deepundergroundpoetry.com
Putting Away Childish Things
The Resurrection of Christ is recorded in Luke 24.5,15,31-43.
His Ascension is described in that same chapter(Lk 24.50-53),
Creating the false impression that the Ascension
Followed immediately after the Resurrection,
With no more than a day or two
Separating the Resurrection and the Ascension.
But in The Acts of the Apostles,chapter 1,verses 3-9,
The Ascension comes "40 days" after the Resurrection.
Why does God allow a FALSE short first version (Luke 24.50-53)
To be followed by the accurate longer second version?
Answer: To give us an example of one passage
being rightfully superceded by another passage.
This Luke 24/Acts 1 discrepancy serves as instruction:
When we're faced with two differing accounts of a time period,
We should discount the first account(presenting a short period)
In favor of the second account(descriptive of a long period).
What practical value is this instruction to us?
Well,Moses says,in Genesis, the universe was created in six days.
(That's obviously the short version of Creation, Gen. 1.31)
But Hebrews 11.3 corrects that by revealing
That it took "eons" and "eons" of time.
While the English(King James Version, etc)for Hebrews 11.3 says,
"By faith we understand that the worlds
Were framed by the Word of God",
In the original Greek it reads,
"By faith we understand that the 'aionos'
Were framed by the Word of God."
"Aionos" is where we get the word "eon".
It is a time word as opposed to a spatial word like "worlds."
In short, What Moses called "days,"
Paul, more accurately, calls eons("aionos").
Which account of Creation should we go with:
The short version in Genesis One, or
The long version in Hebrews 11.3?
It really matters! For if we go with Genesis,
We risk alienating millions of youngsters and adults:
Those who are knowledgeable about the Big Bang Theory,
Driving them away from the Gospel -
The very souls we want to evangelize!
Their salvation should be our top priority.
Which should we put first:
(a)Saving souls, or
(b)slavishly defending "the Law of Moses"?
(I speak of Genesis One as part of "the Law",
For "The Law of Moses" refers to the five books
Written by Moses,of which Genesis is the first.)
Again, which account should we go with?
The lesson taught by the Luke 24/Acts 1 discrepancy
gives us the answer:
That precedent instructs us to embrace the longer second version.
Anybody with a brain can figure it out.
Thank Heaven for Luke 24's short version!
(Of the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension).
For without it I would have no precedent to go by
When defending Hebrews 11.3 and putting Genesis One aside.
We are justified in putting it aside.
For the Apostle Paul says,
"When I was a child, I thought as a child.
But when I became a man,
I put aside childish things"(1 Corinthians 13.11).
Amen.Amen.Amen.
PS:There's another reason we should prefer
The "Old Earth" view presented by Hebrews 11.3(in Greek)
Over the "Young Earth" view given in Genesis 1.
Genesis is the first of 5 books called "the Law of Moses".
The Apostle Paul repeatedly tells us
That we "are not under the Law [of Moses]"
(Romans 6.14; Galatians 5.18).
This means we are no longer "under"
Genesis One's "six-days" account of Creation!
Furthermore, Paul warns us that
"if any man preaches another gospel,
let him be anathema, ie, accursed"(Gal 1.8-9).
That is clearly what the "Young Earth" cult is doing:
Preaching another gospel,
For they are preaching that we are still "under the Law"
In the form of "Creation Week" in Genesis One!
Still duty-bound to believe it and defend it!
That's totally against what Paul says in Hebrews 11.3,
Namely, that the socalled "days" of Creation Week(Genesis 1)
Were actually eons-long periods of time("aionos" in the Greek).
Go to the public library,look up "worlds" (in Hebrews 11.3)
in the "Strong's Bible Concordance."
Better yet, buy a "Strong's" for yourself.
PPS:(part 1)Hebrews 11.3 really is so important.
In the book of Hebrews Paul says:
(1)the Christian priesthood is superior to the Jewish(Aaronic);
(2)the Christian sacrifice (Christ) is superior to the Jewish animal sacrifices.
(3)The Christian Sabbath is above the Jewish Sabbath(Heb 4).
(4)Finally, by Paul inserting this "aionos" idea into the Christian account of Creation(Heb 11.3),
he is saying there is a Christian version of Creation
superior to the Old Testamental account, the Law's account!!
Part two: Heb 11.3 fits the BBT, the Big Bang theory!!
For the BBT says that,at first, raw energy was all there was.
This was due to the tremendous heat of TRILLIONS of degrees (keeping sub-atomic particles from coming together, bonding)!
It took something like a million years before space cooled off enough for matter to form,
(or was it subatomic particles to form into atoms.
I'll have to research that).
My point is that Heb 11.3 has God creating the eons
"in order that" material things could be created.
The eons of time come first,
then "things that are seen" come afterward.
There's a cause-and-effect relationship.
The Big Bang Theory(BBT) says the same thing.
The trouble is that not a single Bible
translation (KJV,NKJ, NIV, NAS, etc)
gives the LITERAL translation of the Greek word
"aionos" as eons. Like it should.
SO NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE APOSTLE PAUL'S SUPPORT
OF THE BIG BANG THEORY!!!
His Ascension is described in that same chapter(Lk 24.50-53),
Creating the false impression that the Ascension
Followed immediately after the Resurrection,
With no more than a day or two
Separating the Resurrection and the Ascension.
But in The Acts of the Apostles,chapter 1,verses 3-9,
The Ascension comes "40 days" after the Resurrection.
Why does God allow a FALSE short first version (Luke 24.50-53)
To be followed by the accurate longer second version?
Answer: To give us an example of one passage
being rightfully superceded by another passage.
This Luke 24/Acts 1 discrepancy serves as instruction:
When we're faced with two differing accounts of a time period,
We should discount the first account(presenting a short period)
In favor of the second account(descriptive of a long period).
What practical value is this instruction to us?
Well,Moses says,in Genesis, the universe was created in six days.
(That's obviously the short version of Creation, Gen. 1.31)
But Hebrews 11.3 corrects that by revealing
That it took "eons" and "eons" of time.
While the English(King James Version, etc)for Hebrews 11.3 says,
"By faith we understand that the worlds
Were framed by the Word of God",
In the original Greek it reads,
"By faith we understand that the 'aionos'
Were framed by the Word of God."
"Aionos" is where we get the word "eon".
It is a time word as opposed to a spatial word like "worlds."
In short, What Moses called "days,"
Paul, more accurately, calls eons("aionos").
Which account of Creation should we go with:
The short version in Genesis One, or
The long version in Hebrews 11.3?
It really matters! For if we go with Genesis,
We risk alienating millions of youngsters and adults:
Those who are knowledgeable about the Big Bang Theory,
Driving them away from the Gospel -
The very souls we want to evangelize!
Their salvation should be our top priority.
Which should we put first:
(a)Saving souls, or
(b)slavishly defending "the Law of Moses"?
(I speak of Genesis One as part of "the Law",
For "The Law of Moses" refers to the five books
Written by Moses,of which Genesis is the first.)
Again, which account should we go with?
The lesson taught by the Luke 24/Acts 1 discrepancy
gives us the answer:
That precedent instructs us to embrace the longer second version.
Anybody with a brain can figure it out.
Thank Heaven for Luke 24's short version!
(Of the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension).
For without it I would have no precedent to go by
When defending Hebrews 11.3 and putting Genesis One aside.
We are justified in putting it aside.
For the Apostle Paul says,
"When I was a child, I thought as a child.
But when I became a man,
I put aside childish things"(1 Corinthians 13.11).
Amen.Amen.Amen.
PS:There's another reason we should prefer
The "Old Earth" view presented by Hebrews 11.3(in Greek)
Over the "Young Earth" view given in Genesis 1.
Genesis is the first of 5 books called "the Law of Moses".
The Apostle Paul repeatedly tells us
That we "are not under the Law [of Moses]"
(Romans 6.14; Galatians 5.18).
This means we are no longer "under"
Genesis One's "six-days" account of Creation!
Furthermore, Paul warns us that
"if any man preaches another gospel,
let him be anathema, ie, accursed"(Gal 1.8-9).
That is clearly what the "Young Earth" cult is doing:
Preaching another gospel,
For they are preaching that we are still "under the Law"
In the form of "Creation Week" in Genesis One!
Still duty-bound to believe it and defend it!
That's totally against what Paul says in Hebrews 11.3,
Namely, that the socalled "days" of Creation Week(Genesis 1)
Were actually eons-long periods of time("aionos" in the Greek).
Go to the public library,look up "worlds" (in Hebrews 11.3)
in the "Strong's Bible Concordance."
Better yet, buy a "Strong's" for yourself.
PPS:(part 1)Hebrews 11.3 really is so important.
In the book of Hebrews Paul says:
(1)the Christian priesthood is superior to the Jewish(Aaronic);
(2)the Christian sacrifice (Christ) is superior to the Jewish animal sacrifices.
(3)The Christian Sabbath is above the Jewish Sabbath(Heb 4).
(4)Finally, by Paul inserting this "aionos" idea into the Christian account of Creation(Heb 11.3),
he is saying there is a Christian version of Creation
superior to the Old Testamental account, the Law's account!!
Part two: Heb 11.3 fits the BBT, the Big Bang theory!!
For the BBT says that,at first, raw energy was all there was.
This was due to the tremendous heat of TRILLIONS of degrees (keeping sub-atomic particles from coming together, bonding)!
It took something like a million years before space cooled off enough for matter to form,
(or was it subatomic particles to form into atoms.
I'll have to research that).
My point is that Heb 11.3 has God creating the eons
"in order that" material things could be created.
The eons of time come first,
then "things that are seen" come afterward.
There's a cause-and-effect relationship.
The Big Bang Theory(BBT) says the same thing.
The trouble is that not a single Bible
translation (KJV,NKJ, NIV, NAS, etc)
gives the LITERAL translation of the Greek word
"aionos" as eons. Like it should.
SO NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE APOSTLE PAUL'S SUPPORT
OF THE BIG BANG THEORY!!!
Published 29th Mar 2014
| Edited 20th Jul 2014
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 1
reading list entries 0
comments 2
reads 920
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
I have had no problem understanding the differing portrayals of the timing between resurrection and ascension; the books (the four Gospels and Acts) were written by different writers, writing for sometimes different audiences (eg Hebrews, Gentiles, Greeks) in differing detail.
As to the differing creation accounts, Genesis was written by Hebrews of earlier generations to those who wrote the Book of Hebrews in the NT era. (There would have been no Greek-speakers writing or reading the Genesis account when it was first written.)
As to the differing creation accounts, Genesis was written by Hebrews of earlier generations to those who wrote the Book of Hebrews in the NT era. (There would have been no Greek-speakers writing or reading the Genesis account when it was first written.)
31st Mar 2014 8:57pm
The only reason i bother bringing up the Greek for Heb 11.3 is because the darn Bible translators messed up by siding with the blankedy blankedy "Young-Earth-Creationism" cultists, thus keeping the "Origins controversy" going. When they could have gone a long way to ENDing that controversy. By bringing out what Apostle Paul really meant to say. Paul used a TIME word because he meant a time word. "Aionos" is a time word for eons.Instead those monsters buried his meaning by translating "aionos" as "worlds" (or "the universe" in other translations, which is equally stupid, asinine).
