Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you both for contributing and I sure do understand the concern. Much was discussed and much to think about. Maybe this discussion has reached its logical conclusion and we just move on. Now we can tackle another of my great questions: Why do we call a building a "building," after it's already been built?Thank you kindly, but I found no offense. I simply no longer wish to participate in a thread in which I see the potential for others to question their faith.
You dont need to point out the obvious Major. its the principal of God seeing time differently to man. If we talk aboht what God did in the past the point is HE did it. And it doenst matter if it took a long time or a short time. It was a short time to him, and seems like a looong time to us.If I had a dollar for each time I heard someone use this phrase to add thousands of years to the biblical, six-day Creation I could have retired a long time ago.
First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle Peter actually wrote in 2 Peter 3:8.....
“Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is AS a thousand years, and a thousand years AS one day” .
Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.
Bible understanding is Always determined by the CONTEXT.
T
he context of 2 Peter 3? In this passage, Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9).
Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day”.
I think people call a building a building if they dont actually know what type of building it is. Also it could be unfinished and they not sure what its going to be used or, or nobodys inhabiting it.Thank you both for contributing and I sure do understand the concern. Much was discussed and much to think about. Maybe this discussion has reached its logical conclusion and we just move on. Now we can tackle another of my great questions: Why do we call a building a "building," after it's already been built?
One last comment:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." Proverbs 3: 5 - 6 (NIV).
Blessings to all
rtm3039
You dont need to point out the obvious Major. its the principal of God seeing time differently to man. If we talk aboht what God did in the past the point is HE did it. And it doenst matter if it took a long time or a short time. It was a short time to him, and seems like a looong time to us.
Thank you kindly, but I found no offense. I simply no longer wish to participate in a thread in which I see the potential for others to question their faith.
Greetings Lanolin,I think people call a building a building if they dont actually know what type of building it is. Also it could be unfinished and they not sure what its going to be used or, or nobodys inhabiting it.
I personally like to be specific in my langauge and call a spade a spade not a tool thingy.
What may be considered meat is anything that requires more than a simple reading to come to a useful understanding.This discussion makes me wonder, and I google a bit of course
I clicked the thread titled “Milk to Meat” and I really wonder how it came to be mentioning Science, Big Bang, etc.
“Milk to Meat” verses imo* deals verses with what is right and what is wrong. *My personal opinion/ interpretation on that verse.
Study of the Law., Justice or Law deals with what is right and what is wrong.
Thus, makes me wonder to ask: is the study of Law is a Science?
IMO: Law is in search of what is righteous, of what is right and what is wrong, or can be said as well, in search of Truth (truth of what will be the correct judgment on a matter)
Thus, am currently reconciling how it came to be that this thread mentioned Science, Big Bang and evolution.
Science as well seeks the observable "truth". In terms of natural which is more of a “Natural Science”.
Science in its old definitions, not really obsolete but will still help in categorizing topics as well: there is SOFT Science as well as HARD Science.
HARD Science deals with “Natural” ie Nature, while Soft Science deals "INTANGIBLE" with, say repeatable experiment such as ECONOMICS, if you spent 15$ and you sell 12$, it surely (Scientifically or arithmetically proven” one will lose money
My personal opinion: study of "Milk to Meat" is a study of Law, of what is right and wrong, and it is not Science. More so: Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is beyond Science![]()
So basically, you are the guilty party?What may be considered meat is anything that requires more than a simple reading to come to a useful understanding.
I may have turned this thread in the direction of the sciences when I expressed my approach to a possible dilema concerning attending a church where the teaching. regarding sciences is not in line with my views regarding sciences. My approach, by the way is to note that science, while important to me is not as important as salvation.
My original thought was that what is considered meat is different for different Christians, and I was expecting to hear what others considered meat.
When threads start to wander I am often blessed and challenged, and note that this often represent things individuals find important.
Oh ok you mean something with a roof over it.Greetings Lanolin,
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but we here tend to call a building a building, regardless of what it's intended purpose is. Even if we know the purpose, we still call it a building: The Bank of America building, etc. Besides that, my comment was more along the lines of a joke. Kind of like why do they say a man is "getting dressed," when he really is not putting on a "dress."
rtm3039
Might be an Englisism. You now, take a left after that building. I live in the third building on the right. Etc.Oh ok you mean something with a roof over it.
I would just call it the bank of america. Save on words.
I never say to people I'll meet you at the church building or the library building or the school building. I would just say meet you at the church, or the library, or the school. Must be one of those americanisms.
I dont really think of science as more meat and faith as milk. Not sure how the topic went to that?!
I think im the opposite and take amore holistic view rather than a reductionist view the scientist would take. Id read the whole chapter this verse is in to understand it better and put in context, rather than squirrel down on each word, syllable and letter.All milk consists of meat that has been selected and stripped of information that however important in other cases, is extraneous to the matter being expounded upon by the Spirit.
Consider the verse with which I started this thread as a prime example of milk:
John 3:16 (NASB)
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Do you not think that this drink of nourishing milk is composed of meatier things?
In order to truly understand this one my consider God’s existence, that He is a person, who His Son is, what whosoever means here, what believes means here who is referred to by Him the meaning of shall (as opposed to may or might), what kind of perish is being talked about, the meaning of eternal, and what is the nature of that life.
Along the way, one may digress into studying the Law, considering sin, and what redemption means,
This milk is comprised of a lot of meat.
For myself, I have always found the ways that God’s creation, which is the subject of the sciences, reveals Him inspires me with awe and reverence. There is a lot of meat there to digest, along with some of gristle (hard to chew, not yielding nourishment commensurate with the effort). I expect that much of this is awaiting my maturity.
Of course! Reading surrounding material helps immeasurably in understanding.I think im the opposite and take amore holistic view rather than a reductionist view the scientist would take. Id read the whole chapter this verse is in to understand it better and put in context, rather than squirrel down on each word, syllable and letter.
John 3:16 is milk for me. Its a verse we most give children to memorise. Its like the gospel in a nutshell.But then read the surrounding verses. Theres a bit more to it.