Who is Jesus?

[RGacky3]

I believe what Romans 5:12 says, that death--through sin--entered the world through one man.

Do you believe that animals were living and dying for thousands of years before Adam? If so, then why do you suspect that God brought all of the animals to Adam to see what he would name them (Genesis 2:19)? After so many thousands of years, you would have thought that God would have gone ahead and named them all.

This is the WORST argument I have ever heard, it is SO obvious that Romans 5:12 was talking about HUMAN death ... unless you think ants are dying for Adams sin .... ALso the passage is about how death came through adam and will end due to Jesus, do you think that animals will come in the ressurection? Do you believe that Jesus died for ants?

For Gods sake use you're head.

Yea, so? God created a light. But that wasn’t the sun? That came on the fourth day. What do you think all the “lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night” were”?

Those would be “stars” and the one that separated the “day from the night” would be the one we call “sun”.

... You don't know that, and you're taking the Genesis account rediculously literally, when it's OBVIOUS it's not 100% literal, you're also not taking it literally yourself because your making inductions like interperative things as "stars" or "suns,"

“Changes in viewpoint from earth”????

Please explain.

Saying "the sun goes up and down" is a earth viewpoint, "the earth goes around the sun" is a scientific viewpoint, the former isn't wrong, it's just from a specific viewpoint.

What question?

It's a logical fallacy "begging the question" assumes the thing you're arguing for in your argument.

You're arguing that Genesis one should be taken 100% literal, and in your argument, your assuming it IS literal.

No. He just rested on the seventh day.

I promise, man, this really ain’t that hard…

Beggin the question again ... he is STILL resting because they are not 24 hour days, it really IS'NT that hard. The whole "24" hour interpretation was never there in Jewish scholarship, or Christian Scholarship, it was invented in the 19th century with American Fundementalism.

Wow! That’s quite the statement of fact. Please provide evidence.

... Find a Jewish Scholar that takes it literally ... or a Non fundmentalist scholar that takes it literally.

 

[The Baron]

This is the WORST argument I have ever heard, it is SO obvious that Romans 5:12 was talking about HUMAN death ... unless you think ants are dying for Adams sin .... ALso the passage is about how death came through adam and will end due to Jesus, do you think that animals will come in the ressurection? Do you believe that Jesus died for ants?
For Gods sake use you're head.

I am using my head so pay attention:

1. Nobody has said anything about “ants”. Straw-man argument--logical fallacy.
2. I am talking about ALL death. The Bible is clear. Death did not exist--at all--until Adam sinned.
3. Jesus did die only for man. We are, after all, made in His image.

... You don't know that, and you're taking the Genesis account rediculously literally, when it's OBVIOUS it's not 100% literal, you're also not taking it literally yourself because your making inductions like interperative things as "stars" or "suns,"

In the original Hebrew, the transliterated word is “meorah” and literally means “light” or “luminary”. Now remember, these “lights”--according to Genesis 1:14 are to be signs for seasons, days and years.

And guess what! That is exactly what the stars have been doing for centuries!

So how do you wanna explain that?

Saying "the sun goes up and down" is a earth viewpoint, "the earth goes around the sun" is a scientific viewpoint, the former isn't wrong, it's just from a specific viewpoint.

And it is completely meaningless.

When the good Lord was giving all of this information to Moses, just exactly what do you think Moses and the other Jews of the day understood one day to mean? Please explain just exactly how Moses and the other Jews were supposed to interpret “one day” to mean “thousands of years”--or however long?

It's a logical fallacy "begging the question" assumes the thing you're arguing for in your argument.

You're arguing that Genesis one should be taken 100% literal, and in your argument, your assuming it IS literal.

1. I have nothing--absolutely nothing--that would direct me to interpret it any other way.
2. Neither do you.
3. You are guilty of “pot calling kettle black” fallacy. You are arguing that Genesis is metaphorical by assuming it is metaphorical…although you have no justification for doing so.

Beggin the question again ... he is STILL resting because they are not 24 hour days, it really IS'NT that hard. The whole "24" hour interpretation was never there in Jewish scholarship, or Christian Scholarship, it was invented in the 19th century with American Fundementalism.

Should be easy enough to prove. Once again, all you have to do is show what Moses and the other Jews of the day understood it to mean.

... Find a Jewish Scholar that takes it literally ... or a Non fundmentalist scholar that takes it literally.

Oh, please! You know how this works!

You made the assertion--you provide the evidence.

I’m waiting…

 

[RGacky3]

I am using my head so pay attention:

1. Nobody has said anything about “ants”. Straw-man argument--logical fallacy.
2. I am talking about ALL death. The Bible is clear. Death did not exist--at all--until Adam sinned.
3. Jesus did die only for man. We are, after all, made in His image.

1. It isn't, since you claim that the passage in Romans includes the death of Animals (including ants), then it would logically follow that the redemtion in that passage also includes the redemtion of animals, do you accept that, i.e. do you accept the implication of you're (faulty) interpretation of that passage?
2. You're begging the question about whether or not that passage is talking about human death or all death, if it's talking about all death, then it also refers to ant death, but that would mean that the rest of the passage refers to them as well.
3. So then why did Aminals suffer for mans sin? If Jesus died only for human life, why would you interperate that passage to refer to ALL life and not human life only?
4. NO SCHOLAR agrees with you.

In the original Hebrew, the transliterated word is “meorah” and literally means “light” or “luminary”. Now remember, these “lights”--according to Genesis 1:14 are to be signs for seasons, days and years.

And guess what! That is exactly what the stars have been doing for centuries!

So how do you wanna explain that?

So has the sun .... we measure days and years by the sun ....

And it is completely meaningless.

When the good Lord was giving all of this information to Moses, just exactly what do you think Moses and the other Jews of the day understood one day to mean? Please explain just exactly how Moses and the other Jews were supposed to interpret “one day” to mean “thousands of years”--or however long?

t

Look at Jewish Scholarship .... it's OBVIOUS, to everyone that it was metaphorical. In the account it refers to all the days as one day ... so obviously it's talking about logical steps, as is VERY common in the hebrew literature when talking about days.

1. I have nothing--absolutely nothing--that would direct me to interpret it any other way.
2. Neither do you.
3. You are guilty of “pot calling kettle black” fallacy. You are arguing that Genesis is metaphorical by assuming it is metaphorical…although you have no justification for doing so.

1. You have the rest of the account, hebrew scholarship, the language of the account and so on.
2. Yes I do, I've posted the arguments.
3. "day" is used metaphorically all the time, "day" is used before the sun was made in the account, all 7 days are refered to as 1 day, according to hebrews the 7th day is still giong on, the language is very metaphorical and poetic, all hebrew scholarship agrees with me.

Should be easy enough to prove. Once again, all you have to do is show what Moses and the other Jews of the day understood it to mean.

Yup, moses himself wrote all the days as one day .... so obviously he didn't understand it as literal

Oh, please! You know how this works!

You made the assertion--you provide the evidence.

I’m waiting…

What do you want me to do, find all the scholars that agree with me? How about you find ONE that doesn't? (I mean a scholar working at a university, with authority in hebrew and old testament textual criticism, or Jewish history, not a preacher or whatever).

 

[The Baron]

1. It isn't, since you claim that the passage in Romans includes the death of Animals (including ants), then it would logically follow that the redemtion in that passage also includes the redemtion of animals, do you accept that, i.e. do you accept the implication of you're (faulty) interpretation of that passage?

1. I am claiming only what the Bible says, that death entered the world through one man.

2. It does not logically follow that redemption is for animals--another straw man argument.

2. You're begging the question about whether or not that passage is talking about human death or all death, if it's talking about all death, then it also refers to ant death, but that would mean that the rest of the passage refers to them as well.

See above.

3. So then why did Aminals suffer for mans sin? If Jesus died only for human life, why would you interperate that passage to refer to ALL life and not human life only?

1. We are created in God’s image--animals are not.

2. There is no discussion anywhere in Bible of “animal redemption” thus strawman argument.

4. NO SCHOLAR agrees with you.

Wow. Once again with the wild, general accusations.

But have it your way. Please provide evidence that “NO SCHOLAR” agrees with me. As my views are quite mainstream I suspect you will have a rather difficult time providing such evidence or, in other words…

…your wrong again.

So has the sun .... we measure days and years by the sun ....

Thank you for making my point. At least we finally have agreement that the sun was created on the fourth day--one day after vegetation thus proving my point that Genesis is talking about literal days.

Look at Jewish Scholarship .... it's OBVIOUS, to everyone that it was metaphorical. In the account it refers to all the days as one day ... so obviously it's talking about logical steps, as is VERY common in the hebrew literature when talking about days.

It’s obvious to you for whatever reason. And if you’re going to talk about the Scriptures you would do well to provide examples except for, maybe, those verses you’ve already posted and explained to you why you were so wrong.

1. You have the rest of the account, hebrew scholarship, the language of the account and so on.
2. Yes I do, I've posted the arguments.
3. "day" is used metaphorically all the time, "day" is used before the sun was made in the account, all 7 days are refered to as 1 day, according to hebrews the 7th day is still giong on, the language is very metaphorical and poetic, all hebrew scholarship agrees with me.

Yup, moses himself wrote all the days as one day .... so obviously he didn't understand it as literal

Please demonstrate.

What do you want me to do, find all the scholars that agree with me? How about you find ONE that doesn't? (I mean a scholar working at a university, with authority in hebrew and old testament textual criticism, or Jewish history, not a preacher or whatever).

Oh, no you don’t! You made the assertion. The burden is on you to prove your point or retract it.

By the way, you never did state what religion you are. What is it?

 

[RGacky3]

1. I am claiming only what the Bible says, that death entered the world through one man.

2. It does not logically follow that redemption is for animals--another straw man argument.

Yes it does, there are 2 scenarios, 1 is that death refers to human death, 2 is that it refers to all death. The context talks about death coming into the world through adam, and death being overcome by Jesus.

scenaio 1.
Human death comes in through Adam, Human death is overcome by Jesus.
scenario 2.
ALL death comes in through Adam, and since Jesus is the ransom for the sin of adam, then ALL death is overcome by christ.

Now we know that scenario 2 is false, since Jesus ONLY died for mankind, that means that the death that Paul is talking about here is obviously HUMAN death, not all death, it's basic logic, and understanding context.

1. We are created in God’s image--animals are not.

2. There is no discussion anywhere in Bible of “animal redemption” thus strawman argument.

No ****, which is why we deduce that the "death" being talked about is only human death, otherwise the passage makes no sense.

Wow. Once again with the wild, general accusations.

But have it your way. Please provide evidence that “NO SCHOLAR” agrees with me. As my views are quite mainstream I suspect you will have a rather difficult time providing such evidence or, in other words…

…your wrong again.

The evidence is that you wouldn't be able to find a reputable scholar that agrees with you, go ahead and look.

Thank you for making my point. At least we finally have agreement that the sun was created on the fourth day--one day after vegetation thus proving my point that Genesis is talking about literal days.

That isn't what I said, I said if there was no sun in the begining of creation then there could not be 24 hour days.

Also vegetation cannot last 1 second without the sun, much less not 1 day, so we obviously have to take it as NON literal.

Genesis 1,1 states the heavans and earth were already created (including the universe including the sun, so oviously the rest of creation days are from the vantage point of the earth.

It’s obvious to you for whatever reason. And if you’re going to talk about the Scriptures you would do well to provide examples except for, maybe, those verses you’ve already posted and explained to you why you were so wrong.

Please demonstrate.

Oh, no you don’t! You made the assertion. The burden is on you to prove your point or retract it.

By the way, you never did state what religion you are. What is it?[/QUOTE]

Genesis 2:4,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

If we are to take the creation account LITERALLY, and the days as LITERAL, then according to that verse the entire creation was done in 24 hours, not 7 days.

This ONE verse is enough to show that it is not to be taken literal.

 

[The Baron]

Yes it does, there are 2 scenarios, 1 is that death refers to human death, 2 is that it refers to all death. The context talks about death coming into the world through adam, and death being overcome by Jesus.

scenaio 1.
Human death comes in through Adam, Human death is overcome by Jesus.
scenario 2.
ALL death comes in through Adam, and since Jesus is the ransom for the sin of adam, then ALL death is overcome by christ.

Now we know that scenario 2 is false, since Jesus ONLY died for mankind, that means that the death that Paul is talking about here is obviously HUMAN death, not all death, it's basic logic, and understanding context.

It’s really amazing to watch the thought process that goes on in your mind. I don’t pretend to understand it but…just damn.

No ****, which is why we deduce that the "death" being talked about is only human death, otherwise the passage makes no sense.

Like most of your last post.

The evidence is that you wouldn't be able to find a reputable scholar that agrees with you, go ahead and look.

The problem is that you’ve made a rather sweeping and erroneous comment that you cannot support. You made the comment so the burden is on you to prove it. That’s just how this works.

That isn't what I said, I said if there was no sun in the begining of creation then there could not be 24 hour days.

We’ve been through this. I understand your point but you’re just wrong.

Also vegetation cannot last 1 second without the sun, much less not 1 day, so we obviously have to take it as NON literal.

Easily proven wrong. Did ya ever notice how plants survive night all the time?

And nighttime last for longer than a second.

Seriously.

I’ve seen it happen.

Genesis 1,1 states the heavans and earth were already created (including the universe including the sun, so oviously the rest of creation days are from the vantage point of the earth.

No. It states that He created the heavens and the Earth. Period.

Read it all the way down to verse 5 and you’ll see that it was all created on day 1.

Genesis 2:4,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

If we are to take the creation account LITERALLY, and the days as LITERAL, then according to that verse the entire creation was done in 24 hours, not 7 days.

This ONE verse is enough to show that it is not to be taken literal.

Wow.

Not even close.

Look. Sometimes it helps to look at a different version of the Bible to get some idea of context, etc.

Here’s verses 1 through 4 from The Message version:

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

How you get all of creation was created in 24 hours from that I have no idea.

And stop dodging my question.

What is your religion?

 

[RGacky3]

Easily proven wrong. Did ya ever notice how plants survive night all the time?

And nighttime last for longer than a second.

Seriously.

I’ve seen it happen.

Yeah, but the heat from the sun still heats both sides of the earth, without the at all, there wouldn't even be water.

No. It states that He created the heavens and the Earth. Period.

Read it all the way down to verse 5 and you’ll see that it was all created on day 1.

You're assuming that the creation account is NOT from the perspective of the earth, the seven days don't include vrs. one.

Wow.

Not even close.

Look. Sometimes it helps to look at a different version of the Bible to get some idea of context, etc.

Here’s verses 1 through 4 from The Message version:

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

How you get all of creation was created in 24 hours from that I have no idea.

And stop dodging my question.

What is your religion?

The origional greek has the the word "the day" in verse 4 before "the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Look at the origional greek

You found ONE translation that left that word out.
New King James version - 4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
New Revised standard version - 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,
New American Standard Bible - 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
English Standard Version - 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

This is sad that you're going low as to pick translations that agree with you, but the origional greek says one day.

 

[The Baron]

Yeah, but the heat from the sun still heats both sides of the earth, without the at all, there wouldn't even be water.

Actually, I don’t think it does as the side that isn’t getting any sun gets cooler. But don’t take my word for it. Put a plant in your fridge and check on it 24 hours later. It will still be alive.

You're assuming that the creation account is NOT from the perspective of the earth, the seven days don't include vrs. one.

To be honest, until I started having this conversation with you it never occurred to me that there was a “perspective”. It’s just an account of what happened.

The origional greek has the the word "the day" in verse 4 before "the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Look at the origional greek

You found ONE translation that left that word out.
New King James version - 4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
New Revised standard version - 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,
New American Standard Bible - 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
English Standard Version - 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

This is sad that you're going low as to pick translations that agree with you, but the origional greek says one day.

Yea, The Message is a little different. It’s written in more of a “story” fashion. I wouldn’t use it for study. But just to get a better idea of what is being said it is very useful. My only point was that Genesis 2:4--or any other verse for that matter--does not state that all of creation was created in 24 hours.

It took 6 days.

The Bible says so!

And you’re still dodging my question. What is your religion? If you’re so “mainstream” (after all, ALL scholars agree with you and NONE agree with me) then you shouldn’t have a problem telling me.

 

[RGacky3]

Actually, I don’t think it does as the side that isn’t getting any sun gets cooler. But don’t take my word for it. Put a plant in your fridge and check on it 24 hours later. It will still be alive..

A fridge wouldn't do it, it would have to be as cold as out of space with NO star heating at all, meaning much much much colder than a freezer,
How Cold is Space
It would not exist for a second.

To be honest, until I started having this conversation with you it never occurred to me that there was a “perspective”. It’s just an account of what happened.

That is generally what explains the different accounts from Genesis 1 and 2, and how it is structured.

Yea, The Message is a little different. It’s written in more of a “story” fashion. I wouldn’t use it for study. But just to get a better idea of what is being said it is very useful. My only point was that Genesis 2:4--or any other verse for that matter--does not state that all of creation was created in 24 hours.

It took 6 days.

The Bible says so!

It DOES say, it says "the DAY that God made the earth and the heavens," if you insist on taking the first account of the "days" literally than you'd have to take the day in genesis 2:4 literally to, if you'd do that you'd get a contradiction, the writer of Genesis is NOT so stupid so as to blatently contradict himself, so obviously he is not using "day" literally.

If he is it's an obvious contradiction.

The way to get an idea of what is being said is to read the actual text and understand the context.

 

[The Baron]

A fridge wouldn't do it, it would have to be as cold as out of space with NO star heating at all, meaning much much much colder than a freezer,
It would not exist for a second.

Oh. You mean if there was no sun ever.

Well, obviously, it wouldn’t survive.

It also support the mainstream belief that the “days” in the creation account are literal, 24-hour days.

That is generally what explains the different accounts from Genesis 1 and 2, and how it is structured.

It seems to be obvious to you. I’ve been doing this a long time and I’ve never heard of this before.

Nothing even close…ever!

It DOES say, it says "the DAY that God made the earth and the heavens," if you insist on taking the first account of the "days" literally than you'd have to take the day in genesis 2:4 literally to, if you'd do that you'd get a contradiction, the writer of Genesis is NOT so stupid so as to blatently contradict himself, so obviously he is not using "day" literally.

Take a look at Exodus 31:15:

Exodus 31:15
For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

Can we agree that we are literally talking about one, 24-hour day in the verse above? Because the original Hebrew word for “day” used here in the same one used in Genesis 2:4.

Your argument simply does not hold-up. Sorry.

If he is it's an obvious contradiction.

No. See above.

The way to get an idea of what is being said is to read the actual text and understand the context.

Stop lecturing and start answering my question. What is you religion?!

 

[RGacky3]

Oh. You mean if there was no sun ever.

Well, obviously, it wouldn’t survive.

It also support the mainstream belief that the “days” in the creation account are literal, 24-hour days.

How do you not get this. If your facing away from a fireplace but there is a fire it's gonna be a lot hotter than if there is no fire at all. So arguing "plants survive at night" is retarded, if there is no sun AT ALL, no plant could survive for a second.

It doesn't support the 24 hour day "which is not mainstream at all." It wouldn't survive without a sun one second much less 24 hours.

It seems to be obvious to you. I’ve been doing this a long time and I’ve never heard of this before.

Nothing even close…ever!

Read more about it, and not just stuff supporting your own position.

Take a look at Exodus 31:15:

Exodus 31:15
For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

Can we agree that we are literally talking about one, 24-hour day in the verse above? Because the original Hebrew word for “day” used here in the same one used in Genesis 2:4.

Your argument simply does not hold-up. Sorry.

Those are 2 different accounts, of coarse there is one Hebrew word for "day" but it can be used in many senses. IN the SAME account, creation, Genesis 1 and 2, the creation is done in 6 days and in 2:4 just one day, leading one to the obvious conclusion that the days are metaphorical.

The Exodus account doesn't prove anything, there they are talking about something completely different. Proving that "day" is SOMETIMES used literally, doesn't prove that in this actual account it is.

No. See above.

Stop lecturing and start answering my question. What is you religion?!

I've already answered that I'm not getting into my own personal faith.

 

[The Baron]

How do you not get this. If your facing away from a fireplace but there is a fire it's gonna be a lot hotter than if there is no fire at all. So arguing "plants survive at night" is retarded, if there is no sun AT ALL, no plant could survive for a second.

I don’t get it because in all of my years of study (and studying under various teachers of various backgrounds) nobody I’ve ever heard of, read about, studied under, etc. has ever expressed your position which--quite frankly--is baffling.

It doesn't support the 24 hour day "which is not mainstream at all." It wouldn't survive without a sun one second much less 24 hours.

Already demonstrated as false. Move along…

Read more about it, and not just stuff supporting your own position.

And who or what would I read?

See?

This is where you’ll have to tell me your religion so I’ll know what the “correct” thing to believe is.

Those are 2 different accounts, of coarse there is one Hebrew word for "day" but it can be used in many senses. IN the SAME account, creation, Genesis 1 and 2, the creation is done in 6 days and in 2:4 just one day, leading one to the obvious conclusion that the days are metaphorical.

Already proved you wrong but what a mystery it is to try to understand what you hold as “literal” and what the Bible just makes-up!

I've already answered that I'm not getting into my own personal faith.

Then how am I ever to understand from you what is right and what is wrong?

And, after all, it is such a harmless question!

 

[Fair]

I believe in Jesus but i don't believe he was God. This describes my belief well.

Try this:

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus never said anything related to trinity and he didn't knew about it !

 

[The Baron]

I believe in Jesus but i don't believe he was God. This describes my belief well.

Jesus never said anything related to trinity and he didn't knew about it !

Jesus never used the word "Trinity". But He spoke of both God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and He claimed to be God.

 

[Fair]

Jesus never used the word "Trinity". But He spoke of both God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and He claimed to be God.

You would find explanations for what you said if you read the link given above.

 

[The Baron]

You would find explanations for what you said if you read the link given above.

I skimmed it. This is a debate site. If you have a point--make it and then back it up.

You simply backed-up a point you never made.

That's backasswards.

 

[RGacky3]

I don’t get it because in all of my years of study (and studying under various teachers of various backgrounds) nobody I’ve ever heard of, read about, studied under, etc. has ever expressed your position which--quite frankly--is baffling.

So you've ONLY studied under 6 day creationists???? Ok then.

Already demonstrated as false. Move along…

No you didn't demonstrate it as false ... not even a singe cell bacteria can exist without the sun for a second, and saying "put a plant in a refrigerator" to try and defend that life can exist without the sun is the dumbest thing I've heard and would get you laughed out of a high school biology class.

And who or what would I read?

See?

This is where you’ll have to tell me your religion so I’ll know what the “correct” thing to believe is.

Any non 6 day creationist, it's not hard to find scholars that understand Genesis as not literal.

Already proved you wrong but what a mystery it is to try to understand what you hold as “literal” and what the Bible just makes-up!

You havn't proved it wrong, the ONLY response you gave is that much much much later on "day" is used as literal, when refering to the sabbath... which says NOTHING
, and before that gave a pathetic attempt by quoting a translation that left the word "day" out when you well know (hopefully) that the word day is in there in the origional greek.

The fact is Genesis 2:4 PROVES that the creation account is not using the word day literally. Otherwise it would mean that all of creation was done within a day.

Then how am I ever to understand from you what is right and what is wrong?

And, after all, it is such a harmless question!

By studying you're bible, if you want my opinion on certain issues you can ask me.

 

[RGacky3]

I believe in Jesus but i don't believe he was God. This describes my belief well.

Jesus never said anything related to trinity and he didn't knew about it !

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/152880-jesus.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/148166-discussion-blackdog-divinity-christ.html

If you want to follow the debate me and baron had.

 

[The Baron]

Soyou've ONLY studied under 6 day creationists???? Ok then.

Yea, ya know…“mainstream”scholars

Noyou didn't demonstrate it as false ... not even a singe cell bacteria can existwithout the sun for a second, and saying "put a plant in arefrigerator" to try and defend that life can exist without the sun is thedumbest thing I've heard and would get you laughed out of a high school biologyclass.

1. You shouldn’t be such an absolutist…as in, “for a second”.

2. When you firstmentioned “no sun” I interpreted that to mean “night” vs. “no sun ever and ever”,so gimme a break, please!

Anynon 6 day creationist, it's not hard to find scholars that understand Genesisas not literal.

Not where I’m from.

Youhavn't proved it wrong, the ONLY response you gave is that much much much lateron "day" is used as literal, when refering to the sabbath... whichsays NOTHING

I showed you in the original language that the word meantone literal day…period.

andbefore that gave a pathetic attempt by quoting a translation that left the word"day" out when you well know (hopefully) that the word day is inthere in the origional greek.

It wasn’t pathetic. I simply showed you in another translation of the Bible that eventhe translators, historians, scholars,stylist and everyone else that is used to translate a Bible understood it tomean one literal day.

Thefact is Genesis 2:4 PROVES that the creation account is not using the word dayliterally. Otherwise it would mean that all of creation was done within a day.

So answer methis. Which is wrong--Genesis 2:4 orGenesis 1. If you’re going to argue thisthen please show which is wrong as both can’t be right.

Bystudying you're bible, if you want my opinion on certain issues you can askme.

I’m trying to ascertain your opinion by trying tounderstand your religion. So stopstalling it’s getting boring. What isyour religion?

As my religion is quite common and mainstream I’ve neverminded sharing it with you.

 

[RGacky3]

Yea, ya know…“mainstream”scholars]

Give me one scholar that interperates Genesis 1, 2 as literal, and I mean actual scholar, not pastor, I'll just list a couple, N.T. Wright, Keith Ward, Bruce Walkte hell even Thomas Aquinas and Augustine didn't interperate it as literal, I mean it's almost all critical scholars, not to mention jewish scholars, the only scholars advocating 6 day creationism are hardline fundementalists,

1. You shouldn’t be such an absolutist…as in, “for a second”.

2. When you firstmentioned “no sun” I interpreted that to mean “night” vs. “no sun ever and ever”,so gimme a break, please!

1. I'm can say with confidence, that bacteria CANNOT exist without a sun, and I'll say "for a second" at that, find me a biologist that thinks that bacteria can exist for anytime without a son.

2. You claimed that plants were made literally one day before the sun was made ... meaning for that day where the plants were there there was NO SUN, that was your claim. "night" doesn't mean that the sun doesn't exist, it means you're on the side of the earth not facing it ... HUGE difference.

I showed you in the original language that the word meantone literal day…period.

In the origional language day means "day" ... whether or not it's to be taken as literal depends on the context.

again if you're holding to that "day" only ever means 24 hours nonsense. (as shown althroughout the scriptures, day is used as day vrs, night, a 24 hour day, 1000 year period, the "day of the Lord" the "day of fury" and so on, it's used many ways.

Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,"

The whole creation was done on one day then , you're not getting out of this it's obvious.

It wasn’t pathetic. I simply showed you in another translation of the Bible that eventhe translators, historians, scholars,stylist and everyone else that is used to translate a Bible understood it tomean one literal day.

I can dig for a translation that finds anything, use a scholarly translation, and the ORIGIONAL GREEK says the creation was done in one day.

It's as pathetic as if I were to try disprove John 1:1 by finding a translation that said "a god" or something. We both know what Genesis 2:4 says, and digging for a translation that leaves out a key word is pathetic.

So answer methis. Which is wrong--Genesis 2:4 orGenesis 1. If you’re going to argue thisthen please show which is wrong as both can’t be right.

They are both right because "day" IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!!!

You're the one with explaining to do, since you're the one taking it literally.

 

[The Baron]

Give me one scholar that interperates Genesis 1, 2 as literal, and I mean actual scholar, not pastor, I'll just list a couple, N.T. Wright, Keith Ward, Bruce Walkte hell even Thomas Aquinas and Augustine didn't interperate it as literal, I mean it's almost all critical scholars, not to mention jewish scholars, the only scholars advocating 6 day creationism are hardline fundementalists,

1. If you want me to go through my library to find one name I’m glad to do so but you’ll have to wait until I return home (I’m traveling). What that will prove I have no idea as you know as well as I do that there are plenty of scholars that believe as I do.

2. Pastors are, by necessity, scholars.

1. I'm can say with confidence, that bacteria CANNOT exist without a sun, and I'll say "for a second" at that, find me a biologist that thinks that bacteria can exist for anytime without a son.

Wouldn’t know. I’m really not “up” on my biology.

All I can do is point to the Bible which says that vegetation was created on the third day and the sun and stars on the fourth (Genesis 1:11-19).

2. You claimed that plants were made literally one day before the sun was made ... meaning for that day where the plants were there there was NO SUN, that was your claim. "night" doesn't mean that the sun doesn't exist, it means you're on the side of the earth not facing it ... HUGE difference.

I’m simply telling you what the Bible says. You just happen to think that the Bible is wrong.

And that’s your option.

In the origional language day means "day" ... whether or not it's to be taken as literal depends on the context.

I agree 100%!

again if you're holding to that "day" only ever means 24 hours nonsense. (as shown althroughout the scriptures, day is used as day vrs, night, a 24 hour day, 1000 year period, the "day of the Lord" the "day of fury" and so on, it's used many ways.

Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord[a] God made the earth and the heavens,"

Once again I agree…keep going!

The whole creation was done on one day then , you're not getting out of this it's obvious.

I’m not trying to “get out of it”…I’m trying to “bring you along”.

As you’ve already demonstrated, a day (“yom”) can be 24 hours or some other period of time (“yom”). In Genesis 1, God created the heavens and Earth in six, 24 hour days (“yom”).

In Genesis 2:4, God created the heavens and Earth over a period of time--a “day” (“yom”).

Now that you understand that the word “day” (“yom”) can be used to mean both a 24 hour day and a period of time then you can see for yourself that both Genesis 1 & 2 are correct and agree with each other.

I can dig for a translation that finds anything, use a scholarly translation, and the ORIGIONAL GREEK says the creation was done in one day.

It's as pathetic as if I were to try disprove John 1:1 by finding a translation that said "a god" or something. We both know what Genesis 2:4 says, and digging for a translation that leaves out a key word is pathetic.

We’ll leave John 1:1 for another time at which time you can explain to me how different teams of scholars, translators, historians, stylists, etc. have always translated John 1:1 incorrectly for every Bible version I’ve ever heard of in every language I can think of.

But again, that’s for another time…

As for Genesis 2:4, you should now understand--based on your own logic--what Genesis 2:4 says.

 

[RGacky3]

1. If you want me to go through my library to find one name I’m glad to do so but you’ll have to wait until I return home (I’m traveling). What that will prove I have no idea as you know as well as I do that there are plenty of scholars that believe as I do.

2. Pastors are, by necessity, scholars.

1. Go ahead, find me one and I'll find you 5 that dissagree
2. Pastors go to seminary, but scholars do research.

Wouldn’t know. I’m really not “up” on my biology.

All I can do is point to the Bible which says that vegetation was created on the third day and the sun and stars on the fourth (Genesis 1:11-19).

A: that isn't what it says, the distinction was made on the fourth day, the light and the darkness were made on the FIRST day.
B: You don't need a biology PHD to know that no living thing can exist at all without heat.

I’m not trying to “get out of it”…I’m trying to “bring you along”.

As you’ve already demonstrated, a day (“yom”) can be 24 hours or some other period of time (“yom”). In Genesis 1, God created the heavens and Earth in six, 24 hour days (“yom”).

In Genesis 2:4, God created the heavens and Earth over a period of time--a “day” (“yom”).

Now that you understand that the word “day” (“yom”) can be used to mean both a 24 hour day and a period of time then you can see for yourself that both Genesis 1 & 2 are correct and agree with each other.

Why would the word for day be used in seperate ways in the same account?
Also if it's all to be taken literally, then there was a sun FROM THE BEGINING, since there was already morning and eavening.
Also on the 6th day he made man AND women? in Genesis 2, he makes man, man does a bunch of stuff, names ALL the animals, then he makes woman, all in one literal day? Is all of that to be taken literally too? Also when did God "rest?" Is it the eight day now?
Why would you assume that day in Genesis 1 and day in Genesis 2 are used differently? Genesis 1 is definately written MUCH MORE in an allogorical style than Genesis 2.

I take the bible for what it says, Genesis 2:4 shows us that the creation account is NOT using the word "day" literally."

We’ll leave John 1:1 for another time at which time you can explain to me how different teams of scholars, translators, historians, stylists, etc. have always translated John 1:1 incorrectly for every Bible version I’ve ever heard of in every language I can think of.

But again, that’s for another time…

As for Genesis 2:4, you should now understand--based on your own logic--what Genesis 2:4 says.

THey havn't translated it incorrectly, that was my point, they don't say "a god" they say "God" or "Divine."

Yeah, I understand, in Genesis 2:4 it's using "day" the same way it's being used in Genesis 1 ... there is nothing to point out otherwise. Also considering God is STILL resting, the 7th day is STILL going (according to Hebrews and other scriptures).

 

[The Baron]

1. Go ahead, find me one and I'll find you 5 that dissagree

2. Pastors go to seminary, but scholars do research.

Wow.

I went to seminary and did lots of research.

I guess that makes me both a pastor and a scholar!

Cool! So for the “scholar” name I give you “Pastor Baron”.

A: that isn't what it says, the distinction was made on the fourth day, the light and the darkness were made on the FIRST day.

Yes. Light and darkness were made on the first day. No argument there.

But the sun and stars were created on the fourth day.

B: You don't need a biology PHD to know that no living thing can exist at all without heat.

There was light. Why couldn’t there be heat? Is the Earth not heated by the light of the sun?

Why would the word for day be used in seperate ways in the same account?

Same story but different accounts of the same story. If you would just read Genesis 1 & 2 it would be just as apparent to you as it is to everyone else.

Also if it's all to be taken literally, then there was a sun FROM THE BEGINING, since there was already morning and eavening.

There was light on the first day but God waited until the fourth day to make the sun.

Also on the 6th day he made man AND women? in Genesis 2, he makes man, man does a bunch of stuff, names ALL the animals, then he makes woman, all in one literal day? Is all of that to be taken literally too? Also when did God "rest?" Is it the eight day now?

On the sixth day God decided to make “man” (male and female). For reasons the Bible does not give He made the “male” but did not make the “female”.

Later on (exactly when the Bible does not say), God looked down at the male and saw that it wasn’t good for him to be alone. Why was it not good for him to be alone? I suspect that it was because God not completed His original plan of making the female half of the “man”.

Why would you assume that day in Genesis 1 and day in Genesis 2 are used differently? Genesis 1 is definately written MUCH MORE in an allogorical style than Genesis 2.

Oh, do tell!

What is an “allogorical [sic] style”?

I take the bible for what it says, Genesis 2:4 shows us that the creation account is NOT using the word "day" literally."

I completely agree! 100%!

Yeah, I understand, in Genesis 2:4 it's using "day" the same way it's being used in Genesis 1 ...

Here we go again…

Since Genesis 1 says that all things were created in six days and Genesis 2 says it was created in one day which is incorrect?

Both can’t be right.

So which one is wrong and why?

Also, what’s your religion?

 

[RGacky3]

Wow.

I went to seminary and did lots of research.

I guess that makes me both a pastor and a scholar!

Cool! So for the “scholar” name I give you “Pastor Baron”.

Every one that goes to university does research ... does that make EVERYONE a scholar?

Yes. Light and darkness were made on the first day. No argument there.

But the sun and stars were created on the fourth day.

And they were called day and night on the first day, meaning the sun was created the first day if you want to take the text literally.

There was light. Why couldn’t there be heat? Is the Earth not heated by the light of the sun?

The closest star is 4 light years away ... there is NO heat without the sun.

Same story but different accounts of the same story. If you would just read Genesis 1 & 2 it would be just as apparent to you as it is to everyone else.

So you're interpretation of when "day" is used literally is just arbitrary?

There was light on the first day but God waited until the fourth day to make the sun.

The light was day and the dark was night, that is what makes a day, and night and day is the based on what side of the earth is facing the sun, meaning you need the sun.

On the sixth day God decided to make “man” (male and female). For reasons the Bible does not give He made the “male” but did not make the “female”.

Later on (exactly when the Bible does not say), God looked down at the male and saw that it wasn’t good for him to be alone. Why was it not good for him to be alone? I suspect that it was because God not completed His original plan of making the female half of the “man”.

Man in hebrew can mean mankind ... yet the scripture clarifies to show that he made BOTH man AND women (male and female) on the 6th day.

If you want to take the text literally you have to take the implications.

Oh, do tell!

What is an “allogorical [sic] style”?

repetition, poetic style, non linear narrative, things that are clearly not to be taken literally, did god really TALK to the birds? Did God literally "talk" things into existance? It's clear the style in which it's written.

If you're gonna take THAT literally, why don't you take other passages about the earth literally?

1 Cronicles 16:30
Psalms 93:1
Psalms 96:10
Pslams 104:5

Do you believe that the Sun moves around the earth? Or that the earth doesn't move in space? Since you're INSISTANT on taking the scriptures ABSOLUTELY literally? Do you agree with Pope Leo and Pope Pius against Galileo? Was he also a "heratic?"

Here we go again…

Since Genesis 1 says that all things were created in six days and Genesis 2 says it was created in one day which is incorrect?

Both can’t be right.

So which one is wrong and why?

Also, what’s your religion?

BOTH are correct because BOTH are using "day" in a non literal manner.

 

[The Baron]

Every one that goes to university does research ... does that make EVERYONE a scholar?

By the very definition of the word--yes.

And they were called day and night on the first day, meaning the sun was created the first day if you want to take the text literally.

“Literally” that’s not what the text says.

The closest star is 4 light years away ... there is NO heat without the sun.

Can there be heat with light?

Yes.

So you're interpretation of when "day" is used literally is just arbitrary?

Huh?

This comment is “arbitrary”.

The light was day and the dark was night, that is what makes a day, and night and day is the based on what side of the earth is facing the sun, meaning you need the sun.

No.

Per the text you only need “light” and “darkness” to have day and night.

Read what it says and stop trying to make it mean what you want it to say.

That’s what cultist do.

Man in hebrew can mean mankind ... yet the scripture clarifies to show that he made BOTH man AND women (male and female) on the 6th day.

So, according to Genesis 2 and you, God:

1. Made the male,
2. planted the Garden of Eden,
3. placed the male in the Garden of Eden,
4. caused every tree to grow in the Garden of Eden,
5. put rivers in the Garden of Eden,
6. noticed that it was not good for man to be alone,
7. had the male name all of the animals in the Garden of Eden,
8. put him to sleep and removed a rib, and then
9. made the female.

So why not just make both the male and female at the same time? Why the wait?

repetition, poetic style, non linear narrative, things that are clearly not to be taken literally, did god really TALK to the birds? Did God literally "talk" things into existance? It's clear the style in which it's written.

1. Where does it say God talked to birds?

2. Yes. God “spoke” and things were created.

3. It’s “clear” only to cultist about the “style in which it is written”.

If you're gonna take THAT literally, why don't you take other passages about the earth literally?

1 Cronicles 16:30
Psalms 93:1
Psalms 96:10
Pslams 104:5

Straw-man fallacy all over again.

“Literal” in only one part of the three parts of the hermeneutics we use to interpret Scriptures.

C’mon, now!

What were the other two parts and how do we read them?

I’ve already explained it to you!

Do you believe that the Sun moves around the earth? Or that the earth doesn't move in space? Since you're INSISTANT on taking the scriptures ABSOLUTELY literally? Do you agree with Pope Leo and Pope Pius against Galileo? Was he also a "heratic?"

Once again, straw-man fallacy. See above.

BOTH are correct because BOTH are using "day" in a non literal manner.

I understand that you believe that.

And you’re wrong and I’ve grown bored trying to reason this point with you.

I don’t know what kind of cult you’re wrapped-up in but does it ever have you messed-up.