Christ, that book remain sealed. They read it but
>> >> they
>> >> can't understand cause is sealed by God.
>> >
>> > Ok - where did you get that name from the Bible of the book?
>>
>> ??????????????
>
> The name "Apocalypse" - that is the name of the book with the
> seven seals? If so, where did you find the name of that book.
The bible is the sealed book.
gabriel
<fonta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So the name of the Bible is "Apocalypse"?