Results 141 - 160 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Purposes for heavenly bodies | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 14973 | ||
"for signs, seasons, days, and years;" God did not make the sun, moon and stars for the calendar making only, but also for signs. Witness, Matt. 2:2, " For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him." What, if any, is the relationship between the purpose for which heavenly bodies were created and the evil practice of astrology? |
||||||
142 | Purposes for heavenly bodies | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 14993 | ||
Dear Nolan, It's interesting that you focus on eschatology. The first coming of Christ was an eschatological event. Also interesting is that God made something "in the beginning" (the stars) for the purpose of being used as a sign for the eschaton. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
143 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46793 | ||
Dear Parable, It sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine. In other words if the Bible were read as it is written, it is clear that it would not agree with current scientific opinion. What we do not need is a rubber Bible. If a straight forward reading does not happen to agree with our present cultural/scientific norms, then so much the worse for our norms. Good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the entrance of His word gives light (Pro. 9:10, Ps. 119:130). If one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. What Moses wrote was not from the human, earthly perspective. It was revelation from God. God revealed the order in which he created the universe. The revealed order of creation was not a mistake (i.e., false). God was not compensating "early man's" "unscientific" worldview. God cannot lie. So God created by fiat (not by some long process) the luminaries on the fourth day, which may be contrary to current scientific opinion. But so be it. The Bible is true not only in “religious” matters, but also in its historical details. What we have in Genesis is history, revealed history, but true space/time history nonetheless. It happened the way God through Moses said it happened “in the beginning.” If clearing a path to faith means compromising the truth of Scripture, then the supposed stumbling blocks must be purely imaginary, and we must ask ourselves what faith are we making a path for? Peace, |
||||||
144 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46810 | ||
Dear Parable, Actually, I made no statements about the Doctor’s conclusions. I don’t know what they are. I said “IF” one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. And what’s the problem with the plants and the stars? Now, I understand that plants need earth, water and light to grow, but are we forgetting that God created light on the first day? So there was light for the plants on the third day even if light was not localized in luminaries until the fourth day. The Bible is its own authority. To “demonstrate the accuracy” of God’s Word by some other supposed authority makes that authority superior to Scripture and thus it becomes the rule of our faith and practice rather than the Bible alone. I agree with what I think is your motivation, Parable, that we need to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and to gently and respectfully give our neighbors a reason for the hope that is in us. But the Word of Christ does not need to be proved, as some people count proof. It needs to be explained, taught, understood, believed, preached and practiced to the glory of God. Peace, |
||||||
145 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 47144 | ||
Dear Parable, I went to reasons.org. Tell me, how does Dr Ross by a straight forward reading of the Bible without imposing non-biblical premises on it, conclude that creation is millions of years old? Peace, |
||||||
146 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 47335 | ||
Dear Parable, Your concerns are noted. Again, this need not be a review of the Doctor's book. But I await your answer to the question. Peace, p.s. I'm sorry to see that "this thread has been temporarily restricted." What happened while I was away? I guess if we want to open this question to the forum, we can start a new thread. What do you think? |
||||||
147 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 73391 | ||
So then, Parable, Without imposing non-biblical premises on the Bible, you cannot concur with Dr. Ross and conclude that on the basis of the Biblical data that creation is millions of years old. I would challeng the scientific dating as well, but this is not debateforum.com, but StudyBible.com. :) Thank you, Parable, and good to hear from you. |
||||||
148 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 73647 | ||
Hi Parable, It is good to dialogue with you again. I won't debate the scientific argument for an old earth, because, as I said, this is not a debate forum, but a forum for the study of God's Word the Holy Bible. So this is a study of the question: Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days? I have just two points to make my case that he did; one is negative the other positive. The negative is that there is nothing in the text that forces one accept that it took God more than six days to create the heavens and the earth. The positive is the plain reading of Scripture and that the act of creation was not a process requiring eons of time. The basic premise is that the plain reading is to be accepted if there is no Scripture to compel one to understand the reading otherwise. Then one must finally ask, So what? What difference does it make whether God took six days or six billion years to create the universe? So, first, the Bible says, " God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (Gen. 1:31) Now no Bible believer that I know of would believe that it was impossible for this to be the sixth day. They would readily confess that God Almighty could create the universe in six days. Our only question is does the Bible in fact teach that God created the heavens and the earth in six days or thousands of years? Now is there anything in the context of this verse (or in the rest of the Bible for that matter) that would compel one to understand that this was not talking about the sixth day but the six millionth year? Is there anything in the context or the rest of the Bible that would compel us to disregard the plain meaning of day? Well, we know that the Bible uses the word day sometimes to mean a regular day and other times to mean an event that took more than a day. For example even in the context of the creation Moses wrote, "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. (Gen. 2:4) Here day means the whole creation week. So is each day actually a week? Even if it were that would still fall short of thousands of years. Some naively point to 2 Pet. 3:8, but the verse does not say that for God one day IS a thousand years. It says, "one day is LIKE a thousand years, and a thousand years LIKE one day." In other words for an eternal Being time is not an issue. So this verse does not establish the period of a day during creation week. Now that was my negative biblical support. Positively let me start by saying that it is false that nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either a six-day creation or a many-years creation. The plain reading of the text supports a six-day creation. If it didn't we would not be having this study. A regular day is also supported by how each day ends, that is, with an evening and a morning. A regular day is supported by the institution of the Sabbath. God worked six and rested on the seventh. If the days weren't regular days we would not live to see a Sabbath rest! This is repeated in the giving of the Law strengthening the meaning of the creation days as being regular days: Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Continued...) |
||||||
149 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 73648 | ||
Hi Parable, It is good to dialogue with you again. I won't debate the scientific argument for an old earth, because, as I said, this is not a debate forum, but a forum for the study of God's Word the Holy Bible. So this is a study of the question: Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days? I have just two points to make my case that he did; one is negative the other positive. The negative is that there is nothing in the text that forces one accept that it took God more than six days to create the heavens and the earth. The positive is the plain reading of Scripture and that the act of creation was not a process requiring eons of time. The basic premise is that the plain reading is to be accepted if there is no Scripture to compel one to understand the reading otherwise. Then one must finally ask, So what? What difference does it make whether God took six days or six billion years to create the universe? So, first, the Bible says, " God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (Gen. 1:31) Now no Bible believer that I know of would believe that it was impossible for this to be the sixth day. They would readily confess that God Almighty could create the universe in six days. Our only question is does the Bible in fact teach that God created the heavens and the earth in six days or thousands of years? Now is there anything in the context of this verse (or in the rest of the Bible for that matter) that would compel one to understand that this was not talking about the sixth day but the six millionth year? Is there anything in the context or the rest of the Bible that would compel us to disregard the plain meaning of day? Well, we know that the Bible uses the word day sometimes to mean a regular day and other times to mean an event that took more than a day. For example even in the context of the creation Moses wrote, "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. (Gen. 2:4) Here day means the whole creation week. So is each day actually a week? Even if it were that would still fall short of thousands of years. Some naively point to 2 Pet. 3:8, but the verse does not say that for God one day IS a thousand years. It says, "one day is LIKE a thousand years, and a thousand years LIKE one day." In other words for an eternal Being time is not an issue. So this verse does not establish the period of a day during creation week. Now that was my negative biblical support. Positively let me start by saying that it is false that nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either a six-day creation or a many-years creation. The plain reading of the text supports a six-day creation. If it didn't we would not be having this study. A regular day is also supported by how each day ends, that is, with an evening and a morning. A regular day is supported by the institution of the Sabbath. God worked six and rested on the seventh. If the days weren't regular days we would not live to see a Sabbath rest! This is repeated in the giving of the Law strengthening the meaning of the creation days as being regular days: Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Continued...) |
||||||
150 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 73649 | ||
Did God create the heavens and the earth in six day? (continued) Another point in the positive biblical support of an ordinary day is the act of creation itself. It was not a process. Processes require time. It was instantaneous fiat creation out of nothing. God commanded things into being and they were. There was no process; God spoke and it was. Several times in creation week it is recorded "And God said.... And it was so," not "began to be so." We not only have fiat creation in the immediate context but elsewhere in Scripture. Ps 33:6, "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host." Ps 33:9, "For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Heb. 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Now, so what? What difference does it make? I think both views would put one at odds with the world that wants nothing to do with a Creator God whether he took six days or six billion years to create. It still means that they owe him obedience as their Creator. And they will not and cannot do that (Rom. 8:7). I think it is a matter of scholarship and integrity and the glory of God. We must honestly deal with the Scripture even though it may seem to go against the prevailing doctrines of our day. If God's word is true, then that which is contrary must be false and we must re-examine the winds of doctrine of our day. Peace, |
||||||
151 | "the stars also" | Gen 1:16 | Lionstrong | 6187 | ||
"the stars also" It's almost as if Moses were tagging on a footnote, or saying, "Oh yea, He made the stars too." We place much significance on the vastness of the universe, and here Moses treats it almost as an afterthought. The heavens are impressive, but here Moses seems to be saying, "earth is center stage; the stars are only stage props in comparison." The earth may not be the center of the univers, but it's central in God's focus of attention. | ||||||
152 | Creation of Sun, Moon, Stars by Fiat | Gen 1:16 | Lionstrong | 6651 | ||
An assumption I had is challenged by this passage (v. 14-16). I had assumed that the light God created on the first day, he put or formed into the sun, moon and stars on the forth day, like He formed the body of Adam from the dust from the ground. He took something to make something else. But that's not what the text says. Just as the light on the first day was an instantaneous creation from nothing by the word of His mouth, so, it seems, was the creation of sun, moon and stars. "Then God said... and it was so."(v. 14,15) |
||||||
153 | Light and Stars | Gen 1:16 | Lionstrong | 8127 | ||
Greetings, Ray, ............... And since light when used metaphorically usually means truth or knowledge, what do you think light means in Matt. 5:16? (I posted this question on that verse.) |
||||||
154 | Light and Stars | Gen 1:16 | Lionstrong | 29919 | ||
Hi Ray, Thanks for your response. You said, "Verse 16 is talking about our light before men glorifying the Light who is in heaven." This is a soapbox of mine. Jesus says, "do this that men may see your good works." So whatever "this" is, it is not good works. It is something that will ENABLE men to SEE our good works. "Light" is a metaphor in this verse. In the opinion you've given, you have not said what you think the literal meaning of "light" is. I think that it does not mean "good works," again because the "light" (what ever the literal meaning is) enables men to SEE our good works. Some believe that "light" means "good works." But if we substitute "good works" for the literal meaning of "light," the verse will read, "let your good works shine... that they may see your good works...." So, Ray, what, in your opinion, is the literal meaning of "light" in Mat 5:16? Peace, Lionstong |
||||||
155 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6714 | ||
It appears that God did not create the sun, moon and stars in place. He created them and then "placed" them. Maybe that's why the light from the stars, though great distances from the earth, is already here. They were created near the earth, then moved out to their places. | ||||||
156 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6744 | ||
Ok, forget the "then," and just take the text. He created the sun, moon and stars by fiat. Subsequent verse, He placed them, two separate acts in sucession. | ||||||
157 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6753 | ||
Some enemies of the Bible as the Word of God try to support evolution by saying that the earth must be billions of years old, because the stars are billions of light years away. Therefore, they say, the earth must have been here for billions of years for the light from those stars to reach us. It was when I noticed that the creation and placing of sun, moon, and stars were separate acts, that I noted that this might be, in part at least, an explanation for a young earth and distant stars. .Now some venerable saints might see such notes as clowning around with the Word of God and beneath the high theological standards of the Study Bible Forum. Whereas others might see it as taking advantage of "a free study Bible with an unlimited margin." They might see it as a delighting in and meditating on the law of God (Ps 1) and seeing its implications in other areas of life; they might see it as taking every thought, not just the high theological ones, but every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5) |
||||||
158 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6788 | ||
On your part no apology is needed. However, why , in whomever’s erudite opinion, wasn’t the posting as it stood “worthy,” and how did whomever decide its worthiness? __________________________________________________Granted the note and its direction could have been clearer, but look at the note as it was written. Paul says, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth (“fingers” in this case :-), but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear (“read” in this case :-). What word of the note was unwholesome? Now, let it be conceded that some of our aged scholars within the forum may not find in this meager note much that is good for their own personal edification, but what in my posting was BAD for it? What in this posting warrants such ridicule, castigation and censorship, however frustrated one may be by such postings? _________________________________________________And poor jim, who kaint tipe two gud and who's thoughts may be somewhat muddled, is crushed when he tries to express his heart-felt love for God’s word! (see the response to jim’s post, “When Joshua prayed then what happened. I... “ jim Tue 05/29/01, 9:52pm) HAVE MERCY, YOU GUYS! Jim may be weak, but whatever happened to “A battered reed He will not break off, And a smoldering wick He will not put out?” Where is the application of Rom 14:1? “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment (that is, in the sense of condemnation) on his opinions.” _________________________________________________As to 2 Cor 10:5, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,....” Some consider the doctrines of evolution to be speculations raised up against the knowledge of God. | ||||||
159 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6799 | ||
Whew! I'm glad that's over! | ||||||
160 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6801 | ||
The above note on the placing of the sun, moon and stars is an observation, not an interpretation. In v. 14 of the account of the fourth day, the obsevation is made that God speaks the sun, moon and stars into existance. In v. 17 is observed that God places them. Afterward follows a musing, a specultion, if you will, concerning the light from the distant stars. __________________________________________________It seems strange that Bible believers would deny that God created and placed the sun, moon and stars; and then become upset because someone makes note of it. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [32] >> |