2010 Bible

[mwvickers]

MWVickers...I should probably tell you a bit about my Christian journey.  I grew up in a very hypocritical church where walking the walk and talking the talk, were two separate and not equal identities, especially if you were a member of certain families in my small, rural, religiously conservative Georgia community.  No matter what denomination you are in, this was always the case as families ran churches, not church organizations.  Church doctrine was usually shaped by those families instead of the Bible.  That is what I mean by people's personal interpretations of the Bible.  I soon realized that these same people searched out Bible study materials that suited their methods and what bits didn't they substituted or created as they went.  I know there will always be some level of this element in whatever church I attend, no matter the denomination I attend and pray about.  I seek understanding from the Lord's word not around my Earth desires as what I saw being done as I grew up.  I also grew up with the knowledge of only one version of the Bible, KJV.  I know have the NIV Zondervan study bible, but find that one to also to a reference tool.  I don't mind the language of KJV and even my copy of the 1611 KJV.  I hope this helps you to understand about me wanting to seek out the most open and unbiased version of works as possible.  I know people have a troubles with being completely objective when writing about religion and making Bible studies.  I just want to seek out those that are.  I have seen some doozies in my time, though I don't remember their names.  Any guidance towards unbiased, faithful, interpretations of the Bible in One Year or the Chronologial that you all keep mentioning are welcomed.  I will be checking out those mentioned.  I did check out the Handbook and found it to be informative.  I'm just kicking myself for not snagging it for free.   

onanothernote,

Thank you for trusting us all here enough to open up about your past.  I was lucky enough not to have been raised in such an environment, but I've talked to many people who were.  I can only imagine how something like that can affect you (and from what I understand, Philip Yancey hits on it greatly in many of his books).   

As you pointed out, all churches and denominations will have some "bias" toward their views.  Unfortunately, that seems inescapable. 

The one thing I can say is to judge everything by the Bible.  Make it the standard.  When questions arise as to interpretation, read several different views that are all considered orthodox (there are views that are truly unorthodox, and while it is helpful to know those views, I recommend it only to those very, very well-versed in orthodox views).  You can do this even if your church doesn't usually do it.

One helpful series for this is something like the "four views" series (I'm not sure of the actual name).  You can find, for example, four views on the end-times.  It will lay out multiple orthodox views in a format in which each person will present his or her view, and the others critique it, and this rotates for each person.  It can provide you with the arguments for and against various views, and you can pray for guidance. 

As far as Bibles themselves, any Bible with notes will be somewhat biased, as, I think, you acknowledged.  This, too, is unavoidable as like-minded people normally collaborate on those projects.  Having study Bibles from different perspectives will act as a "check and balance" system.  The more people who work on a study Bible, and the broader their denominational representations, obviously the more checks and balances will apply.  Also, some Bibles are automatically geared certain ways.  So, while the NIV Study Bible is somewhat general in its notes, the Reformation Study Bible will be very Reformed/Calvinistic in its views, and the Life in the Spirit Study Bible will be very pentecostal in its views.   

I think any Bible already recommended on this part of the forum would be wonderful.  The NLT One-Year Bible we are finishing is Scripture only (no notes).  The Lucado one mentioned will, I believe, have the NCV translation with small portions of devotional material taken from Lucado's books.  Lucado is well-respected by many people, so no worries there.

I hope that helps at least a little.  If I'm completely off and not understanding you, I apologize.  I'm a little worn out from this past week (a lot of time with relatives), so I may be missing something.  LOL

Martin

[onanothernote]

I think I have decided to join all of you next year as I have ordered the following DTB since I prefer to navigate reference books, especially my Bibles, through pages for taking notes because I'm dyslexic.  Having a learning disability and ADD makes research somewhat difficult on a small screen without having everything at my fingertips. OK, so I don't know how to insert an image, here are the names: The Daily Bible: Chronological Bible 365 Daily Readings, The Chronological Study Bible NKJV, and Halley's Bible Handbook 2007 Publication.  I went with hardbacks on everything since I like sturdy books because my cat, bobcat/domestic mix, likes to knock everything off any flat surface and they take a beating.  They are books from this thread.  The first is from the first entry, the second is from the second page, and so is the third.  I love history, so the second and third really appeal to me.  The first will help keep me on a daily track for reading.  Between all three, I should learn quite a lot.  Between these and my regular mystery novel reading, I should be busy.  I'm glad that I have time to read something other than graduate text books.  I just finished my master's degree in post secondary adult education.  I'm also searching for a job with an interview on Tuesday at 11am EST, so please say a pray.  I'll be hoping to secure a position as a Juvenile Detention Counselor.  I love working with kids and have been a special ed teacher for the past 8 years.  This change will be great for me, as well as put my criminal justice degree to work along with my masters work in special ed and masters degree in post secondary ed.  I've been too busy with textbooks to read much of anything else.  I think since I finished my degree on the 12th, I've read 7 novels.  I'm about to finish another tonight as well as finished my nephew's quilt to today.  I did his baby bumpers Christmas Eve and a set of pot holders and kitchen tea towels for family Christmas the Friday before.  Then there was the baking to do.  I don't think I could have finished any of it if I still had school work to do.  Praise be to the Lord all that is finished with a 4.0 Thanks for the guidance all!!  I'm looking forward to joining y'all this New Year for a new start and hopefully a new career!!

Martin,
You do seem to understand my situation and perspective completely. That is why I think I will enjoy this Bible Study more than I have others in my past.  When I have presented somewhat hard to answer questions like "Why don't we have the  Apocrypha in our Bible? "  I get " Because it contains demons and dragons and the like.  It really wasn't a part of the real Bible." I hate responses like that.  When people are challenged they fall back on their individual Church Doctrine, not scripture.  This bothers me greatly as Church doctrine is not of God but of man's interpretation of God's word.  My point of view is not commonly accepted in my part of the country.  I glad I've stumbled upon this group.  Thanks for having me.

[mwvickers]

I think I have decided to join all of you next year as I have ordered the following DTB since I prefer to navigate reference books, especially my Bibles, through pages for taking notes because I'm dyslexic.  Having a learning disability and ADD makes research somewhat difficult on a small screen without having everything at my fingertips. OK, so I don't know how to insert an image, here are the names: The Daily Bible: Chronological Bible 365 Daily Readings, The Chronological Study Bible NKJV, and Halley's Bible Handbook 2007 Publication.  I went with hardbacks on everything since I like sturdy books because my cat, bobcat/domestic mix, likes to knock everything off any flat surface and they take a beating.  They are books from this thread.  The first is from the first entry, the second is from the second page, and so is the third.  I love history, so the second and third really appeal to me.  The first will help keep me on a daily track for reading.  Between all three, I should learn quite a lot.  Between these and my regular mystery novel reading, I should be busy.  I'm glad that I have time to read something other than graduate text books.  I just finished my master's degree in post secondary adult education.  I'm also searching for a job with an interview on Tuesday at 11am EST, so please say a pray.  I'll be hoping to secure a position as a Juvenile Detention Counselor.  I love working with kids and have been a special ed teacher for the past 8 years.  This change will be great for me, as well as put my criminal justice degree to work along with my masters work in special ed and masters degree in post secondary ed.  I've been too busy with textbooks to read much of anything else.  I think since I finished my degree on the 12th, I've read 7 novels.  I'm about to finish another tonight as well as finished my nephew's quilt to today.  I did his baby bumpers Christmas Eve and a set of pot holders and kitchen tea towels for family Christmas the Friday before.  Then there was the baking to do.  I don't think I could have finished any of it if I still had school work to do.  Praise be to the Lord all that is finished with a 4.0 Thanks for the guidance all!!  I'm looking forward to joining y'all this New Year for a new start and hopefully a new career!!

Glad you found some books that will help! 

Martin,
You do seem to understand my situation and perspective completely.

Thanks for the compliment.

That is why I think I will enjoy this Bible Study more than I have others in my past.  When I have presented somewhat hard to answer questions like "Why don't we have the  Apocrypha in our Bible? "  I get " Because it contains demons and dragons and the like.  It really wasn't a part of the real Bible." I hate responses like that.

I like hard questions, so feel free to ask.  I may not have the answer, in which case I will tell you so, but I love trying to find out and trying to share information I've gathered over the last few years. 

I agree that many people don't necessarily offer good answers; at least, not detailed enough to touch on the reasons.  So, while the above reasons against the apocrypha may be partially right, there would need to be more information and explanation to flesh it out. 

 

When people are challenged they fall back on their individual Church Doctrine, not scripture.  This bothers me greatly as Church doctrine is not of God but of man's interpretation of God's word.

Indeed, many do simply fall back on tradition (I hesitate to say "doctrine" as not all doctrine is bad, but you specified "church doctrine," which clarified the issue well). It is something that has frustrated me some over the years.  We all do it, I'm sure, though I try to at least provide good reasons why I believe the way I do. 

My point of view is not commonly accepted in my part of the country.  I glad I've stumbled upon this group.  Thanks for having me.

I understand you regarding your point of view not being accepted.  I live in part of the "Bible belt," so I am right there with you. 

And you are very welcome here. 

Martin

[Angela]

Welcome onanothernote! So glad you will be joining us. I am looking forward to the new year.

[Rasputina]

I downloaded a sample of this & it looks VERY interesting!!! The downsides are two: (1) It costs $26.72! (2) It is not separated into 365 readings, so that the book can be easily read in a year.

But that being said, it looks VERY interesting!!! I will be keeping it on my radar to see if the price goes down.

Thanks for posting the link to this, what an interesting concept of how to read the bible.

[onanothernote]

Today I got another coupon from Kobo.com for 25% off of one book (BW25) and was looking for Bible reference books.  I already have a concordance and a bible dictionary, but can always use another reference to relate to for a more, well rounded picture, as I do with all my research by checking multiple sources to develop a well rounded approach from multiple sources ruling out nothing until the picture is complete.  I found a few that peaked my attention

 http://www.amazon.com/Zondervan-All-Bible-Reference-Guide/dp/0310283094/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

 http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Bible-Companion-Insights-Reading/dp/0310266629/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

I went to overstock to check prices and then to half.com to check there and found them for $2.98 and $3.98 respectively.  I picked them up so they will be here media mail soon.  I shall add them to my collection for my layman's mind.  As I develop my knowledge base, I'll expand upwards.  I thought I would share as they are both available in Kindle format, but with reference materials, I'm a DTB kind of person.  I like to take notes and with my dyslexia I need the visual aspects of the DTB.  It's just a dyslexia thing.  I do the same thing with math and used a lap sized marker board to work my problems one at a time to get them right and then would put them on my paper so I didn't smudge up my paper or erase through it trying to get all the kinks worked out of long algebra problem or mess up not being able to see my mistakes due to spacing on those tiny lines.  The marker board allowed me to space out my problem and see my mistakes and start with a clean slate instead of a really messy piece of paper reminding me of my frustrating errors.  I also worked from my bed, which was way more comfortable than my desk or a table. I digress.....

[onanothernote]

Oh, how do I post picture links like the one on this page???

[Suzanne]

 

Thanks so much for posting these. I'll be downloading samples on my Kindle to check them out. The prices are reasonable.

For me, some books are better in DTV. Even though that Chronological Study Bible is available on Kindle, that is one I felt I would prefer in DTV. I have ordered it and am looking forward to receiving it.

I love having my one-year Bibles on my Kindle. Hopefully, with all the new e-book readers coming out now, we will be seeing a lot more Bibles and references made available for the Kindle. Maybe sometime in 2010 we will have a one-year chronological Bible made available for the Kindle.

[Rasputina]

On the subject of the chronological Bible, couldn't you just take their reading guide http://www.chronologicalstudybible.com/plan.php and use it to read any bible in chronological order? Of course they only use the 66 books in Protestant Bibles but I could do some research and figure out where to insert the books that were removed, that are included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

[onanothernote]

Thank you Rasputina.  I'm not sure if my books will be here by tomorrow to get started so I can use this guide to jump into it.  The book does include other features and information than just scripture.  Looking at the actual pages of the book from http://www.christianbook.com/nkjv-chronological-bonded-leather-distressed-umber/9781418540258/pd/540258?item_code=WW&netp_id=553147&event=EBRN&view=details#curr I find that I could use all the help I can get.  I miss the days when our young adult singles class gathered on Thursday nights to eat and have Bible study.  We did it with our youth pastor, but his ideas got up the back side of the older member's traditional viewpoints.  If the pastor is not done preaching at 12:00 sharp they either make a point to preach to him about it or they walk out and go do dinner.  They agreed to have early service because they could go to dinner early, but when the point was brought up that the service was meant to not just be an earlier version of the 11:00 service, but a contemporary service and bring in the younger members of the community by providing non-traditional styled choir music and a more relevant sermon to their youthful generation and allow the youth of the church to participate in the sermons.  The elders of the church wanted to know what they were paying a pastor for if the youth were going to be leading sermons for.  They wanted to be able to get to dinner sooner.  This is a Southern Baptist church, not the Church of God that I was raised in.  These views are what separates churches and runs off very good and Godly people from churches.  The young adult membership is very low for a church that has an average Sunday attendance of 700-800 people.  There are children, youth, and college students, but post college students are hard to come by as well as young married couples.  There is a large gap between the two age groups.  I prefer the early service and Sunday school because of the smaller size, though I generally prefer Sunday school because I like small group discussions and learn best that way.  I believe the Bible is meant to be discussed and never took to the Hell, fire and brimstone sermons that I grew up with.

[Suzanne]

On the subject of the chronological Bible, couldn't you just take their reading guide http://www.chronologicalstudybible.com/plan.php and use it to read any bible in chronological order? Of course they only use the 66 books in Protestant Bibles but I could do some research and figure out where to insert the books that were removed, that are included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

Rasputina, thanks so much for that link. I have ordered that bible but haven't received it yet. I have bookmarked that link.

For now, my plan is to do the one-year chronological bible at the very beginning of this thread. Along with that, I am going to read the Halley's Bible Handbook. I have started reading the Halley's Bible Handbook & it is very interesting. It's going to be a nice supplement to my one-year chronological bible.

I don't want to bite off more than I can chew as far as daily reading requirements. But I am always on the lookout for nice one-year bibles, study bibles, etc.



This is another chronological bible I purchased recently. I really like the looks of it. If I read five pages a day, I will read the entire book in one year. Click through where it says Look Inside This Book. It is interesting how the first page of Genesis is rendered.

[mwvickers]

Rasputina, thanks so much for that link. I have ordered that bible but haven't received it yet. I have bookmarked that link.

For now, my plan is to do the one-year chronological bible at the very beginning of this thread. Along with that, I am going to read the Halley's Bible Handbook. I have started reading the Halley's Bible Handbook & it is very interesting. It's going to be a nice supplement to my one-year chronological bible.

I don't want to bite off more than I can chew as far as daily reading requirements. But I am always on the lookout for nice one-year bibles, study bibles, etc.



This is another chronological bible I purchased recently. I really like the looks of it. If I read five pages a day, I will read the entire book in one year. Click through where it says Look Inside This Book. It is interesting how the first page of Genesis is rendered.

That is an interesting rendering of Genesis, and it is highly speculative.   LOL

I'm not saying it's wrong, so let me preface that.  It is one view of what may have happened.

Putting John 1 right there is interesting, and there's no real issue there, and the insertion of the verse from that psalm is interesting, too. 

The insertion of the verses from Isaiah 14 is interpretive, however, in two ways:

1) While the majority of scholars seem to agree that Satan is somehow in view in Isaiah 14 (the term "Lucifer" was not Satan's proper name before the fall, but that's another issue), the primary person in question is the king of Babylon.  I wonder if that version includes the same verses again in Isaiah, too?  If not, then it has actually been divorced from its primary context, which may be an issue. 

2) The real interesting issue is that by inserting the fall of Satan before Genesis 1:2, it seems that the interpreter(s) is/are holding that there is a gap between the first and second verse of Genesis, and that the earth was created in verse 1, then Satan was ruling during the gap and fell, that God judged the earth and destroyed it with a flood, leaving the earth "without form and void" in verse 2, with the Spirit of God hovering over the waters.  [Side note: There is actually a Christian fiction book on this issue called Lucifer's Flood available for Kindle, I think.]

Again, while these views are not necessarily wrong, and many scholars hold to those views, it's interesting to me that this chronological Bible puts it that way with no note that it is interpretation.

The translator(s) does/do the same thing again with the Creation, when they insert in brackets that it is definitely literal, 24-hour days (another highly debated issue). 

In short, that Bible has a lot of interpretation mixed in through headings and structure that some may not be aware are opinions and interpretation.  Just be aware. 

I wonder if the others do the same?  You'll have to let us know about yours, Suzanne.

Martin

[Suzanne]

Martin, I totally agree with you that it is their interpretation on these matters. No one knows when Satan (whatever his original name was) rebelled against God. Was it before Adam's creation? Was it after? Was Satan consumed with jealousy when he saw Adam worshiping God and wanted some of that worship for himself, and that was when he rebelled? There is no way we can know these things.

But I did like when I read that first page how it did bring this matter to my mind, that besides all this going on with the creation of things & humans there was this issue with Satan also going on.

I have only glanced at this particular bible and will probably read it as a one-year bible in a couple years. I did notice that they put the book of Job in the proper place - before Moses's time. Since Moses was the author of the book of Job, these things had to have occurred before his time. In the one-year chronological bible I will start tomorrow the book of Job is about 3/4th through the book. Maybe they will give an explanation on that.

[onanothernote]

I did glance at the Reese Chronological Bible and decided against it because of the same point that Martin brings up about the literal 24 hour days, and I didn't get enough of the additional historical aspects from an archaeological/historian stand point.  Historians from that time recorded history as it happened and preserved artifacts.  I know historians were corrupted by political powers, though some were not and did record history and battles as they happen sitting on hills above the battles.  Having enjoyed history enough in college to briefly switch my majors to history, I respect this knowledge and their jobs.  Archaeologist do the same.  The Reese Chronological Bible just didn't have enough, while the other point of the literal 24 hour period was too much of a conservative minded interpretations conforming to man's view point and not one of God's.  God never stated his time frame and to assume that God's time frame is to conform to man's suggests that God is of man's standards.  We all know the definition of assuming, especially if applied to such a greater power would only expand the effects exponentially. 

[mwvickers]

I did glance at the Reese Chronological Bible and decided against it because of the same point that Martin brings up about the literal 24 hour days, and I didn't get enough of the additional historical aspects from an archaeological/historian stand point.  Historians from that time recorded history as it happened and preserved artifacts.  I know historians were corrupted by political powers, though some were not and did record history and battles as they happen sitting on hills above the battles.  Having enjoyed history enough in college to briefly switch my majors to history, I respect this knowledge and their jobs.  Archaeologist do the same.

You may be interested in the NIV Archaeological Study Bible.   

The Reese Chronological Bible just didn't have enough, while the other point of the literal 24 hour period was too much of a conservative minded interpretations conforming to man's view point and not one of God's.  God never stated his time frame and to assume that God's time frame is to conform to man's suggests that God is of man's standards.  We all know the definition of assuming, especially if applied to such a greater power would only expand the effects exponentially. 

Well, I have no particular issue with someone thinking that the days were literal, 24-hour days. I think good arguments can potentially be made for that.  It isn't an issue of man's view or anything, I don't think.  The issue is with what the text says.  We can't eisegete the text (read into it our views), but we need to exegete it (read the actual views out of it).   

For example, the Hebrew word "yom" (day) can mean (1) the daylight hours, (2) a 24-hour day, or (3) an indefinite/undefined period of time.  But, in Genesis 1, it often says, "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."  So, it takes the vague "yom," and couples it with an apparent description of what makes up this day (morning and evening) and a number (first).  This does, indeed, appear to be defining a literal, 24-hour day.  But, as you can see, I've tried to explain how this could be the case, rather than merely assuming it, so to speak.  There are other reasons to think it could have been literal. 

At the same time, there are reasons to think it may not have been. 

My main issue was that the Bible just assumed it without explaining it in any way.  Granted, it's not a true "study Bible," I don't think, by the normal definitions, so there isn't really room to explain it all.  But not everyone may be aware of the issues. 

[onanothernote]

My question is to assume that God's day is limited to that of an Earth day, not to one of his own timing.  Given the concept of modern time is as young as it is and so dependent upon the rest of the Universe; I'm not quite sure of the consistence of time over the past billion years of the Earth development.  There seems to quite a lot that is assumed such as when Lucifer fell from grace and the timing of God's creation of Earth is one of those things.  These things we shall only know when man is ready to accept the knowledge from God, moreover ready to grasp that knowledge fully.  I believe we will have those answers when God feels that we are capable of handling the full truth.  I always say, "The truth, being what it is and not what you want it to be, hurts!! As it is the truth and can be nothing else."  Man is not always able to cope with what tree of knowledge has to yield and can only be allowed to posses that knowledge when he is able to fully handle it.  That is why the tree of knowledge is restricted.

Anyway, this is my way of not always being able to find an answer to all questions in life.  When the time is right, I will know.

[mwvickers]

My question is to assume that God's day is limited to that of an Earth day, not to one of his own timing.  Given the concept of modern time is as young as it is and so dependent upon the rest of the Universe; I'm not quite sure of the consistence of time over the past billion years of the Earth development.  There seems to quite a lot that is assumed such as when Lucifer fell from grace and the timing of God's creation of Earth is one of those things.  These things we shall only know when man is ready to accept the knowledge from God, moreover ready to grasp that knowledge fully.  I believe we will have those answers when God feels that we are capable of handling the full truth.  I always say, "The truth, being what it is and not what you want it to be, hurts!! As it is the truth and can be nothing else."  Man is not always able to cope with what tree of knowledge has to yield and can only be allowed to posses that knowledge when he is able to fully handle it.  That is why the tree of knowledge is restricted.

Anyway, this is my way of not always being able to find an answer to all questions in life.  When the time is right, I will know.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to assume anything.  I, for one, think that can often lead to problems.

It may be that a day to God is not the same as a day to us.  We would need evidence of that.  It is also a question of whose viewpoint is being used in the description of the creation.  Yes, God inspired Moses to write the account, but did God reveal it from His standpoint, or from what would be a human standpoint?  These are tough (and good) questions.

You mentioned man's view versus God's revealed view.  It may be, however, that the view that the days were literal 24-hour days and that the earth (and the universe) is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old is indeed God's truth.  As a matter of fact, if we are thinking of what would be man's view put in place of God's, the idea that the days were literal is far less "human," as it seems to go against science in some cases.  In other words, science (man's view) would lead us away from a literal, 24-hour creation and a young earth, not toward it. 

That may be something to consider as well.

I hope you don't feel like I'm arguing.  I'm just discussing, as I love thinking through things like this.

Martin

[onanothernote]

Marin I do understand that you are discussing not arguing, as I am as well.  I appreciate a good debate anytime.  A good debate leads to the revealing of much information and understanding. 

Yes in the fact that science could lead to a literal 24 hour view because that is what science has developed time to be, but contradictions in science also dates much of the Earth at billions of years old.  There is a great deal of contradictions between science and the Bible in time frame, thus the distinction between how long were God's days.  How long did it take for God to determine for God to see that "...it was good..."?  Yes on the first day God created the Earth, but for how long did God wait to determine that it was good.  This is where it is possible for the lapse in time to have been in billions of years, thus giving us the different times in the Earth's history per science and accounting for dinosaurs and their extinction and all of that.  Those dinosaurs just didn't pop up from no where.  Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I know that when I make a decision, I must wait to see that it is good or bad.  How long did God wait to determine if his creations were good, even if his days were, what we came to determine through science, 24 hours long?

My Bibles didn't come in the mail yet.  I'm praying for tomorrow, so I'll be using the guides that Rasputina found.  Thanks again for that!!!  This discussion is on target for that Bible study.

[mwvickers]

Marin I do understand that you are discussing not arguing, as I am as well.  I appreciate a good debate anytime.  A good debate leads to the revealing of much information and understanding. 

I agree wholeheartedly.   

Yes in the fact that science could lead to a literal 24 hour view because that is what science has developed time to be, but contradictions in science also dates much of the Earth at billions of years old.  There is a great deal of contradictions between science and the Bible in time frame, thus the distinction between how long were God's days.  How long did it take for God to determine for God to see that "...it was good..."?  Yes on the first day God created the Earth, but for how long did God wait to determine that it was good.  This is where it is possible for the lapse in time to have been in billions of years, thus giving us the different times in the Earth's history per science and accounting for dinosaurs and their extinction and all of that.  Those dinosaurs just didn't pop up from no where.  Of course this is all speculation on my part.  I know that when I make a decision, I must wait to see that it is good or bad.  How long did God wait to determine if his creations were good, even if his days were, what we came to determine through science, 24 hours long?

Again, interesting points.  One would also have to throw in the question of whether things were created instantly, or whether there is the possibility of some kind of evolution (since most accept microevolution, we would be thinking in terms of macroevolution here).  In other words, is science right, and all things evolved from some common ancestor, or were things created instantly, including humans, as Genesis seems to say?  This is a fascinating and multifaceted issue, and I'm still becoming more familiar with many of the views. 

My Bibles didn't come in the mail yet.  I'm praying for tomorrow, so I'll be using the guides that Rasputina found.  Thanks again for that!!!  This discussion is on target for that Bible study.

I hope they come soon.

[onanothernote]

http://www.amazon. com/gp/product/ B001AMLI1W/ ?tag=booksonthek nob-20> ,


Free Book Grab It While You Can

[onanothernote]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001AMLI1W/?tag=booksontheknob-20> ,

Ooppss

[osnova]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001AMLI1W/?tag=booksontheknob-20> ,

Thank you!  I think we should start a special thread for free or extra cheap (under $3) Christian books.  There is a general thread like that but a special Christian thread would be better.

[onanothernote]

Given that man was the last of God's creations, God took his time in perfecting things thus waiting to see that things were good before moving to the next of his creations.  That, in a way, is evolution, just not Darwin's.  God did see that the thumb was a great creation from his creation of the whole monkey (sapien) species.  He did create them first as animals of the land. I believe that he took the best attributes of all of his creations and gave them to man and then to his ultimate creation, WOMAN (a feminist at heart).  That is our link to the rest of God's creations, which explains our genetic links and the links of all others.  With each creation of God's the next was even greater until woman.  At least I like to think of that way, which is why we are the givers of life and nurturers of all of the human race.  

Where does it say that those days are consecutive, as in one week, without a lapse in between for determining that things are good?  This is what I have questions about.  How much time elapsed in determining that things were good?  Who are we to impose our Earthly limitations upon God?  God made the limitations for man to rest on the seventh day or put the creation of Earth in terms that man could understand at the time when he revealed it to Moses for rendering in the word.

I have much to learn as my questions and probing have gone unanswered for so long.  I have been told not to question nor to even suggest such things, such was against God.  I do hope to learn and probe much into the Bible. Please don't take anything I ask and say in a mean spirit, but of an inquiry spirit.  I often play devil's advocate so I can get a full view of all sides just so nothing is left unexposed or pondered, even if I don't agree with it I will still ask and represent that side to gain full understanding.  I learned how to do this when I was doing policy debate and as a forensicator in college and high school.  I learned that all things have two sides of the story and must be understood.  Tolerance is best left for mother-in-laws, not other cultures or peoples for which understanding is best which requires full learning.

[Suzanne]

Acts 17:10-11 (English Standard Version)

Paul and Silas in Berea
 10The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

I think we are remiss if we just accept things at face value. The Bereans set a fine example for us in examining things before they accepted them.

[onanothernote]

Thanks Suzanne.  This is what I knew in my heart of hearts, but having been raised where people purposely kept slaves and women from learning how read because they would then know the Ten Commandments didn't say to obey they master and husbands and where people tell you that the Old Testament really is there to have you pick and choose what to obey because the New Testament is there to rewrite all of those old laws that we no longer have to obey.  Then I couldn't get any further justification than Jesus died for our sins, so we no longer have to regard the Old Testament in that way.  I still feel that the Old Testament holds vital keys to our Christian lives and truths, but no one around here could explain any of that.  They considered my questions unchristian and questioning God, not their interpretations because they pick and choose what they want to obey.  They would say "Wives obey they husbands" because the Old Testament says so, but they didn't read the rest about what a marriage is to be like and what a husband's duties are to be, so a wife can obey her husband, just that the husband gives the orders and the wife obeys regardless of the orders.  Talk about blind following.  These are the same people that obey what their pastor's say because their pastor's say it.  We have a local pastor that told his congregation not to by Cabbage Patch dolls because the adoptive names were Indian and an attempt to smuggle Hinduism into our homes by a corrupt company.  The congregation believed him.  They started boycotting the company and telling loads of locals this.  This is just like when bar codes came out and my church pastor told us that P&G was trying to get the mark of the beast into our home and my grandmother was looking for triple sixes in all of the labels.  Shopping trips with her took forever.  Denomination of churches don't matter when it comes to misinformation like this down here.  It runs rampant through churches in these parts.  So does pastors that own churches without official church affiliation.  Anyone can be a minister without having attended seminary school or any school for that fact, then spread the "word".  This bothers me greatly as I've seen what all it leads to and then when people ask questions about the source of their information in the Bible, they call you questioning God's word not their source.