Abrahamics: Do you accept 6 Days Creation interpretation by your Prophets and Saints?

[InvestigateTruth]

Although there has been many responses in this thread, NO ONE actually made an attampt to go through what was written in OP to make a reply to it, paragraph by paragraph.

 

[captainbryce]

Although there has been many responses in this thread, NO ONE actually made an attampt to go through what was written in OP to make a reply to it, paragraph by paragraph.

Why is that necessary? All you've done was give us the history of how creation has been interpreted by other people. There is nothing to debate there! The facts are the facts. What we HAVE done is give you our respective interpretations of creation. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are asking. What is your specific question?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

All you've done was give us the history of how creation has been interpreted by other people.

They are not just other regular people. Those interpretations are given by saints of the old times, which were closer to the time of Jesus and Jewish Prophets.
Look at at this way: Most people agree that Jesus and other old prophets had an original message, and these Prophets and Jesus intended a specific interpretation of scriptures. Throughout Ages that original message is somewhat lost or is modified for obvious reason that from generation to generation people made up their own man-made interpretations based on their own minds. That is why today there are so many sects and denominations, which do not agree on how Scriptures are to be interpreted. Now to know that original interpretation can be discovered by researching how Saints and Prophets of the past interpreted the scriptures, consistently. What I provided is Exactly that. While every other interpretation that was given by yourself or others are man-made new Ideas, which are not logically reconciliation and there is too much additions and stretches to make them look Ok, which is not OK as is shown in this thread, the arguments are not satisfactory, and keeps going on without convincing that the interpretation is correct.
While the interpretations given by the Saints of old times presented in this thread are consistent, and is reconcilable without stretching or ignoring grammatical rules of scriptures. If you say otherwise, you need to go through it paragraph by paragraph or verse by verse and show why they are not correct interpretations. No one in this thread did this. Instead came up with new invented interpretations.

 

[captainbryce]

They are not just other regular people. Those interpretations are given by saints of the old times, which were closer to the time of Jesus and Jewish Prophets.

So was Judas! Why is that relevant? None of these men ever actually spoke to Jesus or any of the Apostles. What "authority" do they have in interpreting the word of God over any other man living today?

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

1 John 2:27 (New Living Translation)
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Look at at this way: Most people agree that Jesus and other old prophets had an original message, and these Prophets and Jesus intended a specific interpretation of scriptures. Throughout Ages that original message is somewhat lost or is modified for obvious reason that from generation to generation people made up their own man-made interpretations based on their own minds.

The only people who believe that are people who do not have the Holy Spirit. For anyone who has the Spirit, it reminds them of what Jesus taught. But Jesus didn't teach anything of the creation account, nor did his message have anything to do with that. So I'm not sure why you think his message includes a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

That is why today there are so many sects and denominations, which do not agree on how Scriptures are to be interpreted. Now to know that original interpretation can be discovered by researching how Saints and Prophets of the past interpreted the scriptures, consistently. What I provided is Exactly that. While every other interpretation that was given by yourself or others are man-made new Ideas,

Really? "Trinity" didn't exist as an official doctrine of the Catholic Church until over 300 years AFTER the death of Christ. None of the original disciples, nor Jesus himself ever made any reference to a Holy Trinity. Yet, that is the cornerstone of fundamentalist Christianity today. So that seems to defeat your entire argument about how the "original interpretation" holds up in the Christian church.

which are not logically reconciliation and there is too much additions and stretches to make them look Ok,

In what way exactly DOESN'T it reconcile? You haven't specifically addressed ANY of my response yet. So what are these so called "additions" and "stretches" that you are claiming? TRINITY is an addition to scripture! 6,000 years is an addition to scripture. The bible itself doesn't declare any of these things! A MAN invented the idea of 6,000 years and you choose to go along with that!

which is not OK as is shown in this thread, the arguments are not satisfactory, and keeps going on without convincing that the interpretation is correct.

So you say. Yet you haven't provided any counter-argument to my interpretation. I HAVE provided several counter arguments to YOUR interpretation (which you have yet to address). My argument may not be "satisfactory" to you, but since you can't provide an answer for it, as far as I'm concerned, your argument doesn't hold up to scripture. How about that?

While the interpretations given by the Saints of old times presented in this thread are consistent,

Consistent with WHAT exactly? The interpretations you provided aren't even consistent with the modern fundamentalist interpretation of creation. Augustine believed in six creation AGES. Medieval Christians believed (but never proved) that this was to be a reference for six, 1,000 years creation periods. While fundamentalists today believe that it was six, LITERAL 24 hour periods (of which there is ZERO evidence to support). So that's a contradiction right there! Neither interpretation however is consistent with what science proves about the age of the Earth, or Universe, and therefore neither of them is reasonable to accept as true (unless you are also willing to concede that God intentionally deceived mankind).

If you say otherwise, you need to go through it paragraph by paragraph or verse by verse and show why they are not correct interpretations.

I've already done that earlier on this thread and you never replied. I'll refer you back to post #67.

Instead came up with new invented interpretations.

Well, that's your opinion. Frankly, I think that the 6,000 year idea was invented and adopted as mainstream because people A) put their faith in MAN instead of God, and B) were ignorant of the scientific reality that we know understand as truth today. But if YOU choose to believe what some other men interpreted as what Augustine was trying to say, instead of what the evidence actually proves, that's your right.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So I'm not sure why you think his message includes a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

.

My friend, your comment and question obviously shows you have not read or understood the OP. It never says earth is 6000 years. Please note!.
You also avoided again to go through the OP, and response paragraph by paragraph, verse by verse. That is not the proper debate.

 

[captainbryce]

My friend, your comment and question obviously shows you have not read or understood the OP. It never says earth is 6000 years. Please note!.

No, but it DOES say that "Just about more than 6000 years is passed from the Time of Adam according to Bible stories", which is just as nonsensical. The day age creationists (who interpret the creation days to mean 24 hours) use your logic as "evidence" to "prove" that the earth is indeed 6,000 years old. YOU on the other hand are positing the idea that it's "a little more than 6,000 years old" (perhaps 10-12 thousand instead ) because each creation day represents a thousand years. The problem is, your interpretation is EQUALLY RIDICULOUS, and EQUALLY UNSUPPORTABLE! The bible DOESN'T say that the creation days were thousand year periods. That again is someone's interpretation (a faulty one if you ask me), and it doesn't jive with what science has already proven about the age of the Earth.

You also avoided again to go through the OP, and response paragraph by paragraph, verse by verse.

You're right, because there is no need to do that. Several people on here have already dismissed your OP with FACTS that you refuse to acknowledge. Every interpretation you've given in the OP is proven to be faulty in very BASIC ways that have already been addressed. So I'm not sure what value added there is in going through the OP "paragraph by paragraph". They're all saying the same WRONG thing, in a different way.

This is the crux of your position: "Therefore according to all these statements, the World that was 6000 years has ended and a New earth that we live has appeared."

This idea is faulty because:
A) It doesn't matter what "the prophets of the old" thought! The prophets of old were often IGNORANT, and have no more authority to interpret scripture than anyone living today. (a fact that you ignored when I brought it up)

B) You cannot establish that "6000 years is passed from the Time of Adam" using the bible because there are known genealogical gaps in scripture. So your entire premise is based on a faulty analysis to begin with.

C) 2 Peter 3:8 (one day with the Lord is as a thousand years) has NOTHING to do with creation days. The statement is not an equation, it's an analogy!

D) The "new earth" has NOT arrived yet. This is the same Earth of old because the wicked still inhabit it!

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

2 Peter 3:12
as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Tell me, when in recorded history has the earth laid bare and their was destruction of the heavens by fire?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No, but it DOES say that "Just about more than 6000 years is passed from the Time of Adam according to Bible stories", which is just as nonsensical.

Why is that a non-sense? Are you saying Bible is wrong?
How long ago Jesus lived? How long ago Abraham lived? How long ago Noah lived? How long before Noah, Adam lived? (All according to Bible)

The day age creationists (who interpret the creation days to mean 24 hours) use your logic as "evidence" to "prove" that the earth is indeed 6,000 years old.

That is non-sense.

YOU on the other hand are positing the idea that it's "a little more than 6,000 years old" (perhaps 10-12 thousand instead )

That shows you did not even read the OP carefully nor understood it. Neither you understood my position.

because each creation day represents a thousand years.

This is clearly stated in Bible in Peter.

The problem is, your interpretation is EQUALLY RIDICULOUS, and EQUALLY UNSUPPORTABLE!

You even did not understand my interpretation or the OP. How can you say it is rediculous when you cannot even understand it?

The bible DOESN'T say that the creation days were thousand year periods.

That each day of creation is 1000 years explicitly stated in Bible in Two places.
WHen you ignore clear verses of Bible, why would you even call yourself a Christian?

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

That again is someone's interpretation (a faulty one if you ask me), and it doesn't jive with what science has already proven about the age of the Earth.

My friend, Make sure you understand the OP correctly. You are far from the Topic of the Thread. And you keep ignoring and avoiding to make a reply to OP verse by verse, Paragraph by Paragraph. This was the last chance to discuss this with you.

 

[captainbryce]

Why is that a non-sense? Are you saying Bible is wrong?

No. I'm saying YOU are. Show me the passage from the bible that says that 6,000 years have passed since the time of Adam.

How long ago Jesus lived? How long ago Abraham lived? How long ago Noah lived? How long before Noah, Adam lived? (All according to Bible)

We DON'T know exactly when ANY of these people lived. We can approximate when Jesus lived (through biblical and extra-biblical accounts), but that's it. The rest are GUESSES! And the guesses that were provided by James Ussher are CERTAINLY incorrect based on the known genealogical gaps in scripture. So we don't know exactly how much time passed between Adam and Jesus, nor does the bible ever state that. More to the point, your idea hinges on only 6,000 passing from the beginning of creation to the creation of Adam, and THAT is not biblical either. Not only is it inconsistent with scripture, but it is also proven to be scientifically WRONG. And that's why it's nonsensical!

That is non-sense.

I agree. But so yours. :yes:

That shows you did not even read the OP carefully nor understood it. Neither you understood my position.

Then let me rephrase this question (since you are intentionally tap-dancing around this issue). How old do YOU think the earth is? I have a strong sense that you aren't going to be able to answer this question (in which case I'm going to rest my case right here, as I will have proven my point).

This is clearly stated in Bible in Peter.

:no: No it isn't! 2 Peter 3 has NOTHING to do with creation. It's talking about the LAST days! And one of the main points is that NOBODY will know when that happens. Trying to "predict" the days is futile because not even the angels in heaven, nor the son himself will know when these things will occur. Therefore, the statement: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day is an analogy meant to explain to us that time has no meaning to God. It is not an equation, and it certainly isn't an equation that has anything to do with creation.

You even did not understand my interpretation or the OP. How can you say it is rediculous when you cannot even understand it?

I understand the interpretations of the sources you quote in your OP very clearly. They are ridiculous (for the reasons I've already outlined, which you cannot address). I'm assuming that your position is the same as the Jewish, Christian and Muslim sources you cited, in which case it's equally ridiculous and unsupportable via scripture OR science.

But in reality, I don't fully understand YOUR interpretation because you will continue to be intentionally elusive about it. If you can't answer the simple question of "how old is the earth", then it is proof that you are not able to defend your interpretation (which explains why you are being elusive about it). Saying that "I don't understand it" is meaningless because you won't declare it directly!

That each day of creation is 1000 years explicitly stated in Bible in Two places.

I'm aware of that. But neither of those places addresses CREATION. They in fact address the opposite (the ENDING). So trying to apply this to the creation days is taking the scriptures out of context, plain and simple! If you believe that the earth was created in 6,000 years based on what Psalms 90 and 2 Peter 3 says, then it is YOU who does not understand my friend.

WHen you ignore clear verses of Bible,

Please don't resort to straw man arguments. This only weakens your already weak position. I just quoted the scriptures in question, then elaborated on them, explaining why your interpretation is wrong. This is the only fact that's been ignored so far!

My friend, Make sure you understand the OP correctly. You are far from the Topic of the Thread.

So you say. And yet, the fact of the matter is I'M NOT. I simply responded in a way that destroys the entire premise of your argument. You choose not to address that (for obvious reasons). But perhaps that explains the lack of responses that YOU were looking for. The evidence would seem to suggest that problem here isn't me, or anyone else who has responded so far.

And you keep ignoring and avoiding to make a reply to OP verse by verse, Paragraph by Paragraph.

Yes, and I will continue to do so (and most likely so will everyone else) unless you can make a point stating why that's necessary (given what's already been stated). Can you actually make a point, yes or no?