Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
Thems wuz sum mighty ugly dotters!
I will agree with that even if it was Paul and not one of the apostles.
Or were you having an inside joke with Elsie?
not counting the confused disciples’ lottery pick.>>>>
Oh Oh, mine did not work but we can have one here, you really believe the eleven chosen apostles were confused?
Well, it was while I was in ninth grade.
Why would someone elevate St. Matthias as an Apostle of Jesus over Paul, who you seem to relegate to a lower position of Authority and Calling in Christ’s Church?
“The Bible I read was translated into English in 1611 and i did not see anything special on the site you suggested.”
That site is using the Hebrew Lexicon from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which is the standard source for comparing the KJV text to the original languages. The definition it gives is of the Hebrew word in the original text.
“We can see by the genealogy’s in the N.T that generations were years and not days.”
The N.T. was written in Greek, while Genesis was written in Hebrew. So it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the Hebrew text of Genesis by observing how a different Greek word was translated in the NT. These are errors that the use of a proper concordance will help one avoid.
You are citing a verse from Genesis 2, while the days of creation are detailed in Genesis 1. Instead of reading the Bible literally, you simply assume that Genesis 2 is a continuation of the narrative of Genesis 1, but the Bible nowhere says that. It is simply your interpretation which causes these apparent conflicts.
You seem to think gen 2 is an explanation of Gen I, where does it say that?
If your view of it is literal why does it change it from six days to generations and then to one day?
Holy Scripture records a great deal regarding Paul,
And that would fit as Jesus told them to do.
“You seem to think gen 2 is an explanation of Gen I, where does it say that?”
That doesn’t need to be stated explicitly, since it is the only reading of the text that doesn’t introduce contradictions. Since we must start with the principle that God doesn’t contradict himself, we must discount any reading that would appear to create such contradictions. Your interpretation, that Gen. 2 is a chronological continuation of Gen. 1, creates such contradictions, so it cannot be correct. Which only leaves us with the alternative, that it is detailing some of the same events already recounted in Gen. 1 in greater detail.
“If your view of it is literal why does it change it from six days to generations and then to one day?”
I’ve already explained that the word “generations” in Genesis doesn’t refer to periods of time, so there is no switch. You are creating that apparent “switch” by your confusing English meanings of words with the actual meanings of the Hebrew words they were translated from.
It’s the old brain teaser question: Guy was walking around a nudist colony in the middle east. He’s see’s a man and woman holding hands. He shouts, “It’s Adam and Eve!”
How did he know?
I’ve already explained that the word “generations” in Genesis doesn’t refer to periods of time,
That is why the N.I.V changed it to account, the preachers could not explain why it said generations in ch 2 because it gives a reason not to believe in a literal six day creation.
We can see from the N.T that generations covered many years, not days.
This is true. But, it has become apparent to me in the last hour or so, you minimize the Apostle Paul for some reason in your posts.
I agree with you:) Was posing a question to another poster.
“Yes, but I do not agree with that premise.”
I fail to see how it matters whether you agree or not, unless you are a scholar of the Hebrew language. Are you? If not, you sort of lack the authority for your opinion to matter when it comes to the meaning of Hebrew words.
“That is why the N.I.V changed it to account, the preachers could not explain why it said generations in ch 2 because it gives a reason not to believe in a literal six day creation.”
Well, I have no idea of the motivations of the NIV translators, but I don’t think that it would really be relevant either way. They may well have changed the translation to avoid confusion, but that doesn’t mean the confusion was warranted.
“We can see from the N.T that generations covered many years, not days.”
Why would you repeat this argument? Do you not understand that the N.T. is written in Greek, while Genesis is written in Hebrew, so the same word is not being translated?
Nothing is impossible for God!
Luke 18:
26 And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?”
27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”
Well if Christians don't believe God is the uncreated Creator of all, then that is quite an issue.
Also if they have issues with "it didn't happen that way" see my previous comments. God was being short and sweet with the Creation account. The focus of the OT and NT is the plan and fulfillment of the redemption of mankind.
We are inquistive creatures made in God's image and likeness. That rules out mankind coming from other primates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.