Ps. 138:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Apprising Ministries reports on how Piper continues his unbiblical views; here is an excerpt from the transcript of the video:
Or he might take another view that these days are ages.
Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.
In verse 1, "In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth," he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.
So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.
That's where I am, and I think every pastor should go ahead and say what he believes. But how do you define who gets on your eldership, for example? Who gets a teaching office in your church? I'm inclined to not draw that too narrowly.
But I could be wrong about that, you know. I'm 63 years old, and I've never preached through Genesis yet. And I'd like to! I'm going to finish John, and then maybe the next thing I'll turn to, if the elders let me stay around that long, would be Genesis.
We need to give our people help in this.
End quote.
As More Books And Things reports, Sailhamer’s book, which Piper refers to, is about selling an old idea as “new” and “provocative”, when its neither new nor provocative. Its damnable doctrine, sitting in the seat of scoffers and especially that of the Serpent, proclaiming, “Hath God Said?” According to Answers in Genesis, this Hebrew "scholar" “has ‘unbound’ are the rules of grammar, the semantic fields of words and the laws of logic.” ~Source
Scripture, however warns: Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
Nevermind being biblical...Piper's view is anti-Biblical, but is this even Reformed? Is this view one of the Puritans? Afterall, Piper is hailed as the Reformer everyone loves. But is he really Reformed? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Clearly, Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) and Faith Alone (Sola Fide) don't apply in his thinking on the very FIRST and foremost important doctrine of all. So why is he hailed as a Reformer, I wonder?
Recently our family was listening to a series on Creation by John MacArthur, where he speaks very authoritatively on Genesis. What a total contrast to Piper’s pathetic view of the Beginning….apparently its yet another biblical truth that is of mere opinion. (The "I feel at home" comment regarding the Gap Theory is emotionalism. How one feels about anything regarding Creation is irrelevent. Feelings aren't facts. Feelings don't give truth. Emotionalism is definitely part of his Charismaticism, though.)
Anyway, the time period was given in Genesis: 6 -24 hour days. This isn't a matter of opinion, or a feeling. This is FOUNDATIONAL. Either God was truthful and clear when He spoke the very first issues in all of Scripture or not. And we know He did.
Genesis 1-3 sets God as Supreme Ruler, Sovereign King, Creator, Owner of all the universe HE made. It demonstrates His awesome power and control. It shows who and what is far inferior to HIM. That is to say, all creation is inferior to its Creator. Furthermore, we see throughout Scripture that He also sustains His creation by that same word, and at His will and in His time, He will destroy it because of Man’s sin. To be honest and consistant, to deny the Beginning as recorded, is really to deny the End too. Switching hermenutics is also wrong, not to mention self-serving and deceptive.
Here are some excerpts from John MacArthur's excellent series on Creation:
Quote:
The debate gets to questions about man's dignity, about man's nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God. It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control. It asks, "Is there a universal judge? Is there a universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are to people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?"
Now, folks, let me tell you something. Which of those views you take is not a secondary issue, it is a primary issue not only for science but for theology. How in the world can Christianity view those as secondary issues? This is the foundation of all truth....
Francis Schaeffer the apologist said, "If he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn't know the Lord, he would spend the first 55 minutes talking about man being created in the image of God. And the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image."
Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth for purpose and destiny which He Himself had determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.
Now, let's just get the record straight here. This is all about getting rid of God...the God of the Bible, the authority of Scripture with its moral implications. And even Christian people who want to go to Genesis I don't believe have the liberty to tell us that Genesis 1 doesn't mean what it says. Why would we want to join forces with those whose effort is directly against the authority of the God of Scripture? Just...I just need to put that in perspective.... In the end the evolutionist, the naturalistic evolutionist says, and even the theistic evolutionist says that things happen by chance...chance. We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we've got chance. Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about. I have read this word "chance" over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people and the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance...chance. Chance is the cause. In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning. They don't want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.
If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungoded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.
End quote. ~Source
You can clearly see how Freewillism and Evolution fit together...its all about chance and their god is sitting by powerlessly, waiting to see what happens.
Here's the thing: either God is clear or He isn't. Either Biblical doctrine is true or its not. There's no mixing truth with error and ending up with truth. Old Earth denies Creation in six literal days, which is nothing less than unbelief and echoing the voice of the Serpent: hath God said?
Begin to doubt literal six day creation by God's speaking forth creation, then there's no reason to really believe a historical Adam and Eve, a Fall, the devil, the Second Adam who is Redeemer, a need for the Redeemer, Heaven, Helletc. It ALL starts with the Beginning. And NO CHRISTIAN DENIES the Genesis account AS WRITTEN. This is vital.
In the same Creation Series, in another sermon, MacArthur says in part [excerpts]:
Quote:
Science is not a hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis...or for that matter for interpreting any other portion of Scripture. Science is not a hermeneutic. It is not a principle of interpretation. The Bible does not bow to science. The accuracy of the Genesis text is no different than the accuracy of any other portion of Scripture. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. All Scripture is God-breathed. All Scripture comes not by any private interpretation but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus summed it up when He said, "Thy Word is truth." The Bible is true whether you're talking about revelation and eschatological prophecy or whether you're talking about Genesis and historic origins. The Bible is true whether you're talking about the history of Israel or the history of the Canaanites. The Bible is true whether you're talking about salvation or sanctification, whether you're talking about the life of Jesus or the theology of Jesus. Whatever the Bible says is absolutely true. And the Bible is as true in Genesis as it is anywhere else, and everywhere else.
Now in spite of that very clear-cut approach to the Word of God, many people, including Christians, have turned to science, turned to scientists who speak authoritatively on Genesis. In fact, there are theologians, many of them, Bible commentators, pastors, well-known popular pastors and preachers, some of whom you would even know who deny the Genesis account. They flatly deny the Genesis account because they accept evolutionary science to one degree or another. I've said this to you all the way along and I'll repeat it again without going in to all the verification...science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record is what answers the mysteries of science. But sadly Christians and Christian theologians, Bible commentators, Christian college professors as well as pastors and teachers have denied the Genesis account, being intimidated by science.
…And an unwavering faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible is at the heart of all sound theology. And it starts with believing the Genesis account.
Excerpts from Day Six in MacArthur's series :
The bottom line, the Bible ends with a warning that you better not tamper with Scripture. And anyone who tampers with Scripture, to add to it or take away from it, brings himself under divine judgment.
So we could readily conclude that altering the Scripture, tampering the Scripture or just flatly not believing the Scripture is unthinkable for a faithful, wise believer. It's unthinkable. It is only reasonable that an ungodly and foolish unbeliever would attack the testimony of Scripture, and they do that all the time. That's just a way of life with them. For a believer to assault the veracity of Scripture is an unimaginable thing. And yet there are many so-called Christians who do that. They wouldn't deny the morality of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, they wouldn't deny the...they wouldn't deny the prophetic testimony of the coming suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53. They wouldn't deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. They wouldn't deny the gospel of grace and the need for the new birth. They wouldn't deny other things in Scripture, but they do deny the clear teaching of Genesis chapter 1.
End quote.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Sadly, I must say, many “Christians” who deny the Literal 6 Day Creation have come to deny many other biblical truths. But out-right deny them? In the beginning anyway? No. The enemy is subtle. They "secretly creep in among you". Piper wouldn’t proclaim an unbelief in say, the Ten Commandments. Yet. But he does teach “Christian” hedonism and we see the fallout of that with his involvment in the ecumenical Lausanne Congress. Its also seen in his defiant defense of X-rated Goat Herder Mark Drisoll, or Cussing Paul Tripp, or Wolf Rick Warren. Piper offered Doug Wilson, who denies Justification by Faith alone—that is a denial of the ONLY Gospel that can save.
A Christian believes the Words of Scripture. When God said He created all things in six literal days, defining it by “there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, then we KNOW it’s a 24 hour period. This also supported by the rest of Scripture, especially about the seventh day becoming the Sabbath Day of rest for Jews. This wasn’t a Sabbath rest period of millions of years. Jesus did not stay in the ground for eons. He rose again on the third DAY (the Lord’s Day), according to Scripture.
To deny or even doubt the Six Literal Day of creation view, is then to deny or doubt: historical Adam and Eve, actual Fall, the Serpent who is the Devil, the Second Adam (Jesus Christ), the need for Redemption, instantaneous rebirth/new Creation in Christ (spiritual), literal Heaven and Hell, eternal torment.
To wrongly misinterpret Genesis 1-2 means one will also be wrong on many other important doctrines proclaimed throughout Scripture, not to mention the application of such doctrine.
Cause doubt on the opening three chapters of Genesis, and you’ve just destroyed faith in the rest of Scripture, which IS the sole authority for the biblical Christian. As Spurgeon said: "The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith."
I believe that this attack on the Word is an attack on God Himself, and its being done by pastors and echoed by their flocks who call Jesus Christ their Lord!
Dr. Henry Morris of The Institute for Creation Research says in an excellent article, "Dangerous Turn Ahead: Traveling Down the road to compromise":
“Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first and foremost apologetic. If a person stumbles on this one profound truth, a lifetime of doubt and confusion lies ahead for him, full of uncertainty about the ultimate purpose for being alive. But when a Christian attempts to alter this ultimate statement of reality to fit the compromising philosophies of men--even scientifically-trained professionals--then woe to him for his unbelief and, even graver still, for teaching others that unbelief.”
Rather than evolution of any variation (and "Theistic Evolution" is merely religiously veiled evolution), Scripture states:
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
Psa 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.
Heb 1: he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Isa 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens and I commanded all their host.
We see this repeated in the miracles of Jesus as well. When Jesus healed and thus creating, as it were, a new limb, new eyesight, or raising someone from the dead, He did it instantaneously and completely.
“A chasm is opening between the men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognize the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the "larger hope." One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.Neither when we have chosen our way can we keep company with those who go the other way. There must come with decision for truth a corresponding protest against error. Let those who will keep the narrow way keep it, and suffer for their choice; but to hope to follow the broad road at the same time is an absurdity. What communion hath Christ with Belial?”- Spurgeon
I wrote about this very issue and quote from ICR’s excellent articles on the matter. Bottom line is this: Did God speak or did He not? This is not a matter of opinion, but of Truth. Science NEVER determines doctrinal truth. Science is always in subjection to the Creator and HIS Word.
So, is it any wonder that Piper is ecumenical, denies the literal Six Day Creation, unapologetically and pridefully defends and offers wolves to his followers like Driscoll, Warren, Tripp, and Doug Wilson? No. Piper continues on his pathetic Hedonistic Broad Road under the guise of being “Christian”. This is not only spiritual harlotry, its TREASON against the King-Creator Who has already spoken clearly. And as I have stated before, more will be revealed. The fruit of this spiritual adultery is being revealed. God will NOT be mocked by those who claim to speak on His behalf, to teach His sheep. No man can serve two masters. Truth is knowable and we must, as Christians, be dogmatic on this issue. There is no room for wavering, doubt, reconsideration. God spoke everything into existance in six actual days. Period. Lightly veiled Post-modern "I'm not sure...its just my opinion" cowardice has no place in the mind and heart of a shepherd much less a sheep...if he belongs to Christ.
Do not listen to John Piper, folks. He doesn't offer the pure milk of the Word, but rather, like many hierlings and wolves today, he gives rotten food, poisoned water. Be brave enough...LOYAL enough to Christ, to throw away totally that which is not from Him.
Consider these excerpts of AW Pink:
Quote:
If the God of creation has given us natural palates for the purpose of distinguishing between wholesome and unwholesome food, the God of grace has furnished His people with a capacity, a spiritual sense, to distinguish between nutritious and unwholesome soul food.
"Just as the mouth tastes food—the ear tests the words it hears" (Job 34:3). Does yours, my reader? Are you as careful about what you take into your mind—as what you take into your stomach? You certainly ought to be, for the former is even more important than the latter.
How many of God's dear children listen to the automaton "letter" preachers of today, and yet find nothing suited to the needs of their poor souls!
"Take heed what you hear" and read! More than forty years ago the saintly Adolph Saphir wrote, "I think the fewer books we read—the better. It is like times of cholera, when we should only drink filtered water." What would he say if he were on earth today and glanced over the deadly poison sent forth by the heterodox, and the lifeless rubbish put out by the orthodox? Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless, no matter what prominent or popular name be attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which does not profit. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed!
To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the "great" and "popular" men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is "narrow" and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! "Take heed what you hear" and read!
End quote.
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
14 comments:
Surph,
You said, "A Christian believes the Words of Scripture. When God said He created all things in six literal days, defining it by “there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, then we KNOW it’s a 24 hour period."
I don't like Piper, he's probably not a saved man. Scripture says without holiness no man will see God. Piper doesn't practice separation (holiness).
But there are three problems with what you're saying. 1. A lexical problem. 2. A logical problem. 3. A problem of physics in regard to space/time.
1. The lexical problem.
God didn't say "literal day". He said "yom". Yom is a Hebrew word that usually means day. It can mean a year. It can mean a specific historical time. It can mean an appointed time of indeterminate length, ranging from a point in time to an historical era as in "yom YHWH", or "day of the Lord" or "day of my distress" in Genesis 35. In Leviticus 14, the day of the cleansing of the leper is an entire week. In Numbers 10 the "day of your gladness" is all the appointed feasts. Yom doesn't mean literal day. It means yom and holds the entire lexical range of the Hebrew word yom.
In addition, the Hebrew "day" didn't have as much to do with time in the abstract (24 hours) as it did with the sun. We think days are from midnight to midnight. Not the ancient Jews. Their days went from sundown to sundown. Morning and evening were the same. And sundown changed in abstract tim over the seasons, earlier in the winter, later in the summer. Therefore, the text indicates that morning, evening, and day were figurative in the Jewish mind since the sun didn't exist until the fourth day and their day was defined as a solar day. It just can't be literal.
2. The logical problem.
I believe God personally created the heavens and the earth because the Bible says so. I believe God personally made all life on earth personally without evolution or any other process because the Bible says so. I believe God literally formed dirt together into the shape of a man and then supernatually made it alive because the Bible says so.
Yet, I don't believe Genesis is clear that the yamim (days) of creation are 24 hours. I believe it may be. It may be longer. It may be shorter. It isn't specific.
In short here's the logical problem: You're making two specific connections that aren't right. First, it's incorrect to equate not insisting on 24 hour days with believing in evolution. Piper may. Many do. I don't.
And second, the seventh day of the week being the Sabbath day of rest in the Old Covenant doesn't prove anything. The New Covenant Sabbath is resting in Christ, not working for salvation. Why is one of greater weight than the other. The second is the fulfillment of the first. It's only a foreshadowing of the truth of resting in God's work forever, not 24 hours. The seventh day is a metaphor for the real Sabbath of resting in Christ, not Saturday. And neither one says anything about length of the days of creation. A biblical type is like a metaphor. All metaphors break down. That's why they're called metaphors and not sames.
(Continued on next comment pane)
Phil,
There's no problem with what I said. God's Word IS clear. Its clearly defined as "evening and morning the first day" and so forth. The time element IS a 24 hour period because that is what Scripture says. There is absolutely no "lexical" issue here. In fact, it states the very same thing: when a numercal adjective is used with the Hebrew term day it’s a 24 hour period of time. Furthurmore, the "day" is a 24 hour period because that IS what the Sabbath DAY of rest is; a pattern. A "day" of rest. What it looked to, is what Christ would bring. The heavenly thing obviously is going to be different than the created, fallen thing. However the earthly pattern, the Sabbath day of rest, is still consistant with the earthly Beginning; that is, the time element of the world, for the world. Until the earth passes away, time is marked clearly in 24 hour periods as seen throughout all of Scripture.
There is no other understanding of Genesis 1-2, and has never been questioned by Christians until the 1800's when the attack on the Beginnging was brought into the thinking of not just the world, but professing Christians.
I suggest you listen to the following sermons on the Beginning for a better understanding Phil:
http://www.monergism.com/mp3/2010/05/the_battle_for_the_beginning_b.php
and for the transcripts:
http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm
Scroll down to "Creation" where the series is in print. I think that will benefit you greatly.
Surph, there was something wrong last night when I was trying to post this comment. Here is the other half:
3. The problem of physics.
MacArthur has touched on this, probably without realizing it. He has noted that physicists are wrestling with evidence that seems to indicate the speed of light has slowed. If true, the age of the earth is short, but long in terms of process progress because time would be accelarated.
And we know, if we are conversant in physics, that if mass is concentrated, time speeds up. If God flung the universe out from one point, then eons would have passed in terms of the progress of all processes. But to an outside observer, it all would have happened in an instant.
In that case, our ideas of time would be pretty much nonsense until the cosmos cooled and slowed. In any case the old evolutionary idea of uniformitarianism is out the window, but so is our idea of the constance of time.
I have you on my blogroll because you are orthodox and you keep up with a lot of the junk in "Christian" circles. I check out your blog weekly and drop a comment from time to time to encourage you. You do good work. I just hope you will take a second look at the 24 hour thing because it isn't required in Scripture and allowing something other than 24 hours isn't in contradiction to any fundamental doctrine so far as I can see. Scripture is a Jewish book and yom is a Jewish concept. Day is a western one.
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
There's no problem with the physics issue. I think you missed MacArthur's point.
At any rate, I do believe that to be Christian, one must hold to the Genesis account as written. Its a matter of believing Scripture or not believing it. To doubt the 24-hour days is to fall into the trap of "Has God said?" when its clearly defined as "evening and morning, the first day."
Its also to put "science" above Scripture, as some sort of hermenutic which obviously is unbiblical. But if one starts to use science to determine what "evening and moring, the first day" means (even though it says what it means), then one is using "science" as the means to interpret Scripture, which is anti-biblical.
I also hope you go to http://www.icr.org/article/4619/ for a great article on this. There are many more at that excellent website, that, as scientists that are Christians, know that Genesis proclaims 24-hour days.
To dismiss the 24 hour periods is to dismiss the miracle of creation by God. It is to dismiss what every Christian (and every Jew) has believed for centuries well before Evolution came up. Historically, biblically, and scienctifically, its harmonious.
This might help:
http://www.icr.org/bible/Exodus/20/11/ :
Exodus 20:11
20:11 in six days. This verse, written on stone by God’s own hand (Exodus 31:18) settles once and for all the question of the meaning of “day” in the creation chapter (Genesis 1). Man was to work six days and rest one day because God did; in fact, God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). God’s week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man’s regular week. The Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), furthermore, is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and cannot be shown ever to require any meaning except that of literal days, certainly never to anything comparable to geological ages. Still further, “all that in them is” was made in the six days; nothing had been made previously, as the gap theory of Genesis would require. There seems to be no legitimate exegesis of Genesis that can ever allow for the theoretical ages of evolutionary geology. Further, no such gap is necessary; all the data of rocks and fossils are much better explained in terms of the great Flood. It is also significant that other human measurements of time (day, month, year) are keyed to astronomical processes. The universal week, however, has no astronomical base whatever. We keep time in weeks simply because God does!
Phil,
There's no problem with the physics issue. I think you missed MacArthur's point.
At any rate, I do believe that to be Christian, one must hold to the Genesis account as written. Its a matter of believing Scripture or not believing it. To doubt the 24-hour days is to fall into the trap of "Has God said?" when its clearly defined as "evening and morning, the first day."
Its also to put "science" above Scripture, as some sort of hermenutic which obviously is unbiblical. But if one starts to use science to determine what "evening and moring, the first day" means (even though it says what it means), then one is using "science" as the means to interpret Scripture, which is anti-biblical.
I also hope you go to http://www.icr.org/article/4619/ for a great article on this. There are many more at that excellent website, that, as scientists that are Christians, know that Genesis proclaims 24-hour days.
To dismiss the 24 hour periods is to dismiss the miracle of creation by God. It is to dismiss what every Christian (and every Jew) has believed for centuries well before Evolution came up. Historically, biblically, and scienctifically, its harmonious.
This might help:
http://www.icr.org/bible/Exodus/20/11/ :
Exodus 20:11
20:11 in six days. This verse, written on stone by God’s own hand (Exodus 31:18) settles once and for all the question of the meaning of “day” in the creation chapter (Genesis 1). Man was to work six days and rest one day because God did; in fact, God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). God’s week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man’s regular week. The Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), furthermore, is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and cannot be shown ever to require any meaning except that of literal days, certainly never to anything comparable to geological ages. Still further, “all that in them is” was made in the six days; nothing had been made previously, as the gap theory of Genesis would require. There seems to be no legitimate exegesis of Genesis that can ever allow for the theoretical ages of evolutionary geology. Further, no such gap is necessary; all the data of rocks and fossils are much better explained in terms of the great Flood. It is also significant that other human measurements of time (day, month, year) are keyed to astronomical processes. The universal week, however, has no astronomical base whatever. We keep time in weeks simply because God does!
Phil,
There's no problem with the physics issue. I think you missed MacArthur's point.
At any rate, I do believe that to be Christian, one must hold to the Genesis account as written. Its a matter of believing Scripture or not believing it. To doubt the 24-hour days is to fall into the trap of "Has God said?" when its clearly defined as "evening and morning, the first day."
Its also to put "science" above Scripture, as some sort of hermenutic which obviously is unbiblical. But if one starts to use science to determine what "evening and moring, the first day" means (even though it says what it means), then one is using "science" as the means to interpret Scripture, which is anti-biblical.
I also hope you go to http://www.icr.org/article/4619/ for a great article on this. There are many more at that excellent website, that, as scientists that are Christians, know that Genesis proclaims 24-hour days.
To dismiss the 24 hour periods is to dismiss the miracle of creation by God. It is to dismiss what every Christian (and every Jew) has believed for centuries well before Evolution came up. Historically, biblically, and scienctifically, its harmonious.
This might help:
http://www.icr.org/bible/Exodus/20/11/ :
Exodus 20:11
20:11 in six days. This verse, written on stone by God’s own hand (Exodus 31:18) settles once and for all the question of the meaning of “day” in the creation chapter (Genesis 1). Man was to work six days and rest one day because God did; in fact, God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). God’s week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man’s regular week. The Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), furthermore, is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and cannot be shown ever to require any meaning except that of literal days, certainly never to anything comparable to geological ages. Still further, “all that in them is” was made in the six days; nothing had been made previously, as the gap theory of Genesis would require. There seems to be no legitimate exegesis of Genesis that can ever allow for the theoretical ages of evolutionary geology. Further, no such gap is necessary; all the data of rocks and fossils are much better explained in terms of the great Flood. It is also significant that other human measurements of time (day, month, year) are keyed to astronomical processes. The universal week, however, has no astronomical base whatever. We keep time in weeks simply because God does!
Phil,
We could go back and forth forever. I realize you disagree with me, and I disagree with you. I think the best hermenutic is the historical, grammatical, literal one to use and use it consistantly instead of switching mid-chapter, much less mid-book.
One doesn't have to know Hebrew or Greek to read and understand Scripture. A "day" is defined in Genesis 1-2 as "evening and morning". The next day is "evening and morning". And so on. Further verses in Scripture also demonstrate this is a normal, literal, 24 hour period of time. I gave those examples, such as BECAUSE of the 24 hour periods of Creation, and BECAUSE God rested on the 7th 24 hour Day, Man is also to do the same.
"The Hebrew word yowm for days, always in the plural form means a literal day. Never an indefinite period. Always a literal day. But the reason that evolutionists need twenty billion years is that they can’t figure out how come things got the way they are. Because they don’t want to believe in God. And they can’t say God created man, they don’t want to give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve and that takes a long time. Incidentally, the ordinals, the ordinals you know are first, second third, the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least fourteen hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal the meaning is a twenty-four hour day. Never anything else." - MacArthur
"The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days." - Bradley and Olsen
Read this: "The Literal Week of Creation": http://www.icr.org/article/literal-week-creation/
And this:
http://www.icr.org/creation-recent/:
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle."
I think this is sufficient in our discussion, Phil. I don't want this to go on and on, honestly. I only hope you reconsider your error in light of what clear Scripture says, not man who wants to excuse the miracle away. This is why child-like faith is so important...this IS exactly what Jesus meant to come to Him with such faith. We grow up in HIM, but our faith is simple and trusts completely what His Word has so clearly stated. Our faith and what its placed in doesn't change---it only grows deeper in Him. I appreciate your coming by to discuss these things.
Phil,
We could go back and forth forever. I realize you disagree with me, and I disagree with you. I think the best hermenutic is the historical, grammatical, literal one to use and use it consistantly instead of switching mid-chapter, much less mid-book.
One doesn't have to know Hebrew or Greek to read and understand Scripture. A "day" is defined in Genesis 1-2 as "evening and morning". The next day is "evening and morning". And so on. Further verses in Scripture also demonstrate this is a normal, literal, 24 hour period of time. I gave those examples, such as BECAUSE of the 24 hour periods of Creation, and BECAUSE God rested on the 7th 24 hour Day, Man is also to do the same.
"The Hebrew word yowm for days, always in the plural form means a literal day. Never an indefinite period. Always a literal day. But the reason that evolutionists need twenty billion years is that they can’t figure out how come things got the way they are. Because they don’t want to believe in God. And they can’t say God created man, they don’t want to give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve and that takes a long time. Incidentally, the ordinals, the ordinals you know are first, second third, the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least fourteen hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal the meaning is a twenty-four hour day. Never anything else." - MacArthur
"The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days." - Bradley and Olsen
Read this: "The Literal Week of Creation": http://www.icr.org/article/literal-week-creation/
And this:
http://www.icr.org/creation-recent/:
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle."
I think this is sufficient in our discussion, Phil. I don't want this to go on and on, honestly. I only hope you reconsider your error in light of what clear Scripture says, not man who wants to excuse the miracle away. This is why child-like faith is so important...this IS exactly what Jesus meant to come to Him with such faith. We grow up in HIM, but our faith is simple and trusts completely what His Word has so clearly stated. Our faith and what its placed in doesn't change---it only grows deeper in Him. I appreciate your coming by to discuss these things.
Phil,
We could go back and forth forever. I realize you disagree with me, and I disagree with you. I think the best hermenutic is the historical, grammatical, literal one to use and use it consistantly instead of switching mid-chapter, much less mid-book.
One doesn't have to know Hebrew or Greek to read and understand Scripture. A "day" is defined in Genesis 1-2 as "evening and morning". The next day is "evening and morning". And so on. Further verses in Scripture also demonstrate this is a normal, literal, 24 hour period of time. I gave those examples, such as BECAUSE of the 24 hour periods of Creation, and BECAUSE God rested on the 7th 24 hour Day, Man is also to do the same.
"The Hebrew word yowm for days, always in the plural form means a literal day. Never an indefinite period. Always a literal day. But the reason that evolutionists need twenty billion years is that they can’t figure out how come things got the way they are. Because they don’t want to believe in God. And they can’t say God created man, they don’t want to give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve and that takes a long time. Incidentally, the ordinals, the ordinals you know are first, second third, the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least fourteen hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal the meaning is a twenty-four hour day. Never anything else." - MacArthur
"The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days." - Bradley and Olsen
Read this: "The Literal Week of Creation": http://www.icr.org/article/literal-week-creation/
And this:
http://www.icr.org/creation-recent/:
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle."
I think this is sufficient in our discussion, Phil. I don't want this to go on and on, honestly. I only hope you reconsider your error in light of what clear Scripture says, not man who wants to excuse the miracle away. This is why child-like faith is so important...this IS exactly what Jesus meant to come to Him with such faith. We grow up in HIM, but our faith is simple and trusts completely what His Word has so clearly stated. Our faith and what its placed in doesn't change---it only grows deeper in Him. I appreciate your coming by to discuss these things.
More fruit of Piper's wandering afield is evident in last night's Desiring God Conference where Rick Warren spoke via video, and then the panel fawned over him afterward. Audio posted here
http://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-battle-for-your-mind#/listen/full
and Panel discussion here
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/friday-panel-the-life-of-the-mind-in-the-local-church
Desiring God bookstore promoting Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods (which Rick also shilled in the speech he gave)
http://twitter.com/DG_Bookstore/status/26134707764
Well, using that book, I guess I can see how Piper got the gap theory out of Genesis. 0.o
I don't even "get" the title of Desiring God this year. It gets weirder and weirder. I wonder if Phil Johnson will recant of all his blasting of us who 'disrespected' Piper because we could see what he refused to or was to busy to see. I doubt it.
Mohler's explanation of Why does the Universe look so old was actually very very good.
listen here
http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=mohler2
read here (biologos actually posted the transcript and have heen having a back and forth over this with Mohler)
http://www.biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old
Terri,
Thanks for the links. I wonder, too if Phil will recant. Probably not. He couldn't see it before, I don't know why he would see it now. Warren was as clearly a heretic before the DGC as he is now, for sure. And the silly men who kept hoping Tricky would "learn" from the conference were ridiculous...and this proves it. Tricky was NOT there to learn but to teach...and teach he did.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
Perhaps this is a summary statement for what's about to happen, or it is something that happens before the 7 days.
"Earth was without form and void..."
So something had been created though it was without form and void.
"Over the face of the waters."
Prior to the 7 days the Spirit was hovering over the water.
Then God starts the literal 7 days. I think the confusion lies because our mind deals in time and God is outside of that. The 7 days starts time for us, but a lot happened before then. Angels created, Satan's fall.
Just some thoughts.
Post a Comment