Creation

[BNR32FAN]

You haven't actually debunked anything though.

You made some false argument about a cosmic temple understanding of Genesis having to do with the Israelites needing to have a temple. Which is just not the case. Of course the Israelites didn't have their own temple. I'm not sure why you would think that this is important.

And there's really nothing to debunk about the Egyptian context of Genesis. It's just a fact about the history of the text. Genesis describes the same cosmology as other ancient near east creation texts.

The Israelites wouldn't need to have their own temple in order for Genesis to be about a 7-day temple inauguration.

The Bible doesn’t say that the creation account has anything to do with a 7 day temple inauguration, if anything the 7 day temple inauguration is symbolic of the creation week. All you’re doing is trying to find any excuse you can to justify your objection to what is clearly written in the scriptures. And when you actually learn about the Egyptian creation stories it’s beyond clear that they are nothing like the creation account. Here’s a video explaining the three main Egyptian creation stories that I’ve already posted before in response to your claim for anyone whose interested in comparing them to the biblical creation account.

If anyone is interested in learning about Egyptian creation theology and comparing them to the Genesis account here’s a video that tells three of the major Egyptian creation stories. I invite anyone to listen to them and conclude for yourself whether or not the Genesis creation account was influenced by these stories.

 

[Job 33:6]

. Here’s a video explaining the three main Egyptian creation stories that I’ve already posted before in response to your claim for anyone whose interested in comparing them to the biblical creation account.

This is a good video that affirms what I am stating. Here are key themes of your video:
3:00 Darkness and a vast ocean
3:45 the primordial mound
5:00 division of heaven and earth
6:30 formless void and the deep
7:45 the primordial mound
10:25 vast darkness and deep
11:20 creation with the spoken word (and God said)
11:28 wind upon the waters
11:50 light
13:30 the video observed parallels to the Bible.
20:12 creation with the spoken word.

All of these are very clearly described in the Bible.

Genesis 1:1-3, 9 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

1. Darkness and deep, an infinite ocean.
2. The wind of God or spirit of God over the face of the waters.
3. Creation with the spoken word.
4. Creation of light.
5. Creation of the primordial land in the midst of the deep.

That's the precise order observed in the Memphite Theology. And that's exactly what happens in Genesis. Your video is accurate.

The point being that indeed, Genesis, much like other ancient near east literature, such as that of Egyptian creation texts, describes ancient Israelite cosmology.

 

[roman2819]

Hi
Creation again how should we read the creation account in Genesis I believe it should be understood starting when Noah stepped of the Ark and God began a new creation the only thing he needed to create was mankind in his image which would be Jesus Christ and the multitude of believers he presents to the father on the beginning of the 7th day of creation.
Each day of creation would be a 1000 years long and began with Noah and everything on the ark.

Gen 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

This describes the world when God flooded the world water covered the world to the tops of the mountains.

Love and Peace
Dave

Day refers to a passage of time. Not literally 24 hours or 1000 years. Not every 'day' is equal in the creation. For example: It tales more time to create and design the living creatures than to gather the land in one area from the sea.

I believed that the word day implies a stage or phase. The creation took place in organized stages. At the first phase, light was created, followed by the sky, then the land and sea. Later, in distinct stages, God created the stars, vegetation, flying creatures, sea habitants, and finally, land animals, followed by man and woman. He did not create randomly, so to speak: He did not make the stars, then the land, some living creatures, and then create more stars again; instead, He proceeded in an orderly way.

Why did the Bible use the word day instead of stage or phase? The word day fits the prose of writing in religious scriptures. For different subjects, be it engineering, human literature, fiction, magazines or newspapers, there are different ways of writing. Chemistry books are written in a factual way, while consumer magazines use words to capture our interests and promote sales. In Chinese culture, the word day can refer to heaven or the deities that dwell in heaven -- and this is not a unique view; it is not unusual for earthly beings to look at the sky and moon, and wonder if there are gods that live far beyond the stars. In the Bible, in the context of creation, day alludes to a passage of time.

Adapted from "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will"

 

[davetaff]

Day refers to a passage of time. Not literally 24 hours or 1000 years. Not every 'day' is equal in the creation. For example: It tales more time to create and design the living creatures than to gather the land in one area from the sea.

I believed that the word day implies a stage or phase. The creation took place in organized stages. At the first phase, light was created, followed by the sky, then the land and sea. Later, in distinct stages, God created the stars, vegetation, flying creatures, sea habitants, and finally, land animals, followed by man and woman. He did not create randomly, so to speak: He did not make the stars, then the land, some living creatures, and then create more stars again; instead, He proceeded in an orderly way.

Why did the Bible use the word day instead of stage or phase? The word day fits the prose of writing in religious scriptures. For different subjects, be it engineering, human literature, fiction, magazines or newspapers, there are different ways of writing. Chemistry books are written in a factual way, while consumer magazines use words to capture our interests and promote sales. In Chinese culture, the word day can refer to heaven or the deities that dwell in heaven -- and this is not a unique view; it is not unusual for earthly beings to look at the sky and moon, and wonder if there are gods that live far beyond the stars. In the Bible, in the context of creation, day alludes to a passage of time.

Adapted from "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will"

Hi Roman2819
Thank you for your reply what what Peter tells is a fact you are contradicting

2 Peter 3:8 ESV
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

bible.com

The thousand year days apply to the 7 days of creation its the only thing that makes logical sense

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[davetaff]

Hi Roman2819
Thank you for your reply what what Peter tells is a fact you are contradicting

2 Peter 3:8 ESV
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

bible.com

The thousand year days apply to the 7 days of creation its the only thing that makes logical sense

Love and Peace
Dave

Hi roman 2819 thank you for your reply but I have to disagree when Peter tells us that a day with the Lord is a thousand years and he tells it to us as a Fact then I believe he means what he says and when we apply it to the creation account in Genesis it makes perfect sense.
take the forth day of creation God creates the sun the moon and the stars that makes no sense at all unless its symbolic so four days after Noah the four thousand year God sent his son into the world the light of the world the Sun which is symbolic for Christ who creates his bride the moon who create the children of God the stars we should read the creation account starting with Noah through to Christs millennial reign the millennium is the last day of this creation which began with Noah and everything on the ark.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

Hi roman 2819 thank you for your reply but I have to disagree when Peter tells us that a day with the Lord is a thousand years and he tells it to us as a Fact then I believe he means what he says and when we apply it to the creation account in Genesis it makes perfect sense.
take the forth day of creation God creates the sun the moon and the stars that makes no sense at all unless its symbolic so four days after Noah the four thousand year God sent his son into the world the light of the world the Sun which is symbolic for Christ who creates his bride the moon who create the children of God the stars we should read the creation account starting with Noah through to Christs millennial reign the millennium is the last day of this creation which began with Noah and everything on the ark.

Love and Peace
Dave

Yes, with the Lord a thousand years is as one day, and notice it's as, or like, a thousand years; Peter doesn't say it is a thousand years:

“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8 NKJV)

But for whom did God cause the bible to be written? For mankind. So unless the context tells us otherwise, "day" means "day", not a thousand years. In Genesis 1, we have that repeated phrase, "And the evening and the morning were the .... th day. " A thousand years have three hundred and sixty five thousand evenings and mornings. Also, the six days of creation followed by the seventh day on which God rested are the pattern for the Jewish sabbath, which occurs once per week, not once every seven thousand years!

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, with the Lord a thousand years is as one day, and notice it's as, or like, a thousand years; Peter doesn't say it is a thousand years:

“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8 NKJV)

But for whom did God cause the bible to be written? For mankind. So unless the context tells us otherwise, "day" means "day", not a thousand years. In Genesis 1, we have that repeated phrase, "And the evening and the morning were the .... th day. " A thousand years have three hundred and sixty five thousand evenings and mornings. Also, the six days of creation followed by the seventh day on which God rested are the pattern for the Jewish sabbath, which occurs once per week, not once every seven thousand years!

David. The Bible was not written to mankind. It was written to the ancient Israelites. It was never intended to be read outside of their context.

 

[David Lamb]

David. The Bible was not written to mankind. It was written to the ancient Israelites. It was never intended to be read outside of their context.

Not so. You seem to be looking at it from a purely man-centred point of view. Anyway, from a factual viewpoint, some parts of the bible are actually addressed to non-Israelites. Many of the epistles were written to gentile churches.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not so. You seem to be looking at it from a purely man-centred point of view. Anyway, from a factual viewpoint, some parts of the bible are actually addressed to non-Israelites. Many of the epistles were written to gentile churches.

Reading the Bible in context is not "man-centered". It's actually how you faithfully read the text, rather than manipulating it with your own context.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not so. You seem to be looking at it from a purely man-centred point of view. Anyway, from a factual viewpoint, some parts of the bible are actually addressed to non-Israelites. Many of the epistles were written to gentile churches.

Nothing in the Bible was written to you. I'm pretty sure you can't read ancient Hebrew, can you? No? Ok then.

It's like you've picked up Paul's letters to the Corinthians of the church of corinth, and you've said "hey that's my letter, not theirs!"

That's not how the Bible works.

 

[David Lamb]

Reading the Bible in context is not "man-centered". It's actually how you faithfully read the text, rather than manipulating it with your own context.

But saying that God's word, the bible, was only intended for ancient Israelites is just wrong. Much of the New Testament is specifically addressed to non-Israelites, for instance Colossians:

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ [who are] in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Col 1:1-2 NKJV)

Also, the New Testament, even in parts addressed in the first instance to non-Israelites, refers to and quotes from the Old Testament.

 

[davetaff]

Yes, with the Lord a thousand years is as one day, and notice it's as, or like, a thousand years; Peter doesn't say it is a thousand years:

“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8 NKJV)

But for whom did God cause the bible to be written? For mankind. So unless the context tells us otherwise, "day" means "day", not a thousand years. In Genesis 1, we have that repeated phrase, "And the evening and the morning were the .... th day. " A thousand years have three hundred and sixty five thousand evenings and mornings. Also, the six days of creation followed by the seventh day on which God rested are the pattern for the Jewish sabbath, which occurs once per week, not once every seven thousand years!

Hi David
Thank you for your post but what and how God created before the flood is irrelevant it was all destroyed in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the only thing missing was man in the image of God Adam had died.
So God set about creating a new man in his image which would result in Jesus Christ presenting the multitude of believers to God the Father this is mankind in the image of God

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David
Thank you for your post but what and how God created before the flood is irrelevant it was all destroyed in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the only thing missing was man in the image of God Adam had died.
So God set about creating a new man in his image which would result in Jesus Christ presenting the multitude of believers to God the Father this is mankind in the image of God

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Love and Peace
Dave

No, Dave, it isn't at all irrelevant. Regarding living animals originally created by God, examples of each were kept safe with Noah and his family in the ark. God did not create a new selection of animals after the flood. Trees and other plants were not taken on to the ark, but they must have remained alive either as plants or as seeds for there to have been an olive twig for the dove to bring back to the ark. The earth itself was probably changed by the flood, but not totally destroyed so as to need creating again. The flood didn't destroy the sun, moon and stars. So God didn't start creating again immediately after the flood. God didn't "set about creating a new man" after the flood. Noah and his family were kept safe in the ark. Just think of the human genealogy of Jesus as given by Luke. It goes back beyond the flood to Adam:

“[the son] of Cainan, [the son] of Arphaxad, [the son] of Shem, [the son] of Noah, [the son] of Lamech, [the son] of Methuselah, [the son] of Enoch, [the son] of Jared, [the son] of Mahalalel, [the son] of Cainan, [the son] of Enos, [the son] of Seth, [the son] of Adam, [the son] of God.” (Lu 3:36-38 NKJV)

Yes, believers are referred to as "new creations". For instance:

“Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2Co 5:17 NKJV)

But they are new creations in the sense that they now have spiritual life, whereas before, they had been spiritually dead. They aren't totally new creations - they existed before they became Christians.

If what happened before the flood were irrelevant, and we ignored it, we would have no knowledge of the origin of the universe, of life, of sin.

 

[davetaff]

Hi David
Thank you for your reply maybe irrelevant is a bit harsh of course it's full of information about how God created everything but God also destroyed everything in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the onlything missing was Adam man in the image of God.
I believe the word Man should be understood as mankind the human race the body of Christ the multitude Christ presents to the father on his return I also believe the first and last Adam would be created in the same way they would not be one man but a whole multitude as Christ will present to the Father on his return.
We really need to get our head around what man in the image of God looks like the son of God Israel is our best example.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David
Thank you for your reply maybe irrelevant is a bit harsh of course it's full of information about how God created everything but God also destroyed everything in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark the onlything missing was Adam man in the image of God.
I believe the word Man should be understood as mankind the human race the body of Christ the multitude Christ presents to the father on his return I also believe the first and last Adam would be created in the same way they would not be one man but a whole multitude as Christ will present to the Father on his return.
We really need to get our head around what man in the image of God looks like the son of God Israel is our best example.

Love and Peace
Dave

Thanks Dave. I know we have been here before, but in my view, it is necessary to be careful in writing things such as, " I also believe the first and last Adam would be created in the same way," because when Scripture talks about the last Adam, it is referring to Christ, so it seems as if you are saying that Christ is a created Being. I know from one of your previous replies that you don't believe He was created.

 

[Job 33:6]

But saying that God's word, the bible, was only intended for ancient Israelites is just wrong. Much of the New Testament is specifically addressed to non-Israelites, for instance Colossians:

Yes. The Bible is for all of mankind. But it's still not written to you. And it's the second part that matters in Biblical interpretation.

I can write a letter that says "there is water in the trunk" and I can give it to my friend while we work on fixing the trunk of my car.

And I could say "hm, this would be great for instructions for all of mankind".

But if some random person shows up 3,000 years in the future, and let's say they speak a different language, and let's say they live in a forest and they don't use cars anymore (let's say they have space ships that don't have trunks). And future person A says to future person B "oh wow this must be a letter about forestry because there is water in tree trunks here in the forest".

And then person B says to person A, "no, this letter isn't even written in your language, you're not reading it in context, it's more likely talking about a car trunk".

And then person A says "well, it says that this instruction manual is for all of humanity when you translate it into our language, and that includes me. I live in the future, and since it's for me, it must be speaking in my context. I live in a forest, so it must be saying that there is water in the tree trunks!"

And we go round and round.

Just because something may be for everyone, doesn't mean that it was written to you. And it's not in your context, so you can't just say "well, it's for me, so that gives me the right to read it in my context".

That's not how you read the Bible, that's just cultural exploitation.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes. The Bible is for all of mankind. But it's still not written to you. And it's the second part that matters in Biblical interpretation.

I can write a letter that says "there is water in the trunk" and I can give it to my friend while we work on fixing the trunk of my car.

And I could say "hm, this would be great for instructions for all of mankind".

But if some random person shows up 3,000 years in the future, and let's say they live in a forest and they don't use cars anymore (let's say they have space ships that don't have trunks). And future person A says to future person B "oh wow this must be a letter about forestry because there is water in tree trunks here in the forest".

And then person B says to person A, "no, letter isn't even written in your language, you're not reading it in context".

And then person A says "well, it says that this instruction manual is for people in the future, when you translate it into our language. I live in the future, and since it's for me, it must be speaking in my context. I live in a forest, so it must be saying that there is water in the tree trunks!"

And we go round and round.

Just because something may be for everyone, doesn't mean that it was written to you. And it's not in your context, so you can't just say "well, it's for me, so that gives me the right to read it in my context".

That's not how you read the Bible, that's just cultural exploitation.

If, as I believe, God Himself is the ultimate Author of the bible, and if its contents are for me, then it is God's revelation to me. The fact that many of the original readers (not all, as I have said) were Israelites and I am not makes no difference.

 

[Job 33:6]

If, as I believe, God Himself is the ultimate Author of the bible, and if its contents are for me, then it is God's revelation to me. The fact that many of the original readers (not all, as I have said) were Israelites and I am not makes no difference.

You didn't address the issue at hand. Please re read my post (I've added detail for clarity) and explain why it is that the man who lives in the forest and his forestry context takes priority over the mechanics context.

 

[Job 33:6]

If, as I believe, God Himself is the ultimate Author of the bible, and if its contents are for me, then it is God's revelation to me. The fact that many of the original readers (not all, as I have said) were Israelites and I am not makes no difference.

This response is like saying, just because the original author was a car mechanic, and the later reader lived in the forest, because the Bible is for all of humanity, then it's ok to say that the letter is about forestry.

It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

If, as I believe, God Himself is the ultimate Author of the bible, and if its contents are for me, then it is God's revelation to me. The fact that many of the original readers (not all, as I have said) were Israelites and I am not makes no difference.

Just follow the story here:

Yes. The Bible is for all of mankind. But it's still not written to you. And it's the second part that matters in Biblical interpretation.

I can write a letter that says "there is water in the trunk" and I can give it to my friend while we work on fixing the trunk of my car.

And I could say "hm, this would be great for instructions for all of mankind".

But if some random person shows up 3,000 years in the future, and let's say they speak a different language, and let's say they live in a forest and they don't use cars anymore (let's say they have space ships that don't have trunks). And future person A says to future person B "oh wow this must be a letter about forestry because there is water in tree trunks here in the forest".

And then person B says to person A, "no, this letter isn't even written in your language, you're not reading it in context, it's more likely talking about a car trunk".

And then person A says "well, it says that this instruction manual is for all of humanity when you translate it into our language, and that includes me. I live in the future, and since it's for me, it must be speaking in my context. I live in a forest, so it must be saying that there is water in the tree trunks!"

And then person B says, " You don't understand, you're not reading it in its original context about a mechanic fixing his car trunk that has water in it".

And then person A says "yea but, God is the ultimate author, so there is no difference if the letter was written to car mechanics 3,000 years ago in a different context, or if it's written to me living in a forest today, therefore it's ok to say that it's talking about forestry!"

And we go round and round.

Just because something may be for everyone, doesn't mean that it was written to you. And it's not in your context, so you can't just say "well, it's for me, so that gives me the right to read it in my context".

That's not how you read the Bible, that's just cultural exploitation.