This just in...

[Saxon]

Explain what you want me to see. I have no desire to play guessing games.

[Saxon]

I am referencing the cloud cover that that you see in *** 38. It disappeared during the Flood. I am not saying that *** 38 is not referring to the creation. It does and it refutes evolution. It supports and intelligent design of creation over a come by chance happening of evolution.

[Saxon]

That at***ude doesn't work with the trinity and it is equally useless with the 7th day supposedly never ending.

[Saxon]

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If you can't see this as the sun and the moon being created then I would kindly suggest that you start some night cl***es and brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. It isn't needed to say "Sun and Moon" to be the sun and the moon. Are you being honest with yourself or just stubborn because you have to be so right all the time in spite of what the Bible states???

[Saxon]

There was no sun until the fourth day, therefore no normal light as we see it today. God said "let there be light" on the first day. You are seriously deluded about the light. you need to read the text!!

[Saxon]

Evolution comes up with a totally different plan than the Bible so you same room story is just that, a story, and a sorry one at that.

[Saxon]

You have no verse that teaches that the 7th day has not ended. I can point to the first 6 days that have clearly ended and the fact that God has resumed working and the fact that the 7th day is the model for the Sabbath, a 24 hour time period that is every 7th day. I am on a more solid footing than you with mere speculation and absolutely no scripture to help your speculative stand.

You say the case is closed but you have not responded to my comment that is scriptural and casts doubt on the 7th day still going on. You have no ability to answer??

[Saxon]

Try to address my comments on the light. I am getting tired of your mantra that you keep repeating.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

How could anyone suggest that the King of Kings has an ape in His ancestry?

The president of the USA was not summed to witness the new born King.
The United Nations did not send a official representative.

We read that the only people even informed that night of what was going on were shepherds.
Now Im sure there are lots of books filled with reasons why such people were told of the birth that night....and perhaps some of their ideas have merit.
I will just add that shepherds were about the only people around that night that would have been able to follow the rather foggy directions given by the Angel of the Lord....

I mean all the Angel said was "Hey go into Bethlehem and look for a manger"
Shepherds would know where Bethlehem's mangers were located.


So this King of Kings entered this world, and his very first smell was cattle urine and sheep ****.

So yes, I have no problem believing that God also designed us humans with the apes in mind, and with mice in mind, and with even fish and bacteria in mind....
They all are His creations, all called "good"........
The Son of God was not too pure that he was unable to pee and **** himself too.....to view him as being unable to do so makes him less than us...and thus his death meaningless.

But he did die.
Died a normal human death.
Same death I will die, same type of death Adam died
All these things, all of them are yet things that reflect the handiwork of the Creator,,,and his love for his creation.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

.......... I can point to the first 6 days that have clearly ended and the fact that God has resumed working

There is no ending listed to the 7th day in any verse in any translation of the Bible you can point to.

There simply is no ending to it ......none....zip!.......not even a hint that the 7th day has ended yet.

However, there is a very clear hint 'when" the 7th day is ended and the 8th day begins.

That hint is found at rev 21:1
Notice the clear reference to the book of Genesis.
"Heaven is listed, the earth is listed, and we learn about the sea too!
This is clearly pointing back to how Genesis starts with it's own reference to "Heavens", the "Earth" and "the waters"

The Bible does not clearly say that this marks the return to the work of the Genesis creation on the new 8th Day, but it does clearly hint that this is what it is talking about....


How many true Genesis creation days are left to be seen?......I have no real idea based on the text alone.
Could be many....

[Saxon]

Now you don't know the end from the beginning. Revelation 21:1 is NOT a reference to the creation of Genesis. New Heaven. New Earth. The first heaven and the first earth were p***ed away.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

Explain what you want me to see. .

Go outside today....

Look around, see that its light outside.

This is the same light of the "Let there be light" verse.
Very same light, it has not changed at all in the ages...

Want to see the source for the "Let there be light"?

Look up at the Earth's sun.....that is the same source.





l

If you were to come to this simple conclusion you would also come to the conclusion that all of the Young Earth Creation teachings are based on a total mis-reading of what the bible actually says.
You would come to see how silly the YEC teachers look to you now.
You would realize how the YEC have to struggle so hard to fight against the simple truth that the "light" talked about in Genesis is the very same light we see today.....



and this will lead you to state the simple elegant truth that "Nothing in Genesis disagrees with evolution"

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

Now you don't know the end from the beginning. Revelation 21:1 is NOT a reference to the creation of Genesis.

yes it is!

The writer of Revelation is pointing right back to the start of the book of Genesis when he makes use of the words "Heaven, Earth,and the sea"
This is a reference to the 1st day of the genesis week and the words, "In the beginning God created the HEAVENS and the EARTH....darkness across the face of the deep.......over the waters"

The connection between the Revelation verse and genesis is clear

[Saxon]

Go outside today....

Look around, see that its light outside.

This is the same light of the "Let there be light" verse.
Very same light, it has not changed at all in the ages...

Want to see the source for the "Let there be light"?

Look up at the Earth's sun.....that is the same source.

Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and so he did. Genesis 1:2 starts to give the details of what God did and in what order he did it. In Genesis 1:3, God said let there be light. Genesis 1:5 says that this was done on the first day.

Genesis 1:14 to 18 tells us about God making the lights in the firmament which included the sun and the moon to reflect the light of the sun at night. Genesis 1:19 informs us that this was done on the 4th day.

Let there be light was the first day and the sun and the stars were created on the fourth day. If you believe the Bible, it is utterly impossible that when you go outside today that you are seeing the light from the statement, let there be light because the light that you see today comes from the sun that did not exist until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If you were to come to this simple conclusion you would also come to the conclusion that all of the Young Earth Creation teachings are based on a total mis-reading of what the bible actually says.
You would come to see how silly the YEC teachers look to you now.
You would realize how the YEC have to struggle so hard to fight against the simple truth that the "light" talked about in Genesis is the very same light we see today.....

and this will lead you to state the simple elegant truth that "Nothing in Genesis disagrees with evolution"

If I were to come to your conclusion that would mean that I would have to deny what the Bible clearly states and I would be in the same ditch as you appear to be in.

Creation and evolution are not compatible. The word of God will be forever and the evolution theory will burn and vanish into the nothingness that it came from.

[Saxon]

The text indicates a NEW earth and a NEW heaven. What was created in Genesis is what is the old heaven and old earth. Read the text in its context, not in the false idea that creation and evolution are compatible.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The text indicates a NEW earth and a NEW heaven. What was created in Genesis is what is the old heaven and old earth. .

thats what I was saying....


Now as I said, there is no clear announcement in the Bible that this would be the start of the 8th day of Genesis, but there is a clear hint that this is what we are talking about.

The writer points us back to Genesis...the connection is clear between revelation and Genesis at that point.
It also marks the return of the Lord to His work of creation.

This fact, and the strong connection to Genesis I believe do make a good case that the Revelation verse is hinting at it being the official ending of the 7th day of Rest, and the start of the new 8th day of the creation week.

[Saxon]

Show me your Bible reference for an 8th day of the creation week. I will remind you that a week is only 7 days. Now you are adding what isn't there. I guess that it is OK to do that if it seems to be to your benefit. A false idea is to no ones benefit.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

thats what I was saying....


Now as I said, there is no clear announcement in the Bible that this would be the start of the 8th day of Genesis, but there is a clear hint that this is what we are talking about.

.

Yes this is very true.
there is no teaching but there is a strong hint that this verse in rev is actually dealing with a new creative act, this would very much hint that we are watching the ending of the Lord's Genesis day 7 day of rest, and a return of the Lord to the work of creation.
The way the writer of the revelation verse is pointing directly back to day 1 of Genesis shows us that we are in fact likely dealing with yet another future day of Genesis not yet realized.

How many days would there be possible if this turns out to be true?...its unknown....
It would be interesting to see what the Lord would come up with if the creation week is extended for another 7 days?????

Very interesting.....

[disciple]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Yes this is very true.
there is no teaching but there is a strong hint that this verse in rev is actually dealing with a new creative act, this would very much hint that we are watching the ending of the Lord's Genesis day 7 day of rest, and a return of the Lord to the work of creation.
The way the writer of the revelation verse is pointing directly back to day 1 of Genesis shows us that we are in fact likely dealing with yet another future day of Genesis not yet realized.

How many days would there be possible if this turns out to be true?...its unknown....
It would be interesting to see what the Lord would come up with if the creation week is extended for another 7 days?????

Very interesting.....

Hi Alan,

Again I appreciate your enthusiasm for this discussion. I would like to say that it is interesting and entertaining to speculate about the mighty things the Lord could and might do in the future. But I don't think we need to speculate regarding the scripture we already have. The Scriptures pertaining to our discussion, were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints. So when we read Gen. 1:16," And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also", I believe God's intent is for us to see that the two great lights are the sun and the moon. Now if anyone believes the sun and the moon were made at a different time than the 4th day, that's fine but to put a theory of sinful man next to the awesome creation of a Holy God and say they are compatible is wrong in my opinion.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi Alan,

Again I appreciate your enthusiasm for this discussion. I would like to say that it is interesting and entertaining to speculate about the mighty things the Lord could and might do in the future. But I don't think we need to speculate regarding the scripture we already have. The Scriptures pertaining to our discussion, were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints. So when we read Gen. 1:16," And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also", I believe God's intent is for us to see that the two great lights are the sun and the moon. Now if anyone believes the sun and the moon were made at a different time than the 4th day, that's fine but to put a theory of sinful man next to the awesome creation of a Holy God and say they are compatible is wrong in my opinion.

Did you get a chance to visit the Geneva Bible site I listed to see if I was right about added words on day 4?

[disciple]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Did you get a chance to visit the Geneva Bible site I listed to see if I was right about added words on day 4?

Yes and here is what it says,
1:16 And God made two great {n} lights; the greater light to {o} rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

(n) That is, the sun and the moon, and here he speaks as man judges by his eye: for else the moon is less than the planet Saturn.
(o) To give it sufficient light, as instruments appointed for the same, to serve man's purposes.

The words are added for clarity, taking them away doesn't change the meaning.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Yes and here is what it says,
....... [he made] ...........

Are you familiar with what it means when words appear in brackets then in your bible?

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Are you familiar with what it means when words appear in brackets then in your bible?

My Point?

My point is that you made the suggestion that because you found a Bible translation that was older than the King James I quoted and with your older version of bible you tried to put forward the idea that the words "he made" were in the text, and not just something added by men later as I claimed..

Now it is true that the version you relied on had simply had the words "he made" appearing without the brackets found in the better King James, and I can understand that this might get a bible student a bit mixed up.

at first glance a person might get the idea that the lack of brackets in your older translation might well prove that the words were not added as I claim...


However....I believe I have debunked that idea...






understand I want to be challenged.
I want you to believe at the beginning that the Bible does not appear as I claim.

That way you will be inspired to seek out things like that copy of the Geneva bible in an effort to challenge my teachings on Genesis.
what better way to prove to you that the words were added, than to have you find out that all the arguments you had against that idea simply never pan out?

You see, while your use of the Geneva Bible to attack my claim that "He made' was added was new to me..., the fact is that I have had about every bible you can name tossed at me by people that after a quick glance in their bible might have seen that it did not have any brackets, and that was all the farther that needed to look.

they would toss that bible version in front of my nose and say, "Look at this translation, it does not have any brackets, so that shows that its not added like you said"


But they always get a bit stumped later when I show them out of a better version of their Bible that actually shows the added words in brackets, and that Im right again!....the words were added.



So I want to be challenged, and I have been challenged over the last 20 or 30 years by people that in the beginning were always so sure that the YEC teachings were correct..But then when they trusted the YEC teachings and tried to use them to challenge me they find that YEC teachings lack support in the Bible.


Soyes, I want you to keep challenging me,
keep seeking any errors in anything I have ever said on this or any topic!
keep looking for a verse that disagrees with what im saying about genesis...

Thats the best way to get you to finally see that- "Alan always knows what he is talking about, and everything he says he can point to a verse to support."

[Saxon]

Do you have any idea why the "added in words" were added in?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

Do you have any idea why the "added in words" were added in?

http://www.reasons.org/articles/does...ct-genesis-1-2


check out the section ***led "The Universe"

about the 3rd paragraph down from there you see a guy's name listed - "Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars"




the footnote takes you to the listed source '"Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1982), 61."







I would say that this would be a good place to begin looking for your answer....from a known and respected writer.

[Saxon]

Do you have any idea why the "added in words" were added in? I am looking for your answer. If I wanted someone else's answer I would have asked them.