God's Word versus R.J. (sorry for picking on you)

A thought occurred to me this morning in regards to R.J.'s continual thoughts of science versus scripture.

When Jesus was attacked by the Pharisees, after casting out a demon. Jesus stated "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined."

You see, nature is God's creation too. (R.J.) And science is a product of God's creation. You can not use science against God's nature, because it would be the same as 'a kingdom divided against itself '. It is science that will prove that nature and creation are one.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
A thought occurred to me this morning in regards to R.J.'s continual thoughts of science versus scripture.

When Jesus was attacked by the Pharisees, after casting out a demon. Jesus stated "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined."

You see, nature is God's creation too. (R.J.) And science is a product of God's creation. You can not use sc ...[text shortened]... ingdom divided against itself '. It is science that will prove that nature and creation are one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
?

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I figured this conversation would be beyond your understanding.

Sometimes you need to study the scripture, not just read it for it's literary value.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I figured this conversation would be beyond your understanding.

Sometimes you need to study the scripture, not just read it for it's literary value.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh! You must be referring to R.J. Sonhouse.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Didn't know you two were related. Sonhouse, is he your long, long lost family member. ha ha. Glad he mentioned you for reference. ha ha

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. He is my archrival against a 6 day creation by God and for Evilution over billions of years.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
What is a day like to God. Did i not explain the author was trying to teach that God is an eternal being. (some months ago. ) Seriously, how can you explain a infinite being to someone that is finite? So when God creates a day to Himself, what is it to us?

It is ok to believe 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 days, 6 years, 6 billion years. What ever, but never co ...[text shortened]... nt to reach our "archrival" out of the love of God, than to pit him with "unimportant" things???

Originally posted by Pudgenik
A thought occurred to me this morning in regards to R.J.'s continual thoughts of science versus scripture.

When Jesus was attacked by the Pharisees, after casting out a demon. Jesus stated "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined."

You see, nature is God's creation too. (R.J.) And science is a product of God's creation. You can not use sc ...[text shortened]... ingdom divided against itself '. It is science that will prove that nature and creation are one.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
What is a day like to God. Did i not explain the author was trying to teach that God is an eternal being. (some months ago. ) Seriously, how can you explain a infinite being to someone that is finite? So when God creates a day to Himself, what is it to us?

It is ok to believe 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 days, 6 years, 6 billion years. What ever, but never co ...[text shortened]... nt to reach our "archrival" out of the love of God, than to pit him with "unimportant" things???

Originally posted by josephw
You know, I believe the earth is old. No one really knows how old, but God's Word says that all the biological life on this planet was made in six days. Anyone that calls themselves a Christian aught not to contradict God on this. The scripture is clear about how long it took God to place life on this planet. Science be damned that presumes to teach a theory to the contrary.

Originally posted by FMF
Should English Literature teachers be "damned" too for teaching what metaphors are?

Originally posted by josephw
You're a Biblical Greek and Hebrew scholar now?

The text plainly states six days.

Originally posted by FMF
Most Christians I know interpret the "six days" story as a metaphor. The biblical text plainly contains a metaphor about the "six days". Greek, Hebrew, English ~ all these languages have metaphors.

After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England.

On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed in the 5th century AD.

Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.

I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. In fact, in the preface it says, ‘Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.’ Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal, imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological mysticism known as the Kabbala.

But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, ‘One day refers to the movement of the sphere.’ This shows that the common sceptical objection ‘how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created’ was solved in principle centuries ago. The ‘sphere’ referred to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its followers promoted a ‘flat earth’. But now we would say that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.

The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, ‘The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet …’. This shows that they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day, as opposed to ‘appearing’ as many long-agers, e.g. Hugh Ross, claim.

I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days. My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal.