The Sins of the Father: Bible Error (page 3)

In trying to erase the obvious contradiction found in Genesis concering the creation of the sun, apologists fail to explain how there could have been a "morning" and then an "evening" on the first, second, and third days without a sun.

Joseph Alward,

The correct terms for the event you are describing is day and night not evening and morning. What the text actually states about the sun is phrased like this:

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:

The work described in Genesis was done during the day (an unknown but very long of time as shown by the seventh day) and the expression evening and morning when little or nothing was done simply rounds out the day completing it. The terms are contextual to the creative days of unknown length not the Sun. There is no problem here whatever.

Alward said: Mornings begin when the earth's rotation gives the appearance of a rising sun, while the evenings begin when the sun appears to fall below the horizon. None of these events could have happened during the first three "days," because there was no sun until the fourth day.

This misses the point entirely. The correct order is evening and then morning as explained above. Nothing of significance took place during such evening and morning. The days work was allowed to continue by itself without interruption for a time. That is the point made and that day came to a natural completion.

Poole (commentary) stated: It is acknowledged by all, that the evening and the morning are not here to be understood according to our common usage, but are put by a synecdoche each of them for one whole part of the natural day. But because it may be doubted which part each of them signifies, some understand by evening, the foregoing day; and by the morning, the foregoing night; and so the natural day begins with the morning or the light, as it did with the ancient Chaldeans.

This is not the way the scriptures and Jews measured days. They measured them from evening to evening and the use of such words here were in a completely different context.

Joseph

Edited by - JosephMalik on 15 October 2002 14:5:55

rem

Also, God killed King David's and Bathsheeba's son because of their sin.

rem

Double Edge

Thank You Joseph Malik.... I started to respond to the same sophomoric post but clearly couldn't have done half the justice of yours.

rem

2 Samuel 12:13-23:

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD ."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [1] the son born to you will die."
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."
19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Looks like god does kill children for the sins of their fathers.

rem

RWC

The Deuteronomy quote is clearly directed to a set of laws to be followed by the nation of Israel. It was an end to clan revenge that was the norm. It is justice by humans towards humans. Read it in the context of the the rest of the verses that come before it and after it.

It cannot be compared with justice as delivered by God as in the other portions you have noted. What you have shown is no contradiction at all.

God Bless

The Sins of the Father: Bible Error

A Paduan

JT

JosephMalik

rem

Double Edge

rem

RWC

rem

emancipated

RWC

Share this