Bible Question

[MacG]

Originally Posted by wind11

MacG
Genesis ch 1 tells the story of general creation, Genesis ch 2 tells what took place in the Garden

U sure? Ch2 says there was no vegetation on the earth because God had not yet sent rain while ch1 says that God spoke and there was vegetation appeared all in one day with no mention of rain. Which timeline is correct?

The number of years is the same for everyone, hebrew or swede or zulu

How about the length of the years?

Without Old testament, there is no New Testament. If the timeline of the Old Testament is broken, the New Testament is just a tale. If the Old Testament was written for hebrews only, why bother with it ?

I do not think it is broken. So I bother with it Don't you think the New Tesatment stands on it's own? The history of the new testament does need the OT to verify it. When I say the OT was written for the Hebrews by inspired Hebrews, God's chosen people I mean God communicated to His beloved Hebrews in their language, recorded their history in a meaningful way utilzing accepted literary tools of their era. Hebrew does not have a seperate set of characters for numbers like we do. Letters of the Aleph Bet double as numbers and without vowels. You have to think differently to "get it" in a foreign language. Especially one that is not Alpha-Numeric when that is what we are used to thinking in. It may be that God kept their history to a History 101 level for the common man and not the detailed pride cultivating PhD level. Still not inaccurate but enough to see through the gl*** darkly.

HomeWork for the both of you:
download Walter Martin's "Cult of liberal theology" and listen to it, several times, until you comprehend the concept

I have been called a lot of names in my time but never a Liberal! It maybe that a California conservative is a liberal elsewhere Please do not put me in the same demythologizing pool as Rudolph Bultmann et al. See I have listened to the tape and comprehend it.

You apparantly are not aware that Walter Martin held to the flood being localized. Wherever man and his animals were, else how do you explain the kangaroos in Austrailia found no where else in the world? He also was comfortable with the earth being millions of years old. Perhaps Walter should have listened to his own tape. So now don't throw out the Walter Martin baby with the million year old bathwater

Blessings,

MacG

[wind11]

Originally Posted by MacG

U sure? Ch2 says there was no vegetation on the earth because God had not yet sent rain while ch1 says that God spoke and there was vegetation appeared all in one day with no mention of rain. Which timeline is correct?

You appearantly are not aware that Walter Martin held to the flood being localized. Wherever man and his animals were, else how do you explain the kangaroos in Austrailia found no where else in the world ?

Yes, I am sure, otherwise there would be a contradiction, right there, at the beginning of the Bible. (in ch 1 Elohim created out-of-nothing, in ch 2 Yahweh Elohim formed from already existing dust; ch 2:5 cannot contradict ch 1:11-12)
No, I was not aware of Martin's views. As I mentioned above, if "world" meant to Noah only his local world, a lot of possibilities open up, including survivers other than Noah's household. I asked the question regarding kangaroos, too.
I certainly do not think the New Testament can stand without the Old. (for one thing, without an original sin and sinner(s) what need is there for God to send someone to suffer other people's punishment?)

Now listen to Ken Ham above, he explains the predicament very eloquently.
(the reason I brought up the "Liberal Theology" lecture is because in it Martin spells out that there is no room for error or interpretation 'if Jesus is not lord of all, he is not lord at all', 'if Jesus was a child of his time, and could have been mistaken regarding the mustard seed')
_____
http://emahiser.christogenea.org/ind...chronology.htm