You say that the day isn't defined until the completion of the fourth day
.
Yeah well from the forth day onwards (at least).
i thought i wrote that, pardon my English Pako.
The main point is; at some point in genesis a day is defined, combine your quote with this (Gen1:14, on day 3.)
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years"
.
That seems like a pretty solid definition of a day to me, taking a thousand years for a day or whatever is not consistent with the definition given here, it simply does not fit anymore.
If that is so, what is the "Evening" and "Morning" that is being referenced even before the completion of the Fourth day? Note that the "Evening" and "Morning" are referenced throughout, not just before, and not just after the end of the fourth day.
Sure, i understand that, i'll explain.
Up to that point in genesis there was no sun and no definition of a day. Hence, if someone would persist that could be millions of years(and some do), then i have no actual argument against that (not in scripture anyway).
but that changes at Gen1:14, because then a day gets clear definition and meaning.
I mean, according to physics the heavy elements that the earth is made from are formed by supernovae, so how the earth existed before any star is also be a mystery to me, but since i have lots of discussions with christians, i know that physics does not always 'mean' something to every theist, scripture usually does.
I will continue to say that a day to God, "And there was evening, and there was morning", is still "Like a 1000 years" to us, and a 1000 years to us is like a day to God.
Sure, i understand you will continue to do that, likewise i will continue to point out that in Gen1:14 a day is clearly defined, so if you do, you are not using the definition of a day which is given in that very passage.
Secondly, what method are you going to use to determine if you should interpret
any biblical passage from god's perspective, or from a human perspective?
if that is 'the context', then explain what gave it away here..
and what would determine i.e. in 'Joshua's day' (where the sun stood still for 'a day') that that was not a 1000 years?).
Thirdly, what method did you use to come arrive at it being a 1000 years, why not 4 seconds?
(corrected from 0.25 i mentioned before), which is equally applicable, you're using the first part, why not the second? that seems like an arbitrary choice.
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day
fourthly, that bible quote
in context (please explain if you see things differently), relates to why "it's taking so long before god fulfills his promise".(i am aware the first part of that chapter refers back to creation and noah's flood .(yet i don't think you say the 'days' of noah's flood were in fact 40.000 years, see my second point).
It is merely saying something in the lines of how god is very (conveniently) patient with unbelievers like myself.
2Pe3:8-9
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
And perhaps most important, and like i outlined already:
What a day
is like (to anyone) has no bearing on what a day
is. And a definition determines what something is.
A minute in fear may be like an hour, but it is still 60 seconds, not 60 minutes.
I have no intent to offend anyone, i hope that is reflected in the words chosen. I like these discussions (as will be obvious by the post i guess) and like i said before Pako, i like your view in this thread.
Therefore i am genuinely interested in your take, so you may understand i am somewhat disappointed since i was hoping for a bit more 'beef' accompanying your dismissal
and funny enough,
You were just blaming "My God" for all those terrible things, which is fine if you choose to do that, but give him credit for the good stuff to.
I seem to always have to say this the other way around
== edit==
We have done a lot. I'm not so sure I can think of anything that Sweden has ever done. If your attitude was a little different I might have actually offered some examples of great American accomplishments that have helped people around the world, but I don't think you'd even read it.
Well, i'll leave that little quarrel between you two
I think you're getting a little riled up over something that's not that big a deal. When people sing "God bless America", they're simply wishing for good fortune, and the strength to do what is right. There's nothing offensive about it at all.
Sure, but the 'one nation under god' in 'the pledge' is somewhat more sinister imo.
And the god bless america, though it may very well be intended in the best way possible, may be looked upon quite differently by people outside of the USA. For one, it's pretty arrogant if you're a believer of the same faith in a different country.
And it may very well be taken as an offense if you live in country of a different faith, i don't think i need to specify which countries i'm thinking of here.
and again