- This topic has 140 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
God rested from all his work that he had done in creation
The seventh day is also a literal 24-hour day. We know this because it is the word “day” accompanied by a number, and because, just like God EQUATED the six days of creation with the six days the Israelites were to work, He also EQUATED the one day they are to rest with the one day God rested.
I see. So God created the universe and everything in it, then rested for 24 hours.
Lol.
Then went back to work?
Creating another universe?
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from ALL his work that he had done in creation.
So God rested from ALL his work in creation which means he rested from creating the universe. Not from everything lest the universe stop functioning. God is sustaining all things by his powerful word. If God were to choose to withdraw his word, the natural world we know would not merely grind to a halt, it would cease to exist.
Let’s be clear. Jesus and his disciples worked in a grain field to feed themselves on the Sabbath and the religious bigots accused him of doing what was unlawful.
So God rested from creating the universe. Yes he is working in the grain field so to speak by feeding us, sustaing us, and saving us. But he is not creating another universe is he.
Wake up from the flat earth 6 x 24 hour matrix that your mind is trapped inside.
Escape the glass dome. Break the glass ceiling. You can do it Mike. The curve is so close. You need to rise up. Truth will set you free.
Religious superstition will have you drowning witches and putting heliocentrists under house arrrest for their so-called heresy. Why choose to have a little mind?
Don’t forget that a day to God is not like a day for us
The seven days of the human week are copies of the seven days of the divine week. The “sun-divided days” are images of the “God-divided days.”
This agrees with the biblical representation generally. The human is the copy of the divine, not the divine of the human. Human fatherhood and sonship are finite copies of the Trinitarian fatherhood and sonship. Human justice, benevolence, holiness, mercy, etc., are imitations of corresponding divine qualities.
The reason given for man’s rest upon the seventh solar day is that God rested upon the seventh creative day (Ex. 20:11). But this does not prove that the divine rest was only twenty-four hours in duration any more than the fact that human sonship is a copy of the divine proves that the latter is sexual.
W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894)Mike, when you die will you enter God’s rest?
I hope to.
Further, have you forgotten that a thousand years to God is like a day.
I do not think you have forgotten this, but that you willfully ignore it.
Mike says plural days vs singular day, but it is the exact same word yō·wm
The plural word “days” – in and of itself – shows that it is literal days.
Mike. You say plural, but it is the exact same word yō·wm.
Is that your way of skirting around the verses where the bible says:
- ‘The Day that God created the heavens and earth”.
- ‘The day of building your walls will come, the day for extending your boundaries. In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt.”
- Etc.
The Bible is a book from God to man. Obviously, the word ‘day’ in our reality is mostly a solar day just the same as the times I mention day in my own life is talking about 24 hours. But even I will say “in my mother’s day” (singular) NOT “In my mother’s days” (plural) to talk about a single season or time period based not on the sun, but a SINGLE season of a different kind.
Further, I also use the word day in my everyday vocabulary to talk about any number of hours of light within a 24 hour period as opposed to night.
I think we can put this to bed Mike. Lol. ‘Day is not always 24 hours.
Good night, as it is not day here at the moment.
Let not the day of Mikeboll64 be one of foolishness, rather let it be for wisdom.
ZZZZZZZZZ – Wake up from your slumber.
NOTE:
I will answer your question next. I have read it and it is real easy to answer because the truth is easier to side with than a lie. Lies are hard work to maintain because they need constant other lies to support them. Because of this, I am confident you will be annihilated in this discussion.Anyway, it is not day here at the moment, so I better get some beauty sleep.
Notice that the way I used the word day in the sentence above doesn’t mean a literal 24 hour period?
😉
What it means to be a light
ACCORDING TO THE ISAIAH, JESUS, AND THE BIBLE IN GENERAL, THE MOON IS ITS OWN LIGHT AND SHINES ITS OWN LIGHT. AND IT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT PROPHESIED, THAT THE STARS WILL FALL FROM HEAVEN TO THE EARTH.
PROCLAIMER, IS IT POSSIBLE IN YOUR WORLDVIEW FOR THE MOON TO BE ITS OWN LIGHT SOURCE – AND FOR THE STARS TO FALL FROM HEAVEN TO THE EARTH? YES OR NO?Mike. We are told to be the light of the world. Does that mean the light comes from humans? Jesus is the light of the world, so is he the origin of light? God is light. Yes he is the origin. Obviously then, it stands that we are light when when we reflect light. It isn’t meant to be taken as we can shine light that originates in us, but that we can reflect God’s glory.
Just so let your light shine before all men, in order that they may see your holy lives and may give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.
See that. We can shine light and be holy and it is God that gets the glory because he is the origin of all light and holiness.
Likewise, the moon is a light in the sky. In a full moon, the darkness is dispelled to a degree. It can be quite bright. Enough to navigate at night. It matters not that the moon is not generating its light, but that it shines light by reason of reflection which from our point of view is still light coming off the moon.
As for stars falling from heaven, there are so many things that could have that effect. A meteor shower. A moving earth perhaps. A nuclear war. Missiles fired at night look like falling stars. These are three options off the top of my head. Pretty sure I could think of some more events that could make stars or lights hit the ground. Perhaps a polar shift?
My question is next. Prepare yourself.
Since we took a long hiatus while you were trying to find an answer that was one day and one post removed from your question, let’s refresh our memories on what we’ve covered so far. Here is my first question and your answer to it…
Mike: PROCLAIMER, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT QUOTED ABOVE THAT CLEARLY SAYS THAT GOD MADE THE FIRMAMENT AND NAMED IT “HEAVEN” ON DAY 2, AND THAT HE MADE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS AND PLACED THEM IN THE FIRMAMENT THAT HE NAMED “HEAVEN” ON DAY 4?
Proclaimer: Yes.
That pretty much settles the debate already. Here’s my second question and your answer to it…
Mike: PROCLAIMER, DO YOU AGREE WITH GOD HIMSELF IN THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE THAT THE VERY CREATION OF THE HEAVEN AND EARTH IS INCLUDED IN THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION, AND NOT EXCLUDED FROM THOSE SIX DAYS AS YOU’VE PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED?
Proclaimer: I agree that it says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth” in multiple places in the bible.
After only two questions, it’s already clear that Scientism conflicts with the Bible. Here’s my third question…
Mike: …PLEASE PROVIDE ANY SCRIPTURAL REASON FOR YOU TO INSIST THAT THE LIGHT GOD MADE SHINE OUT OF DARKNESS IN GEN 1:3 MUST BE SUNLIGHT… OR CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY ADMIT THAT THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL REASON FOR YOUR ASSUMPTION.
Proclaimer: Well that could be sunlight.
Actually, it most certainly couldn’t be sunlight, since the sun wasn’t even created until 3 days later – as you already acknowledged in your answer to my first question above. That third question above also clearly asked you to provide a scriptural reason or admit that there isn’t one. You did neither of those things. So I used up my fourth “Must Answer” question just to ask you again for a scriptural reason…
Mike: PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT THE SUN, MOON AND STARS ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE GOD MADE THEM ON DAY FOUR, AND THAT THEY WERE ALREADY A PART OF HEAVEN BEFORE GOD PLACED THEM INTO THE FIRMAMENT OF HEAVEN ON DAY FOUR… OR OPENLY ACNKOWLEDGE THAT NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS EXISTS.
I asked that question on 4-10-22. And on 4-11. And 4-12. And 4-14. And 4-17. And 4-18. And that’s when you decided to disappear from the debate altogether. So my fourth “Must Answer” question (which was already included – but not answered by you – in my third “Must Answer” question) remains unanswered to this day.
Here is my fifth question and your answer to it…
Mike: PROCLAIMER, DOES THE PLURAL WORD “DAYS” EVER REFER TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN LITERAL DAYS IN THE BIBLE? YES OR NO? AND IF YES, SHOW THE SCRIPTURE(S).
Proclaimer: Not sure. I could research it, but I honestly am not sure.
The answer is an unequivocal “NO”. And until you do your research and show me an example where “days” doesn’t refer to literal days, the answer “NO” stands as the correct and undeniable one. Here is my sixth question and your answer to it…
Mike: ACCORDING TO THE ISAIAH, JESUS, AND THE BIBLE IN GENERAL, THE MOON IS ITS OWN LIGHT AND SHINES ITS OWN LIGHT. AND IT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT PROPHESIED, THAT THE STARS WILL FALL FROM HEAVEN TO THE EARTH.
PROCLAIMER, IS IT POSSIBLE IN YOUR WORLDVIEW FOR THE MOON TO BE ITS OWN LIGHT SOURCE – AND FOR THE STARS TO FALL FROM HEAVEN TO THE EARTH? YES OR NO?Proclaimer: It matters not that the moon is not generating its light, but that it shines light by reason of reflection… As for stars falling from heaven, there are so many things that could have that effect. A meteor shower. A moving earth perhaps. A nuclear war. Missiles fired at night look like falling stars…
So here’s the recap…
1. You agreed that God made heaven on day 2, and made the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 – but then tried to argue that the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says.
2. You agreed that the very creation of heaven and earth are included in the six days of creation – but then tried to argue that the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says.
3. You gave an erroneous answer that the light God created on day one could be sunlight – after you already agreed that the Bible says the sun wasn’t even made until day four – arguing once again that the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says.
4. You have failed for a month to provide any scriptural indication that the sun existed before God made it on day four – because there are no scriptures to support your idea that the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says.
5. You are unable to find any example in the Bible (or in the history of the world) where the plural word “days” refers to anything other than a literal day… thereby confirming that when God said He created heaven and earth in six days, He meant six literal days… which is also why God unequivocally EQUATED His six days of creation with the six days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest.
6. You are trying to argue that your Lord Jesus (and God Himself, who said He made TWO great lights) doesn’t know the difference between the moon being its own light source and merely reflecting the sun’s light – and that he doesn’t know what stars are, and so is maybe confusing them with missiles fired at night. In other words, even when it comes to direct statements from God and Jesus, you are arguing that the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says.
I’m seeing a clear and definite pattern here, Proclaimer. It goes like this…
1. Mike points out that scripture says X.
2. Proclaimer agrees that scripture says X, but argues that X could mean Y.
3. When pressed for support of his suppositions, Proclaimer is always unable to provide any scriptural support.
Let me use Gene to sum up your arguments throughout this entire debate…
John 17:5… And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Gene: That means “the thought of Jesus in God’s mind” had glory alongside God before the world began – just like all of us also had glory in the presence of God before the world began in the same way.
That is what EVERY SINGLE ONE of your arguments have been like since this debate began, Proclaimer. Please try to do better as we move forward. Thanks.
Proclaimer: I see. So God created the universe and everything in it, then rested for 24 hours.
Lol.
“So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from ALL his work that he had done in creation.”
So God rested from ALL his work in creation which means he rested from creating the universe.
Yes. That’s what the scripture you quoted says, right? God rested from the work of creating our world that He had been doing. Seeing that you quoted the actual scriptural words, I’m not understanding your “Lol”. 🤔
Surely you’re not once again trying to argue that, although the Bible clearly says X, it could mean Y, are you?
Mike: The plural word “days” – in and of itself – shows that it is literal days.
Proclaimer: Mike. You say plural, but it is the exact same word yō·wm.
I don’t understand your argument. Are you suggesting that the Hebrew language doesn’t have both plural and singular forms of words?
Proclaimer: But even I will say “in my mother’s day” (singular) NOT “In my mother’s days” (plural) to talk about a single season or time period based not on the sun, but a SINGLE season of a different kind.
The idiom works with both the singular “day” and the plural “days”. If you say, “in my mother’s day”, it refers to a general period of time – and the word “day” is does not refer to a literal day.
If you say, “in the days of my mother”, it still refers to a general period of time – but the word “days” does refer to literal days within that general period of time.
For example…
Gen 2:4… This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
The above refers to a general period of time, but “day” does not refer to a literal day.
Luke 17:26… Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
This one also refers to a general period of time, but “days” refers to literal days within that period of time.
The phrase “days of Noah” doesn’t refer to multiple general periods of time. It refers to ONE period of time, which was made up of many LITERAL days. Understand?
So as a reminder…
1. When “day” is used with a number, it always refers to a literal day.
2. When “day” is used with morning/evening, it always refers to a literal day.
3. The plural “days” always refers to literal days.
Proclaimer: I think we can put this to bed Mike. Lol. ‘Day is not always 24 hours.
Correct. When the singular word “day” is not accompanied by a number or evening/morning, it does not always refer to a literal day. But the plural word “days” always refers to literal days – with or without being accompanied by a number or evenings/mornings.
But don’t worry if you still don’t fully grasp this elementary-level concept, because it will become unmistakably clear to you with my next Must Answer question.
Proclaimer: Mike. We are told to be the light of the world. Does that mean the light comes from humans? Jesus is the light of the world, so is he the origin of light? God is light. Yes he is the origin. Obviously then, it stands that we are light when when we reflect light. It isn’t meant to be taken as we can shine light that originates in us, but that we can reflect God’s glory.
So then we could equally say that sunlight and starlight are actually God’s light being reflected off rocks in space – since God is the ultimate origin of everything? How far do we take it? Is worm slime actually God slime? Is dog poop actually God poop?
Hopefully you can see the error in your latest attempt of, “Yes, the Bible says X, but X could mean Y!” 😉
Proclaimer: Likewise, the moon is a light in the sky… It matters not that the moon is not generating its light, but that it shines light by reason of reflection which from our point of view is still light coming off the moon.
Now we’re getting closer to what you used to openly proclaim in the Flat Earth thread. Remember when you openly proclaimed that, “Yes, the Bible clearly says X, but it was written by ignorant goat herders who were only looking at the world from their own limited perspective” ? I’m attempting to get you back to the honesty you displayed back then… and it appears it is working.
Here’s the thing though… it was God Himself who said that He created TWO great lights and the stars, right? Is the sun its own light source? You say yes. Are the stars their own light sources? You say yes. So why not the moon?
You see, it’s not the BIBLE that gives any indication that the sun and stars ARE their own light sources, but the moon ISN’T, right? There is nothing in the entire Bible to even hint at such a thing. It is only your faith-based belief in Scientism that tells you the Bible was right about the sun and stars, but WRONG about the moon.
So Proclaimer, did God create TWO great lights like He Himself said? Or did He create ONE great light and a rock that reflects the light of that ONE great light? Which one does the Bible say? Which one does Scientism say?
Now add to that the many inspired people in scripture who unequivocally distinguished the moon’s light from the sun’s light. One of those people was Jesus himself, right? So if WE only see the moon as its own light source because of our limited perspective, how do you explain God and Jesus saying it is its own light source?
And finally, all you have to do is LOOK at the moon. A single light hitting a dull gray rock could never illuminate it as if it was glowing from the inside out, and from edge to edge. The moon glows like a lit up light bulb – not like a turned off light bulb with a single flashlight being pointed at it. Look at the difference…
Are you able to tell which one is being lit from the inside, and which is being lit from an outside source? Which one does the moon resemble? (And that’s not even a fair comparison, since the second one is being lit by multiple light sources in a photography studio – not just one light source.)
Now, look at all the images of asteroids on this page… https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asteroid&t=chromentp&atb=v315-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
They are also all dull gray rocks being lit by the sun, right? Why then do none of them glow like our moon glows? A little logical thinking is sometimes all that is required. If you won’t believe the Bible, then at least believe your own God-given common sense. Most of this asteroid images come from “official” sources like NASA and ESA, etc. So ask yourself: Why do asteroid rocks lit by the sun NOT look anything like our moon rock lit by the sun?
Proclaimer: As for stars falling from heaven, there are so many things that could have that effect. A meteor shower. A moving earth perhaps. A nuclear war. Missiles fired at night look like falling stars. These are three options off the top of my head. Pretty sure I could think of some more events that could make stars or lights hit the ground. Perhaps a polar shift?
So yet another attempt at, “The Bible clearly says X (stars will fall from the sky to the earth), but X could mean Y (missiles fired at night)” ? What would happen if you just assumed that Jesus knew what he was talking about, and actual stars will fall from the sky to the earth like he said they would? How would your worldview change if you only BELIEVED the words of your Lord as he spoke them?
At any rate, Jesus said stars would fall from the sky like figs from a tree. That is impossible in your Scientism worldview, and is therefore a clear and undeniable contradiction between Scientism and the Bible. You can pretend that Jesus (through whom the stars were made) doesn’t understand what stars are – but then who’s the fool? You or Jesus?
Proclaimer: My question is next. Prepare yourself.
No preparation necessary. I will simply continue to tell it like the Bible tells it. So bring it on.
Mike still teaches that a creation day is 24 hours, even before the sun and mankind existed
That pretty much settles the debate already. Here’s my second question and your answer to it…
He made them appear in the firmament / sky when looking up from earth.
When the sky clears and makes the lights visible that is making it appear for the first time. In a prior verse, it has already been established that God made the heavens and the earth and the proceeding verses are about the earth being prepared for life. Terraforming if you will.
This agrees 100% with science. That the earth was uninhabitable and then became inhabitable upon certain events taking place which pretty much sound like the events in the creation days.
Science is obviously not your thing Mike. That doesn’t make you a bad person, it just means you do not have the intellectual capacity for such things. The sin is thinking you are clever enough to talk about scientific things, then peddle these falsities as truth, and make claims that the bible aligns with your view when very clearly it does not. You should know better because knowing better doesn’t require intellect. It requires wisdom.
You need to repent because all lies are from the evil one. A lie espoused is doing his bidding. Why work for the Father of Lies? His wages are not the best.
It’s okay to have an opinion, but you should say that is what it is. But you teach such things, making you responsible.
Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.
You have two options Mike.
- Repent
- Let pride take you further down this route you have chosen.
Why be so reckless with your own soul?
Pride makes you sacrifice important things for less important things.
How the moon is a light despite being made of rock
And finally, all you have to do is LOOK at the moon. A single light hitting a dull gray rock could never illuminate it as if it was glowing from the inside out, and from edge to edge. The moon glows like a lit up light bulb – not like a turned off light bulb with a single flashlight being pointed at it. Look at the difference…
PROCLAIMER, IS IT POSSIBLE IN YOUR WORLDVIEW FOR THE MOON TO BE ITS OWN LIGHT SOURCE
Mike, what do you think would happen if the first bulb was emitting 36,000 trillion trillion lumens and some of that light hit the second bulb and you had a similar view to looking at these two bulbs as pictured?
That wasn’t hard was it.
Now Block that first bulb with a book for example and imagine if you could only see the second bulb and how that might appear. It would look like a the moon right. Maybe half the moon. Doesn’t matter if it was a rock either. In fact a rock would look more like the moon because it wouldn’t focus the light like the glass bulb would. The moon doesn’t have to generate light to be a light. Just like we do not have to generate light to be the light of this world.
They are also all dull gray rocks being lit by the sun, right? Why then do none of them glow like our moon glows?
Also very easy. The dull grey rock you speak of would be about a speck in comparison.
The moon is about one quarter the size of earth and the average meteor is 4.2-5.3 cm in diameter.
Anything else you do not understand? My figures above were googled. So haven’t verified them. But the point I make remains regardless.
You see, it’s not the BIBLE that gives any indication that the sun and stars ARE their own light sources, but the moon ISN’T, right? There is nothing in the entire Bible to even hint at such a thing.
Equally, there is nothing to say that the moon should generate its own light. It just says it is a light. If those chosen by God are the light of the world, does that mean that they generate their own light / knowledge / righteousness? Of course not. We are not the light itself, but reflect God’s light. How come you do not teach that you are light if you claim to be a son of God. do you generate this own light from your own spirit or mind? Wake up Mike. Look up the meaning of double standard and hypocrisy.
Hebrew word for ‘day’ and the Hebrew word for ‘days’
Correct. When the singular word “day” is not accompanied by a number or evening/morning, it does not always refer to a literal day. But the plural word “days” always refers to literal days – with or without being accompanied by a number or evenings/mornings.
But don’t worry if you still don’t fully grasp this elementary-level concept, because it will become unmistakably clear to you with my next Must Answer question.
Could you show me the Hebrew words for singular as well as plural for ‘day’ for a side by side comparison.
Further, where in the bible do we find this number + day rule you speak of. Sounds like it was just made up.
How many examples of this day + rule can you point me too in the bible.
No must answer questions here, but if they are not answered I may spend a credit or two and ask them later if required.
No preparation necessary. I will simply continue to tell it like the Bible tells it. So bring it on.
Wonderful.
Goat Herders
“Yes, the Bible clearly says X, but it was written by ignorant goat herders who were only looking at the world from their own limited perspective” ?
No I do not remember being derogatory toward goat herders. I would have said something along the lines of the Bible being inspired by God and how he communicates in a way that we understand. god uses symbols that we understand to communicate things that we cannot understand.
If I was teaching 3 year olds, I might talk about atoms like small marbles or I might say to adults that the wicked are like tares and good people as wheat. I might also say that that Jesus comes again with the Word and reference it like a sword that will slay his enemies. There are many parables and references I may make. But a future generation of self-professed wise people might say my ideas were primitive and non-scientific because they worked out it is not a literal sword coming from his mouth or a literal marble. If that happened, then that future generation is blind because they missed the point which was the deeper message. It’s exactly what the Pharisees did. The focussed on the detail and missed the spirit of the law.
So if I was communicating to people who were unschooled and herded goats all their life, I would be wise to keep it simple. Talk from a perspective that they understand. If my priority was to teach salvation etc, I might avoid telling deep scientific truths that they would not be able to verify for thousands of years and particularly if they had little value even if they did understand. I don’t know if you have noticed, but angels do not go into great detail about their existence and what heaven is like. They tend to send a pertinent message that people need to hear such as imminent judgement.
In other words, if I visited uncontacted people in say Papua New Guinea, I probably wouldn’t be telling them so much about the Double Slit experiment or how satellites work. I’d keep it simple. We live on earth and we have all sinned. There is a God. He sent his Son to save us. Some scientific knowledge might shine through, but it wouldn’t be the focus. I would certainly use a lot of parables that they would understand. Such as God being the chief of your great chief for example. Now imagine it is the year 4022 AD and this society is reached the Space Age. Imagine also that one of their scholars debunks my teachings because I said God was a chief and clearly God is not a man. These are the sorts of things you need to think about Mike. You are that person.
Meteor / Fireballs
Now, look at all the images of asteroids on this page…
Now look at meteors on this page. The photos of course, not the graphics. They are known as fireballs:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=meteor+fireballs&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
And what will reflect more light, a rock no bigger than a car or a rock one quarter the size of earth.
It’s easy to think that a one torch should be as bright as on trillion torches bunched together if they were the same torch. But I can assure you that one torch would be much harder to notice.
I remember one day I was watching a football game and I looked to my left and saw a meteor in the middle of the day. It was very bright but obviously small. No one else saw it because they weren’t looking in the direction at that exact moment. They move fast you see.
Anything else I can clear up for you?
Projection
Mike will say: “But these are burning up in the atmosphere”.
Me: Except he won’t say that now because I predicted it, thus am one step ahead.
Two things about the burning up answer.
- These rocks are close, so yes, will burn up, making them light up. This means if they are not burning up, then these specs (in comparison) will likely be too far to see. Think about it. A rock will disappear quickly from view given they are not that large. any light from the sun will be miniscule.
- These rocks are rocks. So why can’t the moon just be a really large rock? Rocks fall out of the sky, thus many objects up are made of rocks.
- Burning up in or under the dome? How does that work. Lol. Where to these meteor rocks come from and by what process do they burn up?
A reminder: Mike understands that ‘day’ can be longer than 24 hours
The idiom works with both the singular “day” and the plural “days”. If you say, “in my mother’s day”, it refers to a general period of time – and the word “day” is does not refer to a literal day.
If you say, “in the days of my mother”, it still refers to a general period of time – but the word “days” does refer to literal days within that general period of time.
For example…
Gen 2:4… This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
The above refers to a general period of time, but “day” does not refer to a literal day.
Luke 17:26… Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
This one also refers to a general period of time, but “days” refers to literal days within that period of time.
The phrase “days of Noah” doesn’t refer to multiple general periods of time. It refers to ONE period of time, which was made up of many LITERAL days. Understand?
Lol. You are now parroting what I was teaching you. So we are on the same page now. Great. Patience pays off.
So now apply what you have learned and said above to “the first day”, “the second day”, etc.
Boom! Point made and understood.
I will take a short break and think about my next question.
Roger over and out.
Mike, this was one of my questions. Did you answer it directly? if so, then where? If not, then I get an extra question.
Yes, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, but would it also be correct to say that God made the heavens and earth in a day? Yes / No.
I am currently going through and adding up my must answer questions and then will do the same with your questions to see if this is even.
So then we could equally say that sunlight and starlight are actually God’s light being reflected off rocks in space – since God is the ultimate origin of everything? How far do we take it?
Science Mike. Science can work out which is which. Although all things come from God. Science is occupied by the physical realm though and light and heat comes from nuclear furnaces we call stars.
I believe however that the physical comes from the unseen world.
My question
Yes, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, but would it also be correct to say that God made the heavens and earth in a day? Yes / No.
I’ve already asked this. If you have answered can you give me directions to that?
If not, then answer it and I get another question otherwise I am wasting 2 credits on this question which wouldn’t be fair.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
