The period after death

[URAVIP2ME]

Originally Posted by james2ko

Precisely, the authors were well aware that the Messiah would return to be a literal King. And this is reflective in their writings!! If you are sincere about seeking the truth, I urge you to first pray and ask God for understanding. Then read the verses above in a spirit of humility and without prejudice and it will become apparent that a literal 2nd coming is the only interpretation that makes any sense!

Good point you make about praying for understanding because also as Jesus said at Luke [11v13 B] to pray for God's spirit to be given to those asking him.

What are your thoughts about Psalm 72 mentioning the King's Son [Jesus] will have earthly subjects. To the extent as verse 8 states from: sea to sea....to the ends of the earth. Which doesn't that tie in with Zechariah [9vs 9,10]
Jesus being king designate.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

Good point you make about praying for understanding because also as Jesus said at Luke [11v13 B] to pray for God's spirit to be given to those asking him.

What are your thoughts about Psalm 72 mentioning the King's Son [Jesus] will have earthly subjects. To the extent as verse 8 states from: sea to sea....to the ends of the earth. Which doesn't that tie in with Zechariah [9vs 9,10]
Jesus being king designate.

Zec 9:9 describes Christ's first coming. Verse 10 illustrates His second. This is a good example of the huge gaps of time that can exist between two consecutive verses. This gives further credence to the gap between Gen 1:1 and verse 2.

Most scholars agree, Psalm 72 is depicting the millenial rule of Christ. I would have to most certainly agree.

[URAVIP2ME]

Originally Posted by james2ko

Zec 9:9 describes Christ's first coming. Verse 10 illustrates His second. This is a good example of the huge gaps of time that can exist between two consecutive verses. This gives further credence to the gap between Gen 1:1 and verse 2.
Most scholars agree, Psalm 72 is depicting the millenial rule of Christ. I would have to most certainly agree.

Since you mention to huge gaps of time...... the word 'immediately' in Scripture can also mean a huge gap of time.
At Matthew 24v29 'immediately' bridges a very long period of time.
So 'immediately' does not necessarily have to mean in immediate time sequence, but rather in the next thing to occur or take place even if a huge gap of time is in between.

Also, as far as the creative days there is also no time length mentioned or even if each creative day is of the same or equal length of time.
All of the creative days are summed up as a day at Gen 2v4.
Thus showing 'day' in Scripture has various shades of meaning.
So there is nothing in Genesis that is out of harmony with CMBR [cosmic microwave background radiation] dating.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

Since you mention to huge gaps of time...... the word 'immediately' in Scripture can also mean a huge gap of time. At Matthew 24v29 'immediately' bridges a very long period of time.
So 'immediately' does not necessarily have to mean in immediate time sequence, but rather in the next thing to occur or take place even if a huge gap of time is in between.

The indication is that it will not be as long as we may think. In Mat 24:29, Jesus is referring to the time sequence between the end of the Great Tribulation (Rev 6:9-11) and the beginning of the heavenly signs (Rev 6:12-17). For further evidence compare Mat 24:9, 21-22 and Luke 21:23-24 with Mat 24:29-30; Joel 2:30-31. I do not think mankind will last very long without sunlight. Remember Jesus' words referring to this period of time in Mat 24:22, "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened."

Also, as far as the creative days there is also no time length mentioned or even if each creative day is of the same or equal length of time. All of the creative days are summed up as a day at Gen 2v4. Thus showing 'day' in Scripture has various shades of meaning. So there is nothing in Genesis that is out of harmony with CMBR [cosmic microwave background radiation] dating.

Some believe each creation day may have been 1,000 years long. Symbolically, a day may represent a year (Eze 4:6) or a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8) but symbolic interpretations may not be applied in all cases. There is no record found of "ages" rather than days of creation in the ancient history of the Hebrews or of early Christians. But there is scientific evidence the creation days were literal 24 hour periods of time and not 1,000 years.

Notice how the creation week followed the laws of science. At dawn the first day, light penetrated the dense clouds. As it grew warmer the clouds rose the second day and an expanse or heaven was formed, the one in which the birds fly. Thus the waters on the earth were separated from the water-laden clouds above. The ocean receded, dry land appeared and grass and herbs were planted the third day. A mist watered them and as the fourth day progressed the sun became visible through the thinning clouds. Toward the evening the moon and stars appeared. Birds and sea life were created the fifth day, the land animals with Adam and Eve the sixth, and a day of rest and worship for the man the seventh.

Consider the plants which were created on the third day. The sun did not appear until the next day. If these "days" were each 1000 years long then these plants would have had to survive 1000 years without sunshine! Or consider this, plants were made the third day, insects on the sixth. How did certain specialized plants continue to exist 3,000 years without their insect partners to pollinate them?

[URAVIP2ME]

james2Ko-

Isn't creative day 4 for explaining what the already created lights were made to do?
The already existing light, or day for divided day [daylight] from night [darkness]
and served as a calender or signs for seasons, days, years.
God 'made' the already existing light to rule or to have a job to do.
So the 'fullness' of the light at that time came through.

Creative day 5 mentions 'life' so couldn't that include insects?
Also, is there any way to really indicate on day 3 there were no insects?
Gen 1v20 [day 5] mentions: bringing forth abundantly.
Couldn't that indicate a larger insect population occurring or coming forth at that time?
Meaning just a smaller population existed earlier as on day 3?

Because of the accuracy of microwaves science can date the universe and earth.
There is nothing in Genesis out of harmony with CMBR dating.

Since God can not lie [Titus 1v2] then God would not deceive by making the earth appear old if it were not old.

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

Isn't creative day 4 for explaining what the already created lights were made to do?The already existing light, or day for divided day [daylight] from night [darkness] and served as a calender or signs for seasons, days, years. God 'made' the already existing light to rule or to have a job to do. So the 'fullness' of the light at that time came through.

In Gen 1:3, God said ," let there be light." The sun and moon may have been re-created/re-formed at this time but, due to the earth's dense cloud cover, their light could not reach the ground. In order to have signs, seasons, days and years, the sun and moon must be visible from earth. Notice how God divides the clouds from the waters (Gen 1:6-8). And finally on day three, the dry land was separated from those waters (Gen 1:9-10). On day four, the sun and moon were finally visible from the earth which allowed the observance of days and years (Gen 1:14)

Creative day 5 mentions 'life' so couldn't that include insects?

If you read Gen 1:20-23 carefully, it reveals sea creatures and winged birds were the only animals created on the fifth day. Verse 21 states, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. " No mention of insects [creepy things] or land animals until the sixth day. Keep in mind the description of things created on day six begins in verse 24.

Since God can not lie [Titus 1v2] then God would not deceive by making the earth appear old if it were not old.

The account after Genesis 1:2 was not the original creation. It was a renewing of the earth. (Psa 104:30) The original creation described in Gen 1:1, could have occurred billions of years ago. I do not mind answering questions, but let's be careful we do not get too far off topic.

[St Giordano Bruno]

I have my own personal theory that we simply must exist out of anthropic necessity because it is impossible to be aware of the exponential numbers of ways of not existing.

[URAVIP2ME]

Originally Posted by james2ko

In Gen 1:3, God said ," let there be light." The sun and moon may have been re-created/re-formed at this time but, due to the earth's dense cloud cover, their light could not reach the ground. In order to have signs, seasons, days and years, the sun and moon must be visible from earth. Notice how God divides the clouds from the waters (Gen 1:6-8). And finally on day three, the dry land was separated from those waters (Gen 1:9-10). On day four, the sun and moon were finally visible from the earth which allowed the observance of days and years (Gen 1:14)
If you read Gen 1:20-23 carefully, it reveals sea creatures and winged birds were the only animals created on the fifth day. Verse 21 states, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. " No mention of insects [creepy things] or land animals until the sixth day. Keep in mind the description of things created on day six begins in verse 24.
The account after Genesis 1:2 was not the original creation. It was a renewing of the earth. (Psa 104:30) The original creation described in Gen 1:1, could have occurred billions of years ago. I do not mind answering questions, but let's be careful we do not get too far off topic.

Where does it say re-created/ re-formed? Like in English. in the Hebrew the words 'create' and 'make' are two different words. God first 'created' the light, then on day 4 God 'made' the already created light do something.

Like a parent can 'create' a child and then the child can be 'made' to do something such as go to school. The parent does not re-create/ re-form the existing child, but the existing child is now made to do something.

Genesis gives two accounts of creation from two different viewpoints:
1st describes creation heaven and earth and all in them Gen 1v1-2v4.
2nd concentrates on the creation of the human race- Gen 2v5-4v26

[james2ko]

Originally Posted by URAVIP2ME

Where does it say re-created/ re-formed? Like in English. in the Hebrew the words 'create' and 'make' are two different words. God first 'created' the light, then on day 4 God 'made' the already created light do something.

Like a parent can 'create' a child and then the child can be 'made' to do something such as go to school. The parent does not re-create/ re-form the existing child, but the existing child is now made to do something.

Genesis gives two accounts of creation from two different viewpoints:
1st describes creation heaven and earth and all in them Gen 1v1-2v4.
2nd concentrates on the creation of the human race- Gen 2v5-4v26

Create another thread and send me an invite or read here beginning in post#130.
Easy way to prove the Earth is at least a million years old

[whatdoesitallmean]

Removed post