Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $60 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Saturday, September 15, 2001
Posts: 1908
Forum Stats
791 Members
30 Forums
5889 Topics
47252 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13355
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3909
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2483
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2288
John_C 1908
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
Pilgrim 10
chestnutmare 9
Tom 8
Robin 6
John_C 5
rstrats 3
Dvan34 1
jonboy 1
Recent Posts
The love of Christ constraineth us.
by chestnutmare
Yesterday at 07:20 AM
Eternal justification
by Pilgrim
Yesterday at 05:05 AM
Wholly Other
by Pilgrim
Monday, October 20, 2014 10:37 AM
What must I do to be saved?
by chestnutmare
Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:07 PM
13 October 1605 A.D. Theodore Beza Dies
by chestnutmare
Monday, October 13, 2014 4:14 PM
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Dr. Michael Horton
by Pilgrim
Thursday, October 9, 2014 5:00 AM
Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#22237 - Friday, February 18, 2005 3:58 PM Re: Creation ***** [Re: Pilgrim]
Adopted Offline
Addict

Registered: Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Posts: 618
Loc: Washington State
Pilgrim,

I can see that I am getting in trouble here.

The original point of the post was to show that our God does not have to comply with a cause and effect logic demanded by "scientists" in the old creation as well as the new. He is perfectly capable of creating light before He creates the physical heavenly bodies that emit or reflect the same. He is perfectly capable because He is sovereign first cause.

As I tried to explain to Tom, I believe that our sun is simply a physical (and Scriptural) metaphor for the Son of Righteousness, Jesus of Nazareth. (Mal 4:2)

I am only suggesting that there is a reason, that is illuminated by the Gospel, for the creation days order of first the evening (darkness) and then the morning (light). Along with that, that the old creation in Adam is a literal and historical "type" of the Gospel to come and the new creation.

With thought, there is actually much more to this. I have never got around to it, but maybe a very interesting essay could be written entitled "Justification by Faith and the Genesis Creation".

Denny

Roms: 3:22-24
_________________________
Denny

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]

Top
#22238 - Friday, February 18, 2005 4:57 PM Re: Creation [Re: Adopted]
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, April 8, 2001
Posts: 3909
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I looked up Malachi 4:2 in Calvin's commentary and he says "Sun" refers to light. Putting that with the context of this talking about our Lord Jesus Christ, we see Christ being refered to as shedding the Light (Sun) of righteousness.

However, if we go back to Genesis chapter one, unlike the context Malachi 4:2, we see no indication that "light" is Jesus Christ.
Unless of course, I have missed it. If so would you please shed some "light" on the passage for me. giggle

Top
#22239 - Friday, February 18, 2005 5:30 PM Re: Creation [Re: Adopted]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13355
Loc: NH, USA
Denny,

I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have to insist that "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" the HISTORICAL creation account isn't a valid method of doing so. Actually, when such things are forced upon a passage which are contrary to sound exegesis and to the "historico-grammatico" hermeneutic, it tends to discredit the argument as much as the other methods used.

And just in case you aren't aware, I hold tenaciously to a 6 day/24 hour creation (young earth) view. grin The fact that God didn't create the "light-bearers" until the fourth day poses no problem for me whatsoever. There is no necessity to explain how it is that there was light before the sun and moon were created. And perhaps just as important, the ability to explain the phenomena which I believe isn't revealed, means that it isn't for us to know! (Deut 29:29) Speculation on things not revealed most often cause far more problems than trying to offer an explanation. wink

That there are "types", "antitypes" and "foreshadowing" in Scripture is true. But in EVERY case, the antitypes and fulfillment of them is included. We are not to fabricate either, e.g., by imposing a fundamental "grid", e.g., the Gospel upon all of Scripture. Many have done this and wrested the Scriptures to their embarrassment and some to their own destruction. (2Pet 3:16) Therefore I would caution you to be very prudent in how you interpret God's inspired Word.

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#22240 - Friday, February 18, 2005 5:31 PM Re: Creation [Re: Adopted]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
Also, if I am spiritualizing the text, so does Malachi in Mal 4:2, NKJV.

"But to you who fear my name The SUN of righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings;"

But, he is writting Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit using Hebrew. What does the "phrase" mean in Hebrew? I see that Jeff answered this below, so I will only add;

Quote:
The sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings: There are several translation questions in this clause. The phrase sun of righteousness occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, so its meaning has been the subject of debate. In Christian tradition going back to early times, this phrase has been interpreted as relating to the coming of the Messiah. While there may be truth in this interpretation from a Christian perspective, it seems unlikely that this was the prophet’s main intention, and translators should avoid building such an interpretation into their translation. A number of English versions (mft, Beck, njb, nlt, nkjv) follow kjv in spelling “Sun” with a capital “S.” This spelling does suggest a reference to the Messiah, and translators should not follow it. The same versions (with the addition of neb) translate “his wings/rays” rather than its wings, and this further strengthens the suggestion. (Beck and nkjv even spell “His” with a capital “H.”) It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for sun, which is usually masculine, is in this sentence feminine, so a literal translation would be “her wings,” but only Hill translates like that. This is a warning to translators not to read more into a text than the original writer intended. If translators wish to point out the tradition of interpreting this verse in relation to the Messiah, they should do so in a footnote (as jb does), not in the text.

Clark, David J., and Howard Hatton. A Handbook on Malachi. UBS handbook series, Page 462. New York: United Bible Societies, 2002.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#22241 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:00 AM Re: Creation [Re: J_Edwards]
Adopted Offline
Addict

Registered: Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Posts: 618
Loc: Washington State
Tom, J. Edwards and Pilgrim,

A half dozen angry Presbyterians cannot all be wrong so I must be.

I still "feel" that there is something there but I know that my feelings are hardly a standard by which to interpret Scripture.

"Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

Maybe we may all agree at least upon a common hope and goal.

Denny
_________________________
Denny

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]

Top
#22242 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:49 AM Re: Creation [Re: Adopted]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
Tom, J. Edwards and Pilgrim,

A half dozen angry Presbyterians cannot all be wrong so I must be.

Well Tom is a Baptist, Jeff is a ?, and I am a Presby (at present, however I am very dissatisfied with a lot in the PCA) and we are not angry with you. However what is fantastic here is (1) you are willing to ask questions (2) you are willing to learn, and (3) me thinks will continue to study the subject out for yourself as even the three stooges above can be wrong sometimes. 3stooges
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#22243 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:11 AM Re: Creation [Re: J_Edwards]
Peter Offline
Old Hand

Registered: Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Posts: 1020
Loc: USA
Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Quote:
Tom, J. Edwards and Pilgrim,

A half dozen angry Presbyterians cannot all be wrong so I must be.

Well Tom is a Baptist, Jeff is a ?, and I am a Presby (at present, however I am very dissatisfied with a lot in the PCA) and we are not angry with you. However what is fantastic here is (1) you are willing to ask questions (2) you are willing to learn, and (3) me thinks will continue to study the subject out for yourself as even the three stooges above can be wrong sometimes. 3stooges


What's a matter Joe can't you spell Presbygationalist? Or is that Congreteriaon? rofl I think we should just call Jeff Pilgrim I think that answers it all. grin
_________________________
Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo

Top
#22244 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:18 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
In one of the links that rmwilliamsjr provided it talked about people such as Origen and Augustine who believed that the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, mainly because they had trouble with the creation of the sun on the fourth day, if it was 6/24 hour days.

So my question is, did this belief on the creation affect their over all view of interpreting Scripture? Please show evidence if possible.

Also, what do you believe are the natural consequences of not believing in a literal 6/24hr. days? Please show evidence, if possible.

How would you account for the creation of the sun, on the 4th day if you believe in 6/24 hr. days?

Please understand, I am completely in favor of a literal understanding of the creation account. But thought these questions would prove to be an interesting conversation.

Tom


On the first day of creation, God created light. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 ESV)

A question comes to mind in looking at this topic: What is the nature and source of the "light" created on day 1 of creation?

Is this the same "light" found in Revelation 21? And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:22-27)

Seeking to understand the Word of God,
Ted

Top
#22245 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:04 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, April 8, 2001
Posts: 3909
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Ted

Quote:
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.


The only problem I see with the light in Genesis 1 and Revelation being the same (lamb). Is though in Revelation we know the lamp is the "lamb", the Genesis account does not say this.
I think the only thing certain we can say about the Genesis account, is that is was something God put in place.

Tom

Top
#22246 - Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:27 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
Ted

Quote:
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.


The only problem I see with the light in Genesis 1 and Revelation being the same (lamb). Is though in Revelation we know the lamp is the "lamb", the Genesis account does not say this.
I think the only thing certain we can say about the Genesis account, is that is was something God put in place.

Tom


Thank you, Tom. I've read that in several commentaries on Genesis 1.

I was noodling on the ORIGINAL topic a few minutes ago and the thought dawned on me that one of the presuppositions in the "lack of sun" argument for non-24-hour "days" before God created the sun is a the presupposition that God needs the sun in order for their to be a 24-hour day.

This, of course, is MUCH too limited a view of God, in my simple mind . . . . . .

Thankfully yours,
Ted

Top
#22247 - Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:10 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
Ted

Quote:
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.


The only problem I see with the light in Genesis 1 and Revelation being the same (lamb). Is though in Revelation we know the lamp is the "lamb", the Genesis account does not say this.
I think the only thing certain we can say about the Genesis account, is that is was something God put in place.

Tom


Of course, on the other hand, we are ignoring John 1 if we think the lamb was NOT there "in the beginning." wink

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1-5 ESV

This is a good discussion topic, Tom. I am sorry that I missed out on it as it was developing.

Top
#22248 - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 2:37 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Anonymous
Unregistered


Greetings all,

I'm the author of the Framework papers listed earlier in this thread. Tom invited me to come join you for a nice discussion on the meaning of the word yom, and I happily accepted.

Interestingly I just discovered today that Andrew Steinmann's article is available online in case you'd like to read his article along with my summary in the addendum paper to verify that I understood and represented him correctly. It's now linked from here:
http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/framework_interpretation.html

So, how should I jump into this thread? Are there any questions you'd like me to address from the perspective of a Framework advocate?

Blessings,
Brian

Top
#22249 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:40 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Hi Brian,

Welcome. I do have one initial question: in your opinion, is the framework hypothesis something that arises naturally out of the text of Genesis in such a way that skilled exegetes of the past centuries recognised it? Or is it something that we only recognised once science told us the earth was older then we thought?

Thanks.
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#22250 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:08 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]
fredman Offline
Addict

Registered: Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Posts: 593
Loc: Canyon Country, CA
Excellent starting point Henry. I too would be curious where the framework theory has been taught before the 20th century. Dr. Terry Mortenson has done some excellent research demonstrating that the shift from a biblical, 6 ordinary days view of Genesis to long age views of Genesis began to take place during the 1800s when secular geologists (or really who were wannabe geologists who had the money to invest in the study of rocks) postulated that the earth was millions of years old and that the Genesis narrative was myth. The frame work theory, along with the day age theory, gap theory, et. al. emerged from that historic matrix. Before that turning point (the name of Mortenson's book) pretty much all orthodox, Bible believing Christians understood the Genesis record in a straight forward, historical manner. The same way we would understand the history of Joshua, 1 Samuel, Kings and so forth.



Fred
_________________________
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns

Top
#22251 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:17 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: fredman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Oddly enough, that's the same argument paedo-baptists use; before 1600, the Church practiced OIKOS baptism. Not really looking for a threadjack here, just showing an inconsistency.


God bless,

william

Top
Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 20 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
jonboy, Kyle Russell, nathan douglas, Leonard, samfromindia
791 Registered Users
Shout Box

October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 471720
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 369491
Westminster Larger Catechism 345119
The importance of going to church 265107
Roman Catholicism and salvation 262826
Double predestination 252085
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 227368
Gospel truth 203434
Creation 182499
Continuity in Old and NT 151752