The Long Ager Dichotomy!

[crossnote]

My dear brother, I am not saying anything to contradict the Word of God! I have said nothing to even challenge that.

So you do agree with the definition of a 'day' as given by God's Word?

Genesis 1:5-6 NKJV
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

I have NO desire to be argumenitive in any way but it seems to me that we all have the same right and ability to share our thoughts without our faith of God or the Scriptures being questioned.

Ditto, I see it as a discussion rather than a Papal tribunal. Perhaps what perplexes me is that you take scripture quite literally except Genesis chapter 1. I hope that isn't for the sake of 'respectability' amongst academia.

 

[Major]

So you do agree with the definition of a 'day' as given by God's Word?

Genesis 1:5-6 NKJV
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

Ditto, I see it as a discussion rather than a Papal tribunal. Perhaps what perplexes me is that you take scripture quite literally except Genesis chapter 1. I hope that isn't for the sake of 'respectability' amongst academia.

I do understand what you are asking. The regular repetition of the formula, "and there was evening and morning" does seem to indicate a 24 hour day and I do not question that.

However, I think that we both agree that nowhere in the Genesis account of creating the heavens and the earth does the phrase “24 hours” crop up. Crossnote, Please note that Day One does not mention the planet we live on, which is called Earth.

I mention this only because you specifically asked about creating the earth in SIX 24 hour days. But what if the Earth had already been created, and then days one to six began, God bringing light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and life out of lifelessness?

The only reason I ask these question is because the literal idea of dino's living along side of Adam and then going onto the Ark is not acceptable. Both are because neither scenario is found in the Bible.

 

[Major]

The Bible also doesn't speak of "rapture," but that is understood to be a reality at some point in all of time that is still under debate by most, and is not a topic of debate here.



You avoided my calling you, a brother I love, onto the carpet for your use of this fallacy in your reasoning, but that's ok. I wasn't expecting that you would change your mind upon consideration. We all are empirical (stiff necked) on some things in our belief systems. When it comes to being hard-headed, they could use my head to break up the concrete the entire length of any highway...

MM

MM..........MY DEAR BROTHER, please do not think anything corrupt or improper!!! I have considered you a dear brother and friend from the 1st day you appeared here. I appreciate your comments and Your thoughts and mine are almost the same. There was no intent there of any kind.

We can disagree on non-essential topics without dangering any egos.

Now, what I understanad here is that there are two positions.........
1. Moses did not know the duration of time.
2. The duration of time was not considered to be of primary importance.

It seems to me that whether we be Old Earth or Young Eart, We may well be asking the text for more chronological information than it was ever intended to convey or could even convey.

Perhaps Moses considered it more important to tell people they were made in the image of God, than to discuss the age of the earth. Which one is likely to have a greater effect on the way people live their lives?

So then, what we are discussing is a lot of nothing about nothing.

 

[Musicmaster]

Now, what I understanad here is that there are two positions.........
1. Moses did not know the duration of time.
2. The duration of time was not considered to be of primary importance.

I've seen controversies over the actual author(s) of Torah, that there is allegedly evidence of more than one author, and I leave that debate to the lingual scholars. I'm totally disinterested in that one.

However, I'm not so convinced that Genesis is ethereal or unclear as to mornings and evenings.

Pray tell, what is it that you disagree with about those timestamps?

It seems to me that whether we be Old Earth or Young Eart, We may well be asking the text for more chronological information than it was ever intended to convey or could even convey.

Perhaps Moses considered it more important to tell people they were made in the image of God, than to discuss the age of the earth. Which one is likely to have a greater effect on the way people live their lives?

So then, what we are discussing is a lot of nothing about nothing.

Oh, I agree that there are priorities in such things as knowing God, and knowing the REAL God described within scripture. No doubt.

However, and I hope you will forgive me for this, but I'm still wondering about your willful doubts upon morning and evening timestamping. The Jews who read Hebrew very well have had no problems with taking that for what it says, and that I have been conveying all along. It would seem to me that had the Jews seen any reason to doubt that we are, in their estimation, somewhere around 5784 from the creation date of the world.

Being Israeli myself, and given the access that I have to a number of rabbis and scholars of the Jewish faith, and having heard their teachings over many years, I'm left holding the bag of doubts that "scientists" don't have some deep-seated, satanic agenda behind their bias who claim they have allegedly proven the billions of years for the earth's age.

The text of Genesis is also what calls into question the long ages assumption, in that the earth was allegedly immersed in billions of years worth of disease, suffering and death according to the fossil record, and that God called all that good? How is it that the results of sin were present and had already corrupted the earth before Adam was ever formed? That would mean that the clay he was formed from was corrupted by sin, and yet the text gives no indication of that, not in any suggestive manner that I can see.

Please address all this in relation to your thoughts on it. Does any of that cause you to think, rethink, and maybe even give to you some really great ammunition for discussions with those college students?

Thoughts?

MM

 

[Major]

I've seen controversies over the actual author(s) of Torah, that there is allegedly evidence of more than one author, and I leave that debate to the lingual scholars. I'm totally disinterested in that one.

However, I'm not so convinced that Genesis is ethereal or unclear as to mornings and evenings.

Pray tell, what is it that you disagree with about those timestamps?



Oh, I agree that there are priorities in such things as knowing God, and knowing the REAL God described within scripture. No doubt.

However, and I hope you will forgive me for this, but I'm still wondering about your willful doubts upon morning and evening timestamping. The Jews who read Hebrew very well have had no problems with taking that for what it says, and that I have been conveying all along. It would seem to me that had the Jews seen any reason to doubt that we are, in their estimation, somewhere around 5784 from the creation date of the world.

Being Israeli myself, and given the access that I have to a number of rabbis and scholars of the Jewish faith, and having heard their teachings over many years, I'm left holding the bag of doubts that "scientists" don't have some deep-seated, satanic agenda behind their bias who claim they have allegedly proven the billions of years for the earth's age.

The text of Genesis is also what calls into question the long ages assumption, in that the earth was allegedly immersed in billions of years worth of disease, suffering and death according to the fossil record, and that God called all that good? How is it that the results of sin were present and had already corrupted the earth before Adam was ever formed? That would mean that the clay he was formed from was corrupted by sin, and yet the text gives no indication of that, not in any suggestive manner that I can see.

Please address all this in relation to your thoughts on it. Does any of that cause you to think, rethink, and maybe even give to you some really great ammunition for discussions with those college students?

Thoughts?

MM

I did not disagree. I only said that it appears that there are two positions and based on the literal Scriptures, I still say that.

MM......Nowhere in the Genesis account of creating the heavens and the earth does the phrase “24 hours” crop up. Only after God creates light, then makes a division between light (which he calls Day) and darkness (which he calls Night) do we get the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

I agree that naturally, the mention of evening and morning (night and day) causes all readers to think of what we presently know as a full, 24 hour day. But have Earth days always been of 24 hour duration?

The idea of death and disease before Adam is again not in question as it does not apply. We have discussed this at length. Romans 5;12
is referring to SPIRITUAL death, not physical. Spiritual death is seperation from God.

If that is not the case, then way did Adam live another 930 years after his sin. Why didnt God kill him at the moment of his sin????

Why ask these questions??? Why not? Shouldn't we be able to ask questions without our faith being tarnished?
MM, You need to understand, as an old earth creationist, I reject Darwinian evolution.

Again, it comes down to two views...........
1. Young earth. It seems that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is 24-hour day.

2. The view that John Sailhamer wrote in Genesis Unbound or in his other books, which says that all of creation happened in verses 1 and
2. It may be as old as 4 trillion years, as far as he is concerned, and what was happening in Genesis 1 each day was not the bringing into being of the earth and its various forms, but rather the ordering, managing and structuring of things. This allows for 24 hour days but also allows for an old earth.

I am not saying I agee, but Just a thought that needs to be considered.

 

[Dave F.]

Where does an evening and a morning add up to 24 hours? Should it not then be only 12? And did God only work at night, beginning in the evening and ending in the morning? Actually when we look at "Day" 4 the sun, moon, and stars are created for days, times, and seasons, it seems to me that applying this time stamp to days 1 through 3 is improper. MM you chose one particular definition of the words as this best fit what you believe, but, it is not the only definition. I would also point out Gen. 2:4 'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.' so if YOM must always mean 24 hours, this verse is saying that all of creation was done in 1- 24 hour period. There is no evening or morning for "Day" 7 because God has paused or rested from His creating. We know He is going to create a new heaven and a new earth at some point in the future, but until that time "Day" 7 continues.

 

[Musicmaster]

MM......Nowhere in the Genesis account of creating the heavens and the earth does the phrase “24 hours” crop up. Only after God creates light, then makes a division between light (which he calls Day) and darkness (which he calls Night) do we get the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Yes, I understand what you're saying. What I was referring to is "morning" and "evening" indicators, which is a call upon solar rotations of the earth, the speed of which I believe was as constant then as it is now. If we allow that to speak for itself, then it's speaking of solar days as we experience now. I agree with you that there is no express statement made demanding it to be "24 hours" in the biblical texts. My appeal has only been to the indicators stated, which is morning and evening. If the Lord didn't do any creative work at night in relation to the location of the garden, that is neither here nor there to my thinking.

You see, I'm trying to refrain from injecting into the text what isn't there. By only deriving from the text what it says, the indication is a solar day (yom) for each day (yom) of creation, which the context seems to support as being as a solar day that Moses could relate, as can we today.

I agree that naturally, the mention of evening and morning (night and day) causes all readers to think of what we presently know as a full, 24 hour day. But have Earth days always been of 24 hour duration?

Good question, brother. What is/are the alternative(s)...26 hours, 38 hours... What are you suggesting?

The idea of death and disease before Adam is again not in question as it does not apply. We have discussed this at length. Romans 5;12
is referring to SPIRITUAL death, not physical. Spiritual death is seperation from God.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says this about the contectual meaning for the Greek word translated as "death" in Romans 5:12:

"4. In the widest sense, death comprises all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth," and spiritual death is also implied in the context as you had pointed out. So to constrain the meaning down to spiritual death only, the Greek simply doesn't support that from what I can see. If it were spiritual death only, then that implies that Adam and Eve were going to die only a physical death had they not fallen. How would one defend that idea?

If that is not the case, then way did Adam live another 930 years after his sin. Why didnt God kill him at the moment of his sin????

Hmm. Well, about the only way I can answer that is that the "process" of physical death is what came into being that was not yet in the world, nor in Adam and Eve until the fall. The potential for spiritual death also became a reality for them had they rejected the requirements for sacrifices to exemplify their devotion for the Blood that was to come...meaning that the Blood of Christ was/is retroactive for all generations throughout all of time for those who rely upon that Blood for their redemption.

For example, it's my contention that mankind, had he been allowed to live long enough on this earth, would eventually suffer from such massive amounts of genetic deterioration through time, would eventually have become extinct. It's too easy for the evolutionists and tree-huggers to blame environment only for the increasing disease and death while ignoring the genetic deterioration due to the effects of sin in this world. It's just too darn convenient and easy, and I don't let them get away with it when opportunity arises.

Why ask these questions??? Why not? Shouldn't we be able to ask questions without our faith being tarnished?
MM, You need to understand, as an old earth creationist, I reject Darwinian evolution.

That's not what I meant, but that's ok. It was somewhat rhetorical.

Again, it comes down to two views...........
1. Young earth. It seems that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is 24-hour day.

Please keep in mind that I was not injecting 24 hours into the mix. I freely admit that the speed of rotation of the earth is not defined in the text, except that there was a distinction made to which Moses and we today have no other framework for comparison then what we experience right now. Had there been some other framework for comparison for understanding, one would think that the Lord would have inspired that to be written.

Additionally, as I had pointed out before, Jesus did not attempt to correct the Jews for their numbering of years from creation, which is a practice that was implemented in the 12th century BC based upon the genealogies.

2. The view that John Sailhamer wrote in Genesis Unbound or in his other books, which says that all of creation happened in verses 1 and
2. It may be as old as 4 trillion years, as far as he is concerned, and what was happening in Genesis 1 each day was not the bringing into being of the earth and its various forms, but rather the ordering, managing and structuring of things. This allows for 24 hour days but also allows for an old earth.

I am not saying I agee, but Just a thought that needs to be considered.

Well, I'm not sure it's worthy of consideration since the text seems to contradict that thought. I cannot remain intellectually honest by trying to jam that concept into the text, otherwise known as the "gap theory." From my reading of the text in the Septuagint Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew, it just doesn't mesh with the rest of the context.

But, and I say this with cautionary restraint, if I give to you an acquiescence for there being the potential for trillions of years in verse 1, that doesn't allow for fossils since no living creatures had yet been created, much less plant life for them to eat, etc.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

MM

 

[Major]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. What I was referring to is "morning" and "evening" indicators, which is a call upon solar rotations of the earth, the speed of which I believe was as constant then as it is now. If we allow that to speak for itself, then it's speaking of solar days as we experience now. I agree with you that there is no express statement made demanding it to be "24 hours" in the biblical texts. My appeal has only been to the indicators stated, which is morning and evening. If the Lord didn't do any creative work at night in relation to the location of the garden, that is neither here nor there to my thinking.

You see, I'm trying to refrain from injecting into the text what isn't there. By only deriving from the text what it says, the indication is a solar day (yom) for each day (yom) of creation, which the context seems to support as being as a solar day that Moses could relate, as can we today.



Good question, brother. What is/are the alternative(s)...26 hours, 38 hours... What are you suggesting?



Thayer's Greek Lexicon says this about the contectual meaning for the Greek word translated as "death" in Romans 5:12:

"4. In the widest sense, death comprises all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth," and spiritual death is also implied in the context as you had pointed out. So to constrain the meaning down to spiritual death only, the Greek simply doesn't support that from what I can see. If it were spiritual death only, then that implies that Adam and Eve were going to die only a physical death had they not fallen. How would one defend that idea?



Hmm. Well, about the only way I can answer that is that the "process" of physical death is what came into being that was not yet in the world, nor in Adam and Eve until the fall. The potential for spiritual death also became a reality for them had they rejected the requirements for sacrifices to exemplify their devotion for the Blood that was to come...meaning that the Blood of Christ was/is retroactive for all generations throughout all of time for those who rely upon that Blood for their redemption.

For example, it's my contention that mankind, had he been allowed to live long enough on this earth, would eventually suffer from such massive amounts of genetic deterioration through time, would eventually have become extinct. It's too easy for the evolutionists and tree-huggers to blame environment only for the increasing disease and death while ignoring the genetic deterioration due to the effects of sin in this world. It's just too darn convenient and easy, and I don't let them get away with it when opportunity arises.



That's not what I meant, but that's ok. It was somewhat rhetorical.



Please keep in mind that I was not injecting 24 hours into the mix. I freely admit that the speed of rotation of the earth is not defined in the text, except that there was a distinction made to which Moses and we today have no other framework for comparison then what we experience right now. Had there been some other framework for comparison for understanding, one would think that the Lord would have inspired that to be written.

Additionally, as I had pointed out before, Jesus did not attempt to correct the Jews for their numbering of years from creation, which is a practice that was implemented in the 12th century BC based upon the genealogies.



Well, I'm not sure it's worthy of consideration since the text seems to contradict that thought. I cannot remain intellectually honest by trying to jam that concept into the text, otherwise known as the "gap theory." From my reading of the text in the Septuagint Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew, it just doesn't mesh with the rest of the context.

But, and I say this with cautionary restraint, if I give to you an acquiescence for there being the potential for trillions of years in verse 1, that doesn't allow for fossils since no living creatures had yet been created, much less plant life for them to eat, etc.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

MM

I am getting a headache!

It does seem as if we agree that the Hebrew word "Yom" can be translated as meaning any finite and bounded period of time.

As I said......I am NOT advocating the GAP theory. I just said that there is that possibility.

Now........If Romans 5:12 is not talking about spiritual death, separation then why did Adam live another 930 years after he sinned!
Scripture says in Genesis 2:17..............
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Now there is a problem here.
1. Did Adam die the DAY he ate the fruit?
2. Did God lie?
3. Does a DAY here mean a 24 hour day?
4. Did Adam die spiritually and then live another 930 years?

Some scholars will say that "Surely you will die on the day you eat" allows for a lapse of unspecified time.

Now........That is exactly what I am saying about the word 'Yom" in verse #1.
Why is it acceptable in one case and not another when the context does not demand it one way or the other and we both agree that "yom" can mean an unspecified amount of time.????

How do we get around the literal word "for in the DAY you eat".

If we are going to be literal in one case should we be the same in the other?

Dosen't the Scripural fact that Adam lived another 930 years "after" eating the fruit say something?

 

[Major]

Where does an evening and a morning add up to 24 hours? Should it not then be only 12? And did God only work at night, beginning in the evening and ending in the morning? Actually when we look at "Day" 4 the sun, moon, and stars are created for days, times, and seasons, it seems to me that applying this time stamp to days 1 through 3 is improper. MM you chose one particular definition of the words as this best fit what you believe, but, it is not the only definition. I would also point out Gen. 2:4 'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.' so if YOM must always mean 24 hours, this verse is saying that all of creation was done in 1- 24 hour period. There is no evening or morning for "Day" 7 because God has paused or rested from His creating. We know He is going to create a new heaven and a new earth at some point in the future, but until that time "Day" 7 continues.

Thank you for a short post!

 

[Musicmaster]

I am getting a headache!

I seem to have that effect upon folks...

It'll be great when we're all finally out of here and in a state where the maladies of this life are no more, like that speeding ticket I just got a little while ago this morning already...

The payment for some sins is $$$$!

It does seem as if we agree that the Hebrew word "Yom" can be translated as meaning any finite and bounded period of time.

As I said......I am NOT advocating the GAP theory. I just said that there is that possibility.

I did agree with you on that, Major. Yes, but only if it is applied to Genesis 1, before the first day rather than anyone trying to couch trillions of years within the first day's morning and evening constraint.

Now........If Romans 5:12 is not talking about spiritual death, separation then why did Adam live another 930 years after he sinned!
Scripture says in Genesis 2:17..............
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the DAY that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

This is some interesting stuff. I like it.

When the Lord stated "In that day, you shall surely die...," I understand why some people will see that as them literally dying that very day, or that it is a "spiritual death," which is problematic since none of us dies spiritually, and thus cease to exist.

So, short answer, as I had stated before, the process of death was allowed in that very day to begin its slow plodding steps toward that day when their physical bodies would indeed die. Yes, the Lord did not state it as being a process, but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration.

Now, if someone wants proof for that, all we need do is consider what you yourself said, in that Adam died about 930 years later. The proof is in the actual storyline itself. Those who want to try and force upon the text that it had to literally be that very day, then they are creating a whole slew of other problems in their hermeneutics. If they want to be really nasty, then we can fall back on the "A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years...," so Adam will have actually died in that very day since 930 years is less than 1000...right? Adam did indeed literally die that very day in relation to the Lord's reckoning, so I would ask them, "So, what's the problem? Adam DID die that very day in relation to what a day is to the One speaking."

Sorry, but it is sometimes fun to throw things around a bit for the sake of humor, and to demonstrate the problems with going afield of reasonable thought that some out there perpetrate within a given topic. That's not an indictment against you, Major, but just speaking generally.

Now there is a problem here.
1. Did Adam die the DAY he ate the fruit?

Yes and no. The text doesn't say that it was a completed process for Adam dying since his having lived another 930 human years defines for us what the Lord meant by His statement. We ALL make use of grammatical license, such as a movie depicting a man who had ingested a lethal dose of arsenic, and he looks at his buddy and says, "I'm dead already!" and yet dies several minutes later. Because he knew he was on the pathway to soon death, he considered himself dead already for being able to accomplish anything an hour from that moment. Does that make sense?

2. Did God lie?

No, but we can certainly make it seem as though the Lord lied when we force a literal meaning upon the words spoken that are not consistent with the reality of the events laid out in the text.

3. Does a DAY here mean a 24 hour day?

Morning and evening point to a solar day.

4. Did Adam die spiritually and then live another 930 years?

No. You will have to define what you mean by dying spiritually, because the text doesn't say any such thing, and to my understanding, dying spiritually means what it says, in that the person would cease to exist.

Granted, there is the concept of what we can read as being "...the second death..." for those who die without having been born again.

The text in Genesis doesn't draw that line of comparison, so dragging it into the Genesis account is questionable. The Lord did not say anything about them dying in that day was going to be a process, nor did He state that it would be a spiritual death, so it might be said that you and I are BOTH in a pickle here...so to speak.

MM

 

[Major]

I seem to have that effect upon folks...

It'll be great when we're all finally out of here and in a state where the maladies of this life are no more, like that speeding ticket I just got a little while ago this morning already...

The payment for some sins is $$$$!



I did agree with you on that, Major. Yes, but only if it is applied to Genesis 1, before the first day rather than anyone trying to couch trillions of years within the first day's morning and evening constraint.



This is some interesting stuff. I like it.

When the Lord stated "In that day, you shall surely die...," I understand why some people will see that as them literally dying that very day, or that it is a "spiritual death," which is problematic since none of us dies spiritually, and thus cease to exist.

So, short answer, as I had stated before, the process of death was allowed in that very day to begin its slow plodding steps toward that day when their physical bodies would indeed die. Yes, the Lord did not state it as being a process, but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration.

Now, if someone wants proof for that, all we need do is consider what you yourself said, in that Adam died about 930 years later. The proof is in the actual storyline itself. Those who want to try and force upon the text that it had to literally be that very day, then they are creating a whole slew of other problems in their hermeneutics. If they want to be really nasty, then we can fall back on the "A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years...," so Adam will have actually died in that very day since 930 years is less than 1000...right? Adam did indeed literally die that very day in relation to the Lord's reckoning, so I would ask them, "So, what's the problem? Adam DID die that very day in relation to what a day is to the One speaking."

Sorry, but it is sometimes fun to throw things around a bit for the sake of humor, and to demonstrate the problems with going afield of reasonable thought that some out there perpetrate within a given topic. That's not an indictment against you, Major, but just speaking generally.



Yes and no. The text doesn't say that it was a completed process for Adam dying since his having lived another 930 human years defines for us what the Lord meant by His statement. We ALL make use of grammatical license, such as a movie depicting a man who had ingested a lethal dose of arsenic, and he looks at his buddy and says, "I'm dead already!" and yet dies several minutes later. Because he knew he was on the pathway to soon death, he considered himself dead already for being able to accomplish anything an hour from that moment. Does that make sense?



No, but we can certainly make it seem as though the Lord lied when we force a literal meaning upon the words spoken that are not consistent with the reality of the events laid out in the text.



Morning and evening point to a solar day.



No. You will have to define what you mean by dying spiritually, because the text doesn't say any such thing, and to my understanding, dying spiritually means what it says, in that the person would cease to exist.

Granted, there is the concept of what we can read as being "...the second death..." for those who die without having been born again.

The text in Genesis doesn't draw that line of comparison, so dragging it into the Genesis account is questionable. The Lord did not say anything about them dying in that day was going to be a process, nor did He state that it would be a spiritual death, so it might be said that you and I are BOTH in a pickle here...so to speak.

MM

MM..........you said..............
"So, short answer, as I had stated before, the process of death was allowed in that very day to begin its slow plodding steps toward that day when their physical bodies would indeed die. Yes, the Lord did not state it as being a process, but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration."

That my dear friend is "Reading into the Scriptures" what we want them to say and I know you realize that! You are toooo theologically sound not to know that.

What I am saying is that you can not on one hand insist on "day and evening" as a 24 hor peroid and then on the other hand say..........
" but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration."

Not applicable! God said in the "DAY you eat". God did not say there would be a process of dieing!! That is what you are suggesting.

Now if a "day" is the "day and evening" which is a 24 hour event then the DAY you eat is the moment you eat it you will die. Now there is only two choices here..........
1. Adam indeed died spiritually (separated from God) and died 930 later physically.
2. God lied.

I hate to put it that way but there is no other choice that you have placed yourself in.

Died "spiritually" = He was seperated from God and needed a Saviour! Hence Jesus Christ came and killed an animal and gave the skins to him and Eve to cover their sin.

Romans 5:12.........
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."

Until Adam’s sin, he enjoyed a close relationship with God. God had created the Garden of Eden and placed Adam in it. The Lord then created a helpmeet for Adam. Scripture tells us that right before God confronted Adam for his sin Adam and Eve heard the Lord walking through the garden (Genesis 3:8). God was not distant but rather present and involved. Adam had never known a day without the Lord’s care and relationship. But then He sinned. From that point on, a division existed between humanity and God.

Since Adam's fall, every single person is born with a spirit that is separated from God, which Adam introduced way back in the Garden. Because of this nature, everyone is born separated from God. Romans 3:23 puts it like this: ......
“For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”

Rom. 7:9 .........
"I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

No one is exempt. Every person at some point has disobeyed, lied, made a selfish decision or acted opposite of God’s nature.

Now.........What you are doing, with all due respect, is switching idealism with literalism so as to make your point.

So far, you have offered the "day + evening" as a 24 hour LITERAL Theis. Now to make the idea of "beginning to die" you are merely using day in the sense of a long period of time. That is exactly the opposite of the literal day + evening idea as one 24 hour day.
Do you see what you are saying.

Now, this would solve the problem, If day here, means 1000 years, then he definitely died within that day. But that is opposite of a literal 24 hour day as the Scripture says...."The DAY you eat you dies"!

And, it is true that the phrase “in the day” can convey the idea of “at the time,” or “when,” in certain contexts, such as in Gen. 2:4. The problem is, there is no contextual justification for understanding this phrase in this way.

Others...ME, have offered that the day was indeed a literal 24 hour day, and that Adam did die that very day…..just not physically. He, instead, died spiritually in the sense that he was separated from his normal communion with God. Paul said in Romans 7:9..........
"I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

Clearly, he was not speaking here of physical death but, rather, a separation from God that resulted from sin. And, clearly, this is what happened to Adam when he sinned. His eyes were opened and God banished him from the Tree of Life and Adam lost the close relationship he once had with God. At that point they needed skins to COVER their sin. Adam and Eve would never return to the Garden and remained in a state of separation the rest of their lives. They were saved spiritually but lived physically another 930 years.

We know that is the case because we see in Gen. 3:19 ...........
" the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

Adam was now destined for death and decay. The food which tempted him, would now be a struggle to grow, and other hardships entered into the world, but eventually he was to die and be reunited with the elements he was made from. This was true for Adam as well as his descendants.

Now I certainly believe spiritual death happened in the Garden. There’s no question Adam was separated from his God. The normal communion he and his descendants were to enjoy was gone.

Is that an acceptable explination?

 

[Musicmaster]

MM..........you said..............
"So, short answer, as I had stated before, the process of death was allowed in that very day to begin its slow plodding steps toward that day when their physical bodies would indeed die. Yes, the Lord did not state it as being a process, but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration."

That my dear friend is "Reading into the Scriptures" what we want them to say and I know you realize that! You are toooo theologically sound not to know that.

What I am saying is that you can not on one hand insist on "day and evening" as a 24 hor peroid and then on the other hand say..........
" but I can't help but to think that Adam felt something change in his body when the process of death was indeed initiated in that very day of the Lord's declaration."

If I may say, I don't see that it's a violation of proper hermeneutics to look at the result of Adam dying some 930 years later, and on that basis, defining the previous by the latter, and thus choosing from a host of possible definitions for the statement of "dying in that day".

Not applicable! God said in the "DAY you eat". God did not say there would be a process of dieing!! That is what you are suggesting.

True, just as the Lord did not say they would die spiritually. So, given the reality of what actually happened, in that Adams death was a process of dying, as we are all in today, it's totally reasonable to apply the meaning of the process of dying having started in that very day. Does that seem unreasonable?

Now if a "day" is the "day and evening" which is a 24 hour event then the DAY you eat is the moment you eat it you will die. Now there is only two choices here..........
1. Adam indeed died spiritually (separated from God) and died 930 later physically.
2. God lied.

What seems to be happening here is that it appears you are forcing upon the text a definition that is not established in the overall portrait of how things panned out with Adam living a total of 930 years. So, rather than to call God a liar, the question should be a matter as to why you are confining the Lord's chosen words to one specific definition or understanding? Is the Lord not allowed to utilize license for meaning within language as you and I exercise every day?

Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you [are] a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she [is] a man's wife."

Was God a liar? No. He was making use of lingual license that we all exercise on a daily basis, so why try and take that from God in exchange for making Him a liar? That's what's puzzling me about your take on all this.

I hate to put it that way but there is no other choice that you have placed yourself in.

Died "spiritually" = He was seperated from God and needed a Saviour! Hence Jesus Christ came and killed an animal and gave the skins to him and Eve to cover their sin.

Although I agree with your in-depth analysis in that definition, I still say that the Lord did not state that in that section of scripture, even though it is a part of the overall implications when we view the panorama of scripture. I do appreciate, however, your defining your use that wording for me.

MM

 

[Major]

If I may say, I don't see that it's a violation of proper hermeneutics to look at the result of Adam dying some 930 years later, and on that basis, defining the previous by the latter, and thus choosing from a host of possible definitions for the statement of "dying in that day".



True, just as the Lord did not say they would die spiritually. So, given the reality of what actually happened, in that Adams death was a process of dying, as we are all in today, it's totally reasonable to apply the meaning of the process of dying having started in that very day. Does that seem unreasonable?



What seems to be happening here is that it appears you are forcing upon the text a definition that is not established in the overall portrait of how things panned out with Adam living a total of 930 years. So, rather than to call God a liar, the question should be a matter as to why you are confining the Lord's chosen words to one specific definition or understanding? Is the Lord not allowed to utilize license for meaning within language as you and I exercise every day?

Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you [are] a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she [is] a man's wife."

Was God a liar? No. He was making use of lingual license that we all exercise on a daily basis, so why try and take that from God in exchange for making Him a liar? That's what's puzzling me about your take on all this.



Although I agree with your in-depth analysis in that definition, I still say that the Lord did not state that in that section of scripture, even though it is a part of the overall implications when we view the panorama of scripture. I do appreciate, however, your defining your use that wording for me.

MM

Now, I do not want to be-labor this in any way.......but are you sure that you do not see a violation of hermeneutics here????

On one hand you are insisting that a "day and evening" = a 24 hour period when the Scripture does not say that.

Then on the other hand you are saying that when God said that Adam would "die the day" he ate the fruit is an undetermined amount of time when the Scriptures do not say that either.

You do not see the ambiguity in those two positions????

Is God a liar? Of course not. But that is the position He is being placed when we do not see that Adam in fact did die spiritually and then lived another 930 years.

 

[Musicmaster]

Now, I do not want to be-labor this in any way.......but are you sure that you do not see a violation of hermeneutics here????

I'm quite sure of it.

The reason I say that is because it's a very common and accepted practice to allow the broader context, relating to the section of scripture in question, to define the meaning within the text of the verse in question. It's scripture interpreting scripture. Please allow me to explain in more detail:

The text in question says:

Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

In the broader context of Genesis, we see that Adam lived to the age of 930 years.

That, then, forces us to go back to verse 17 and understand its meaning with greater clarity in that it was not literally that day in earthly days, but can only be a reference to something that would play out in a manner that does not allow for an absolute meaning for that calendar day. Adam did indeed begin the process of dying that day, culminating in the total death of his body some 930 years later.

I also agree with you in that he also died a spiritual death in the sense of separation from God by way of sin, and thus no longer walking with God as he once had done in communal fellowship.

Let me ask you this: Was Adam in the process of physically dying before the fall? If he was, then on what basis can that be said?

Given that Adam did not drop dead upon sinking his teeth into that fruit, whatever it was, then the understanding of his eventual physical death must be something that cannot be said was of immediacy; in that very day apart from the process of dying that was not in his body before his fall.

Does that make sense now?

On one hand you are insisting that a "day and evening" = a 24 hour period when the Scripture does not say that.

Let's just stick with what I actually said...in that the morning and evening was a solar day because of the exact terms used in defining "yom" in those passages. If in that time it was 25 hours, I would be in error for me to say yes to 24 hours. That's why I'm trying to be more precise in pointing to the "solar" day in that time period.

Then on the other hand you are saying that when God said that Adam would "die the day" he ate the fruit is an undetermined amount of time when the Scriptures do not say that either.

You do not see the ambiguity in those two positions????

The only ambiguity I can see is in your believing that it can only be that very day, a total and complete death, and thus making no allowances for any other definition, which I have aptly demonstrated God used in other verses in the same book, with the Lord making use of literary license for expression that you seem to be trying to take from Him in this instance. Did you see the example I quoted?

MM

 

[Major]

I'm quite sure of it.

The reason I say that is because it's a very common and accepted practice to allow the broader context, relating to the section of scripture in question, to define the meaning within the text of the verse in question. It's scripture interpreting scripture. Please allow me to explain in more detail:

The text in question says:

Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

In the broader context of Genesis, we see that Adam lived to the age of 930 years.

That, then, forces us to go back to verse 17 and understand its meaning with greater clarity in that it was not literally that day in earthly days, but can only be a reference to something that would play out in a manner that does not allow for an absolute meaning for that calendar day. Adam did indeed begin the process of dying that day, culminating in the total death of his body some 930 years later.

I also agree with you in that he also died a spiritual death in the sense of separation from God by way of sin, and thus no longer walking with God as he once had done in communal fellowship.

Let me ask you this: Was Adam in the process of physically dying before the fall? If he was, then on what basis can that be said?

Given that Adam did not drop dead upon sinking his teeth into that fruit, whatever it was, then the understanding of his eventual physical death must be something that cannot be said was of immediacy; in that very day apart from the process of dying that was not in his body before his fall.

Does that make sense now?



Let's just stick with what I actually said...in that the morning and evening was a solar day because of the exact terms used in defining "yom" in those passages. If in that time it was 25 hours, I would be in error for me to say yes to 24 hours. That's why I'm trying to be more precise in pointing to the "solar" day in that time period.



The only ambiguity I can see is in your believing that it can only be that very day, a total and complete death, and thus making no allowances for any other definition, which I have aptly demonstrated God used in other verses in the same book, with the Lord making use of literary license for expression that you seem to be trying to take from Him in this instance. Did you see the example I quoted?

MM

Nope.

In all honesty, it seems to me that you are placing a donut on the table with your left hand and taking it away with your right hand.

You see, if I say that a DAY means a definite period of time on one point, I cannot then say that a DAY on another instance is not a definite period but sometime later. Thay is what you are trying to validate...IMHO.

You said........
"The only ambiguity I can see is in your believing that it can only be that very day, a total and complete death, and thus making no allowances for any other definition, which I have aptly demonstrated God used in other verses in the same book, with the Lord making use of literary license for expression that you seem to be trying to take from Him in this instance."

But I did not say that the DAY was a total complete death! It was God who said that "In the DAY you eat the fruit you will surely die".
I did make an allowance! I said that the allowance was that instead of dying physically that day, he instead died spiritually that day and physically 930 years later.

But that is just me and I know that you are comfortable in your understanding so I will not push it.

 

[Prim90]

Now, I do not want to be-labor this in any way.......but are you sure that you do not see a violation of hermeneutics here????

On one hand you are insisting that a "day and evening" = a 24 hour period when the Scripture does not say that.

Then on the other hand you are saying that when God said that Adam would "die the day" he ate the fruit is an undetermined amount of time when the Scriptures do not say that either.

You do not see the ambiguity in those two positions????

Is God a liar? Of course not. But that is the position He is being placed when we do not see that Adam in fact did die spiritually and then lived another 930 years.

Major There be no contradiction. When God said Adam would surely die. Just as all of us do start to die physically from the day we are born. And so with Adam too. Humanity does attest to that. We just don’t live to the long ages that our ancestors used to live And it’s rather self explanatory. Because God gives the time of Adams death over some 900 yrs later . Each of those days over those 900 yrs were still 24 hour periods [ATTACH= To try and seperate spiritual death and physical death from each other with the fall is just inconceivable. What the Bible doesn't say though is that this earth was here some 2 billion yrs ago before the creation account of which we can pretty well work out from Adams death to be some 6-7 thousand yrs old, or 10 thousand yrs at the very max. You say you are not a old age Earther . Than just what exactly is your belief

 

[Musicmaster]

Nope.

In all honesty, it seems to me that you are placing a donut on the table with your left hand and taking it away with your right hand.

Well, if it's a Krispy-Kream, I might have done that...with chocolate all over it. (Of course, for me, those days are long gone when I can enjoy such a treat. No longer allowed for me. That will not happen again for me until after I'm taken up with all others to that Krispy-Kream bakery in the sky...)

You see, if I say that a DAY means a definite period of time on one point, I cannot then say that a DAY on another instance is not a definite period but sometime later. Thay is what you are trying to validate...IMHO.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't know how many hours it was at that time. That's why I acquiesce to "solar" day as the Lord would define it then. I'm trying to avoid assuming 24 hours into it, and thus projecting something onto the Lord's handiwork what we are not told in the text. I would say that it's reasonable to approximate 24 hours since that is what Moses would have understood, and has been a part of the beliefs in Jewish custom ever since.

You said........
"The only ambiguity I can see is in your believing that it can only be that very day, a total and complete death, and thus making no allowances for any other definition, which I have aptly demonstrated God used in other verses in the same book, with the Lord making use of literary license for expression that you seem to be trying to take from Him in this instance."

But I did not say that the DAY was a total complete death! It was God who said that "In the DAY you eat the fruit you will surely die".
I did make an allowance! I said that the allowance was that instead of dying physically that day, he instead died spiritually that day and physically 930 years later.

But that is just me and I know that you are comfortable in your understanding so I will not push it.

Ok, well, I can see that I'm not getting through the noise, so will leave this off at this point since I would only be repeating myself and possibly still not getting through to you what I've been saying all along. I see it as a gross error that you would think that the Lord did not and could not utilize lingual license for wording and meaning, and even quoted another section of Genesis where He did just that, and you continue to ignore it.

That's ok. I don't mind. This is a peripheral issue to the central tenets of the Gospel.

If BibleLover wants to arbitrate and possibly explain better than I have, then I welcome his input.

MM

 

[Major]

Well, if it's a Krispy-Kream, I might have done that...with chocolate all over it. (Of course, for me, those days are long gone when I can enjoy such a treat. No longer allowed for me. That will not happen again for me until after I'm taken up with all others to that Krispy-Kream bakery in the sky...)



Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't know how many hours it was at that time. That's why I acquiesce to "solar" day as the Lord would define it then. I'm trying to avoid assuming 24 hours into it, and thus projecting something onto the Lord's handiwork what we are not told in the text. I would say that it's reasonable to approximate 24 hours since that is what Moses would have understood, and has been a part of the beliefs in Jewish custom ever since.



Ok, well, I can see that I'm not getting through the noise, so will leave this off at this point since I would only be repeating myself and possibly still not getting through to you what I've been saying all along. I see it as a gross error that you would think that the Lord did not and could not utilize lingual license for wording and meaning, and even quoted another section of Genesis where He did just that, and you continue to ignore it.

That's ok. I don't mind. This is a peripheral issue to the central tenets of the Gospel.

If BibleLover wants to arbitrate and possibly explain better than I have, then I welcome his input.

MM

There is nothing to arbitrate my dear brother. I love you and there is nothing to explain. We disagree on this and that is all there is to it.

 

[crossnote]

I was thinking of this thread when I came across this verse...

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.

This would mean if the earth is millions of years, so is Adam and Eve. (we know that is not so, because he lived 930 years-Gen 5:5)
OR
Creation did not happen.

 

[BibleLover]

Ok, all you Cosmology fans out there, one of the long ages problems that Theistic Evolutionists have is really quite simple to identify:

It's the belief among the long ages crowd that God allegedly spent billions of years (postulated by the atheistic, evolutionary camp that they follow) to bring the universe to the point in the timeline we are currently now sitting here reading this post. One of the main problems I have with this is that I don't believe God is so simple-minded that He would sit there, with autistic fascination, blankly watching a universe spawning new stars and swirling galaxies all about, watching them explode, and then reform, and then swirl about in seemingly random fashion, until finally deciding to form this earth, Adam, and then the rest of man in the midst of sickness, suffering, disease and death as is seen in the fossil record and as we peer out into space!

Inevitably, someone is bound to point out that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years here on earth. That would mean that God sat there for 24 billion earth years, or rather 2,778 eternity years, watching it all swirling about, and moving toward some (unknown to us) point of Adam being formed. That would be about 2,778 years of blank fascination on the part of God.

Do you see the problem here?

They seem to believe that God is somehow plagued by some unnamed malady to be so deeply immersed in boring fascination with process that span such a massive amount of time, that one must ask...what was He doing and thinking during all that span of time that even has a very long measure in eternity...if we misapply that scripture the way so many do about the day and thousand years thingy? Did it take Him that long to formulate His plan for man's whisp of mist timeline in the span of atheistic long ages?

Hmm. Quite a problem, huh? No?

What other alternatives are there? Maybe Genesis says what it means...and maybe not? I realize this debate has been ongoing for some time now, so what other beliefs are there that can make sense along this line of thought? No reason for anyone to argue angrily. Let's have some thoughtful input to this just see what makes sense, and what doesn't.

As you likely have seen, I enjoy shifting perspective on many things to see what other ways there are of looking at a given topic.

MM

Time is as relevant to God as the other 3 dimensions. God cannot be contained in space or in time. We are the only beings aware of the passage of time (observe your dog or cat sometime; they're stuck in a perpetual "now"). Therefore, arguments that God spent "time" doing anything are fallacious.