In the beginning...

[Book of Jeremiah]

Does the phrase, "In the beginning" in Genesis chapter 1 refer to the beginning of the creation of this earth or does it refer to the beginning of everything that ever exists outside of God himself?

There is nothing that has ever existed outside of Jesus Christ. Nothing. Jesus Christ created all that is seen and unseen and there is nothing that is created that he did not create. Jesus Christ is God and nothing has ever existed outside of Him because he is the alpha and omega and beginning and end.

 

[there4eyeM]

Does the phrase, "In the beginning" in Genesis chapter 1 refer to the beginning of the creation of this earth or does it refer to the beginning of everything that ever exists outside of God himself?

There is nothing that has ever existed outside of Jesus Christ. Nothing. Jesus Christ created all that is seen and unseen and there is nothing that is created that he did not create. Jesus Christ is God and nothing has ever existed outside of Him because he is the alpha and omega and beginning and end.

If that were true, the only possible way for a human to see it, to know it, would be by direct revelation of a personal nature. We can only perceive normally by contrast and opposites. If something is omnipresent, it is beyond our senses because there is not contrast. As a scientist once said, "We do not know who discovered water, but it was certainly not a fish."

What you state points out the obvious problem with all faiths and religions. They do not appreciate just how far their claims really go.

The only valid belief is one that, indeed, is not belief at all, but knowing through personal experience. Trying to teach such an experience is, a priori, hopelessly futile. At most it can be spoken about, but it cannot be transferred. There is nothing more absurd than insisting that another person share identically one's personal perceptions.

"In the beginning" is a set of words that tries to elicit a sense that we can think about. We make the mistake of thinking that because we have attached nouns to something that it must exist, it must be that way.

Just try to imagine that there was no beginning. The way our thinking works, it is almost impossible. So, we talk about what we can think about. Then, we get the feeling it is truth, the way 'it' 'really' is.

God, to be God, could not be subject to such limitations.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Does the phrase, "In the beginning" in Genesis chapter 1 refer to the beginning of the creation of this earth or does it refer to the beginning of everything that ever exists outside of God himself?

There is nothing that has ever existed outside of Jesus Christ. Nothing. Jesus Christ created all that is seen and unseen and there is nothing that is created that he did not create. Jesus Christ is God and nothing has ever existed outside of Him because he is the alpha and omega and beginning and end.

If that were true, the only possible way for a human to see it, to know it, would be by direct revelation of a personal nature. We can only perceive normally by contrast and opposites. If something is omnipresent, it is beyond our senses because there is not contrast. As a scientist once said, "We do not know who discovered water, but it was certainly not a fish."

What you state points out the obvious problem with all faiths and religions. They do not appreciate just how far their claims really go.

The only valid belief is one that, indeed, is not belief at all, but knowing through personal experience. Trying to teach such an experience is, a priori, hopelessly futile. At most it can be spoken about, but it cannot be transferred. There is nothing more absurd than insisting that another person share identically one's personal perceptions.

"In the beginning" is a set of words that tries to elicit a sense that we can think about. We make the mistake of thinking that because we have attached nouns to something that it must exist, it must be that way.

Just try to imagine that there was no beginning. The way our thinking works, it is almost impossible. So, we talk about what we can think about. Then, we get the feeling it is truth, the way 'it' 'really' is.

God, to be God, could not be subject to such limitations.

Wrong. God is not subject to your finite mind. His ways are higher than your ways, you cannot comprehend with a finite mind the ways of an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent God who has always been and always shall be. He has no beginning and no end. Within that one bit of reality you must realize then that all that is contained since then and up to now - is always before His Eyes. Nothing happens that God's eye does not see. Absolutely nothing. His eyes are everywhere. He sees everything.

This is not true of Satan (he is a created being - a fallen angel ) and the anti Christ system he is preparing for a short period upon the earth - he will need tracking devices - a chip implanted / or tattoo mark - on every human being on earth to control them - to cause them to worship him and obey him- he simply cannot be in all places at once - because he is not God. So he must use other methods to deceive the world. To force the world to bow down and worship him.

Any who take the mark cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. They shall forever be shut out and spend eternity in hell. Anyone who takes the mark will be lost for ever with no chance of salvation.

There are satanists who have been implanted with a chip for tracking / perhaps even a tattoo of 666 but that is not the mark and though they may not believe it - they can still be saved because that time has not yet come. When it comes, if they accept that mark - then they shall have no hope of salvation - ever. It will be too late.

 

[amrchaos]

Another interesting verse in the New Testament is that of Peter:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I believe that each day of that first light upon the earth was 1000 years.

Regarding Noah, what things do you find strange?

Hold it--stop

That passage can be reference to a number of things but in no way is it logical to apply this passage to Genesis. There are references a plenty in the bible--especially in Genesis, that 1 day means just that--1 day as timed by the rising and setting of the sun.

That passage is probably an attempt at comparison between our concept of time and an immortal God's concept of time--and nothing more.


Even so, it wouldn't matter if creation took 7-24 hour periods or 7 thousand years. Both understanding still require symbolic reading to make sense of what is being meant--who/what God actually is.

Are you saying that it isn't stated in the bible what "In the beginning" is referring to?

If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it is vague. Thus any speculation is as valid as any other.

I'm back. I think you are right that it is vague but from the verses, we do know that the creation of the earth occurs prior to the 6 days of creation. Thus the six days of creation do not include the creation of the earth but only the development of the earth once the first light was introduced upon it. Thus what I can surmise is that we don't really know how old the earth really is but we do know that the formation of the earth after being above water and the introduction of plant and animal life occurred within a 6000 year period if you believe the 2 Peter 3:8 verse applies to the length of time of a day according to the reckoning of the first light that shone upon the earth. So I do not agree with those creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. But I also, being a believer in God, do not agree with the evolutionists.

Whether you agree with evolution or not isn't relevant. Evolution does occur, whether it is by design or not is what is a matter for beliefs. Being a theist myself I happen to believe it was.

Light comes from the star, it formed before the earth did. So based solely on what it says it is inaccurate. Now if you want to take metaphorical meanings of light and dark, that would be interpretation, and I'm off the opinion that biblical writings are metaphorical. Which often seems to be a point of contention.

I think in the Bible some verses are metaphorical but I don't see any reason why an account of the creation would be metaphorical. I really don't see any evidence that the sun or moon or stars came before the earth. I think that evolution is every bit a religion as any other. More a belief system than a knowledge. Sure there is variation with a given species but there is no evidence that one specie has evolved into another. For videos on evolution by Dr Hovind watch, "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist" and "MORE Reasons Why Evolution is STUPID!! (FULL) | Kent Hovind | Creation Science Evangelism" on youtube.

I can

The whole point is to describe God--and everything God does in Genesis is definitive whether you take it literally or metaphorically.


Think about it--what point is there in knowing how we and/or the world came about? It is mostly abstract information without any applications except in the case of describing what God has done.

.......and after creation, the Bible is what god wants us to do.

Try teaching the Bible without Genesis and you would get a lot of questions centering around what is god--Genesis introduce God in such a dramatic manner in which there is no confusion.

 

[onefour1]

Does the phrase, "In the beginning" in Genesis chapter 1 refer to the beginning of the creation of this earth or does it refer to the beginning of everything that ever exists outside of God himself?

There is nothing that has ever existed outside of Jesus Christ. Nothing. Jesus Christ created all that is seen and unseen and there is nothing that is created that he did not create. Jesus Christ is God and nothing has ever existed outside of Him because he is the alpha and omega and beginning and end.

There is a series of videos that will teach you why ex nihilo creation is not a true doctrine of Christ:

Problems With Ex Nihilo Video Series

Ex Nihilo creation is a product of the post Apostolic era. It was never a doctrine of the true church of Christ.

 

[sealybobo]

OK, sorry this is off topic but I'm confused. Where did the Book of Moses come from, or I mean how did it come about? Where did the material for chapter 1 come from for example. It is not in the KJV.

The Book of Moses is part of the Revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It can be found in a collection of works known as the Pearl of Great Price. Here is a link to the LDS Scriptures: Scriptures LDS.org

Going back to why we believe having a body is so important is because we believe that God himself has a body of flesh and bones. We know that Jesus upon resurrecting appeared unto his apostles and showed them his resurrected body.

Luke 24:36-43
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

His resurrected body was made of flesh and bones as verse 39 points out. Some people believe that Jesus is a spirit but this verse shows us that he has a resurrected body. And 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that a resurrected body in incorruptible and immortal.

1 Corinthians 15:53
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Thus Jesus still has his body and will always have his immortal and incorruptible body. LDS scripture teaches us that when the body and the spirit are join together, they can receive a fullness of joy.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

But it is not Jesus only that has a resurrected body but the Father also. Another LDS verse tells us the following:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

One of the great reasons for coming to this mortal life was to receive a body. It is an essential part of the plan of happiness. Resurrection is a basic doctrine of Christ. We will all eventually rise from the dead and receive an immortal and incorruptible body. The book of Hebrews teaches us:

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

This verse teaches us that Jesus is the brightness of the Fathers glory and he is in the express image of the person of the Father. In other words, Jesus is exactly like his father in every respect. This would indicate that the Father too has a body of flesh and bones. Man was also created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Our spirits are the literal offspring of God and for this reason the apostle Paul taught:

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

We are God's children in a very literal sense. The Lord said to David in a Psalm:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This Jesus also taught when the Pharisees accused him of blasphemy for claiming he was the son of God.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In a very literal sense, we are the offspring of God. We are his spirit children who have come to this earth to gain a body and to learn to live by faith.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Gaining a body is a critical reason why we came to this world. It was so important that the Father and Jesus brought about the resurrection of the body for all who receive one so that we will never lose it. We will live forever with our resurrected bodies. God himself and Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bones that are immortal and incorruptible. Because without them we could not receive a fullness of joy.

You are insane. I laughed so hard I pissed my magic underwear.

 

[sealybobo]

Another interesting verse in the New Testament is that of Peter:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I believe that each day of that first light upon the earth was 1000 years.

Regarding Noah, what things do you find strange?

Hold it--stop

That passage can be reference to a number of things but in no way is it logical to apply this passage to Genesis. There are references a plenty in the bible--especially in Genesis, that 1 day means just that--1 day as timed by the rising and setting of the sun.

That passage is probably an attempt at comparison between our concept of time and an immortal God's concept of time--and nothing more.


Even so, it wouldn't matter if creation took 7-24 hour periods or 7 thousand years. Both understanding still require symbolic reading to make sense of what is being meant--who/what God actually is.

Are you saying that it isn't stated in the bible what "In the beginning" is referring to?

If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it is vague. Thus any speculation is as valid as any other.

I'm back. I think you are right that it is vague but from the verses, we do know that the creation of the earth occurs prior to the 6 days of creation. Thus the six days of creation do not include the creation of the earth but only the development of the earth once the first light was introduced upon it. Thus what I can surmise is that we don't really know how old the earth really is but we do know that the formation of the earth after being above water and the introduction of plant and animal life occurred within a 6000 year period if you believe the 2 Peter 3:8 verse applies to the length of time of a day according to the reckoning of the first light that shone upon the earth. So I do not agree with those creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. But I also, being a believer in God, do not agree with the evolutionists.

Whether you agree with evolution or not isn't relevant. Evolution does occur, whether it is by design or not is what is a matter for beliefs. Being a theist myself I happen to believe it was.

Light comes from the star, it formed before the earth did. So based solely on what it says it is inaccurate. Now if you want to take metaphorical meanings of light and dark, that would be interpretation, and I'm off the opinion that biblical writings are metaphorical. Which often seems to be a point of contention.

I think in the Bible some verses are metaphorical but I don't see any reason why an account of the creation would be metaphorical. I really don't see any evidence that the sun or moon or stars came before the earth. I think that evolution is every bit a religion as any other. More a belief system than a knowledge. Sure there is variation with a given species but there is no evidence that one specie has evolved into another. For videos on evolution by Dr Hovind watch, "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist" and "MORE Reasons Why Evolution is STUPID!! (FULL) | Kent Hovind | Creation Science Evangelism" on youtube.

I can

The whole point is to describe God--and everything God does in Genesis is definitive whether you take it literally or metaphorically.


Think about it--what point is there in knowing how we and/or the world came about? It is mostly abstract information without any applications except in the case of describing what God has done.

.......and after creation, the Bible is what god wants us to do.

Try teaching the Bible without Genesis and you would get a lot of questions centering around what is god--Genesis introduce God in such a dramatic manner in which there is no confusion.

There is plenty of confusion. The big bang happened 14 billion years ago. Ten billion years ago the first stars formed. 5 billion years ago our sun. 4 billion years the earth. 3 billion years ago the moon. 2 bill trilobite's. 1 bill dinosaurs. Less then 1 million years ago mammals. 40,000 years ago modern man.

 

[onefour1]

Another interesting verse in the New Testament is that of Peter:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I believe that each day of that first light upon the earth was 1000 years.

Regarding Noah, what things do you find strange?

Hold it--stop

That passage can be reference to a number of things but in no way is it logical to apply this passage to Genesis. There are references a plenty in the bible--especially in Genesis, that 1 day means just that--1 day as timed by the rising and setting of the sun.

That passage is probably an attempt at comparison between our concept of time and an immortal God's concept of time--and nothing more.


Even so, it wouldn't matter if creation took 7-24 hour periods or 7 thousand years. Both understanding still require symbolic reading to make sense of what is being meant--who/what God actually is.

Are you saying that it isn't stated in the bible what "In the beginning" is referring to?

If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it is vague. Thus any speculation is as valid as any other.

I'm back. I think you are right that it is vague but from the verses, we do know that the creation of the earth occurs prior to the 6 days of creation. Thus the six days of creation do not include the creation of the earth but only the development of the earth once the first light was introduced upon it. Thus what I can surmise is that we don't really know how old the earth really is but we do know that the formation of the earth after being above water and the introduction of plant and animal life occurred within a 6000 year period if you believe the 2 Peter 3:8 verse applies to the length of time of a day according to the reckoning of the first light that shone upon the earth. So I do not agree with those creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. But I also, being a believer in God, do not agree with the evolutionists.

Whether you agree with evolution or not isn't relevant. Evolution does occur, whether it is by design or not is what is a matter for beliefs. Being a theist myself I happen to believe it was.

Light comes from the star, it formed before the earth did. So based solely on what it says it is inaccurate. Now if you want to take metaphorical meanings of light and dark, that would be interpretation, and I'm off the opinion that biblical writings are metaphorical. Which often seems to be a point of contention.

I think in the Bible some verses are metaphorical but I don't see any reason why an account of the creation would be metaphorical. I really don't see any evidence that the sun or moon or stars came before the earth. I think that evolution is every bit a religion as any other. More a belief system than a knowledge. Sure there is variation with a given species but there is no evidence that one specie has evolved into another. For videos on evolution by Dr Hovind watch, "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist" and "MORE Reasons Why Evolution is STUPID!! (FULL) | Kent Hovind | Creation Science Evangelism" on youtube.

I can

The whole point is to describe God--and everything God does in Genesis is definitive whether you take it literally or metaphorically.


Think about it--what point is there in knowing how we and/or the world came about? It is mostly abstract information without any applications except in the case of describing what God has done.

.......and after creation, the Bible is what god wants us to do.

Try teaching the Bible without Genesis and you would get a lot of questions centering around what is god--Genesis introduce God in such a dramatic manner in which there is no confusion.

I will teach from the Book of Abraham is the Pearl of Great Price regarding the 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Kolob being a planet which is nearest to the place where God resides according to the Book of Abraham. The reckoning of the earth was after this time until God gave Adam and Eve their own time of reckoning.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

In the bible it tells us:

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But Adam actually lived to be 930 years old.

Genesis 5:5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Was God lying when he said that Adam would die in the day that ate the forbidden fruit? Or, If it was according to the Lord's time, which is one day to the Lord = 1000 of our years, then Adam would have died in the same day he partook of the fruit. Obviously the creation was not after the time we now reckon with but was after the Lord's time. Also, as stated in an earlier post, the sun was not placed in relation to the earth until the 4 creation period. Thus the light that was used to reckon each day of the creation was from another source than the sun.

Genesis 1:16
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[amrchaos]

1st
When God tells Adam he will surely die, one should be careful on how to understand this statement.

Does God means that Adam will die immediately--or does it mean Adam just inherited an affliction, death?

Also, if we bring in the concept death of the soul versus the death of the body, one could say that God meant that Adams soul will die.

There are several ways to look at that statement and give it an interpretation in which Adam dying is now a given. The question of when and how and what will die is left unanswered

2nd

It is doubtful that the time scale changed from Genesis 1 from "Gods timescale" to that in Genesis 5 "our timescale" because the story is still being told to the same audience. That is, the timescales are still the same--unless, as some scholars have pointed out, that the part dealing with Creation is actually several different stories pasted together.

If these scholars are correct, there is still little justification for the change in timescale, I am afraid. If God is the only God and God is the subject matter, there is little reason for God to tell a story in his time frame when no one else shares it.

It would make sense if the story was told among Gods/God-like beings and a human was ease dropping--but that is assuming too much.

Finally, let us remember that the definition of "day" and " night" was firmly set on the 4th day--so the the timescale used corresponds to our human notion of time. .

 

[sealybobo]

Another interesting verse in the New Testament is that of Peter:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I believe that each day of that first light upon the earth was 1000 years.

Regarding Noah, what things do you find strange?

Hold it--stop

That passage can be reference to a number of things but in no way is it logical to apply this passage to Genesis. There are references a plenty in the bible--especially in Genesis, that 1 day means just that--1 day as timed by the rising and setting of the sun.

That passage is probably an attempt at comparison between our concept of time and an immortal God's concept of time--and nothing more.


Even so, it wouldn't matter if creation took 7-24 hour periods or 7 thousand years. Both understanding still require symbolic reading to make sense of what is being meant--who/what God actually is.

If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it is vague. Thus any speculation is as valid as any other.

I'm back. I think you are right that it is vague but from the verses, we do know that the creation of the earth occurs prior to the 6 days of creation. Thus the six days of creation do not include the creation of the earth but only the development of the earth once the first light was introduced upon it. Thus what I can surmise is that we don't really know how old the earth really is but we do know that the formation of the earth after being above water and the introduction of plant and animal life occurred within a 6000 year period if you believe the 2 Peter 3:8 verse applies to the length of time of a day according to the reckoning of the first light that shone upon the earth. So I do not agree with those creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. But I also, being a believer in God, do not agree with the evolutionists.

Whether you agree with evolution or not isn't relevant. Evolution does occur, whether it is by design or not is what is a matter for beliefs. Being a theist myself I happen to believe it was.

Light comes from the star, it formed before the earth did. So based solely on what it says it is inaccurate. Now if you want to take metaphorical meanings of light and dark, that would be interpretation, and I'm off the opinion that biblical writings are metaphorical. Which often seems to be a point of contention.

I think in the Bible some verses are metaphorical but I don't see any reason why an account of the creation would be metaphorical. I really don't see any evidence that the sun or moon or stars came before the earth. I think that evolution is every bit a religion as any other. More a belief system than a knowledge. Sure there is variation with a given species but there is no evidence that one specie has evolved into another. For videos on evolution by Dr Hovind watch, "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist" and "MORE Reasons Why Evolution is STUPID!! (FULL) | Kent Hovind | Creation Science Evangelism" on youtube.

I can

The whole point is to describe God--and everything God does in Genesis is definitive whether you take it literally or metaphorically.


Think about it--what point is there in knowing how we and/or the world came about? It is mostly abstract information without any applications except in the case of describing what God has done.

.......and after creation, the Bible is what god wants us to do.

Try teaching the Bible without Genesis and you would get a lot of questions centering around what is god--Genesis introduce God in such a dramatic manner in which there is no confusion.

I will teach from the Book of Abraham is the Pearl of Great Price regarding the 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Kolob being a planet which is nearest to the place where God resides according to the Book of Abraham. The reckoning of the earth was after this time until God gave Adam and Eve their own time of reckoning.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

In the bible it tells us:

Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But Adam actually lived to be 930 years old.

Genesis 5:5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Was God lying when he said that Adam would die in the day that ate the forbidden fruit? Or, If it was according to the Lord's time, which is one day to the Lord = 1000 of our years, then Adam would have died in the same day he partook of the fruit. Obviously the creation was not after the time we now reckon with but was after the Lord's time. Also, as stated in an earlier post, the sun was not placed in relation to the earth until the 4 creation period. Thus the light that was used to reckon each day of the creation was from another source than the sun.

Genesis 1:16
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Each day represents about 2 billion years

 

[onefour1]

1st
When God tells Adam he will surely die, one should be careful on how to understand this statement.

Does God means that Adam will die immediately--or does it mean Adam just inherited an affliction, death?

I think that God meant exactly what he said. "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" I don't see room for "you will fall and after 930 years you will die".

Also, if we bring in the concept death of the soul versus the death of the body, one could say that God meant that Adams soul will die.

Now this is a much better argument. You definitely can argue that when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree that they suffered a spiritual death. A separation from God is a type of spiritual death.

There are several ways to look at that statement and give it an interpretation in which Adam dying is now a given. The question of when and how and what will die is left unanswered

As a member of the LDS faith, the Book of Abraham, which was a revelation given to Abraham, give more light upon the subject. We believe that God had not yet given to Adam his time of reckoning and that when God spoke it, it was still after the LORD's time. This being 1000 of our years = 1 day to the LORD. We believe this was the purpose that it was mentioned at the same time. This makes sense when we know Adam died within 1000 years or at 930 years old. And although spiritual separation is considered a type of death, we are not fully dead to things spiritual because God is still saving us from spiritual death. A complete spiritual death would mean that we are not saved.

2nd

It is doubtful that the time scale changed from Genesis 1 from "Gods timescale" to that in Genesis 5 "our timescale" because the story is still being told to the same audience. That is, the timescales are still the same--unless, as some scholars have pointed out, that the part dealing with Creation is actually several different stories pasted together.

I don't understand the logic of this argument. Why would the audience have anything to do with the time scale? I can tell the story to a single audience and if you believe that God has the power to change the time it wouldn't matter if you had the same audience. It can be one story with a change in time scale.

If these scholars are correct, there is still little justification for the change in timescale, I am afraid. If God is the only God and God is the subject matter, there is little reason for God to tell a story in his time frame when no one else shares it.

It would make sense if the story was told among Gods/God-like beings and a human was ease dropping--but that is assuming too much.

When I hear the story, it teaches me about the creation and the actual history of the creation. I don't need to hear that it was in my current time scale to gain from the story or relate to it. I don't understand this line of reasoning.

Finally, let us remember that the definition of "day" and " night" was firmly set on the 4th day--so the the timescale used corresponds to our human notion of time. .

Actually in Genesis 1:3-5 we read:
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

In these verses "day" and "night" are established on the first day. So the reckoning of the days were according to the light that was given for the first day which was not that of the sun and moon which was created on the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Although the sun and moon were created also for "days" and "nights" they were not used for days 1-3 and according to Abraham, they were not used for days 4-7 either. Another verse that bears out that one day to the LORD = 1000 years is:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So if the creation were not according to our days but according to the LORD's, it would have been a 7000 year creation.

 

[OZman]

In the beginning
There was neither existence nor nonexistence,
Neither sky nor heaven beyond …

That One breathed, without breath,
By his own breathless power.

The first born was the Creative Will,
The primordial seed of the mind.
All else followed.
The sages, searching for the truth within themselves,
Discovered the eternal bond between the seen and unseen.
This bond was an endless line stretched across the heavens.
What was above?
What was below?
Primal seeds were sprouting, mighty forces were moving;
Pulsation from below, pure energy above.

Who here knows? Who can say for sure? …
When it began and from where it came-this creation?
The gods came afterwards
So who really knows?

From where this creation came,
By what means it was formed,
Only He who watches from the highest heaven knows
or perhaps even He does not know!


n° 3007 : Rig Veda , most ancient of the Vedic collections of hymns, considered the Hindus most sacred scripture.,Hinduism

Source : Rig Veda, Book X, 129