796

no not victims and children and such. I meant something totally different but I will have to think about it before I type it out.

Sorry..just ignore me

798

kona, I would never ignore you even though I do not always comment or say hello, it is not based upon anything on your part, but something lacking in myself...

really really...

your a good person and man in my opinion even if others and you yourself do not always seem to notice.

kona0197 blushes!

BACK to topic!

BTW I just read some of the threads I started and came to the conclusion that I AM a pain in the arse.

Thanks for understanding IP. Still thinking about how to word my response to my last post.

^^^^^^^  

hmmmmmmm....

THAT makes even me question my faith. I have always believed in a trinity. be that as it may, I still believe in God and Jesus and am a Christian. As for evolution, I think I can see creation and evolution happening together. After all, our life is but a wink of God's eye so who is to say that a day to God is a million years to us.

Some other scriptures that may be of interest to you are:

Philippians 2:5, 6 says: "5. Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6. who,

although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he

should be equal to God." King James reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ

Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the

same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter

portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no

consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS,

NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)

Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter

here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be

equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a

seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation

also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.

I believe God lests bad things happen to people because they bring the bad things upon themselves by sin ect; This is a side effect of man's freewill.

The question "Would a loving God allow this?" was relating to the belief that God has an

appointed time for someone to die, which is against the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:11 says: "11. I

returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle,

nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do

those even knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurance befalls them all."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, if any.

again, having a relationship w/ God is spiritual and no human being will ever be able to put it into perfect words so don't expect a Bible, Pastor, or a Church to lead you directly to God's doorstep it's a journey your soul & heart lead you to. the other stuff is merely there to "assist" you if you get wrapped up into it you'll lose site of God, you either have faith God created the earth we're floating on in his space or you believe there is no God and nothing. we have that choice and each one of us will get our answer when our soul leaves our body one way "or" the other.

Actually, the Bible is the thing to give you that relationship with God. He's the author of it and

did not simply write it for nothing. James 4:8 (first part) says: "Draw close to God, and he will

draw close to you." To draw close to God, we have to get to know him, and what better way than

with the Bible, his word.

Worship a cross??? You've got you facts mixed, r3fr.

“MY MOTHER gave it to me.” “It’s manly.” “I wear it as an ornament.” “I’d feel uncomfortable

without it.” “It protects me from evil.” “It’s just something to hang on the chain.”

Thus replied several people who were asked why they wore a cross. Though obviously not all do

so out of religious devotion, wearing a cross is quite in vogue in some parts of the world. Even

Soviet youths have been seen wearing one. Many attach deep religious significance to the cross,

for, as one youth simply said, “It’s sacred.”

But is it really proper for a Christian to wear a cross? Does it accurately portray the way Christ

died? And are there valid objections even to wearing it as an ornament? To see, let us first take a

look at the origin of the cross.

A Christian Symbol?

You may assume that Christians were the first to use the cross. The Encyclopedia Americana,

however, speaks of “its ancient usage by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by

the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.” Similarly, Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition)

says that the cross “was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long

before the Christian era.”

Indeed, there is no evidence that early Christians used the cross in their worship. During the

early days of Christianity, it was the pagan Romans who used the cross! Says The Companion

Bible: “These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god . . . and are first seen on

a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar’s heir (Augustus),

20 B.C.” The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a

number of crosses.

How, then, did the cross become the symbol of Christendom?

Constantine and the Cross

In 312 C.E., Constantine, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war

against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision—a cross on

which were the words “Hoc vince,” meaning, “By this conquer.” After his victory, Constantine

made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the

Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

But did such a vision actually take place? Accounts of this legend are, at best, secondhand and

full of discrepancies. Frankly, it would be difficult to find a more unlikely candidate for a divine

revelation than Constantine. At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god

worshiper. Constantine even dedicated Sunday as the day for sun worship. His conduct after his

so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Murder,

intrigue, and political ambition ruled his life. It seems that for Constantine, Christianity was little

more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine “saw” really represented the

instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had

minted are X-shaped crosses with a “P” superimposed. An Expository Dictionary of New

Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had

seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word

‘Christ’ [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with ‘the Cross,’” that is, as an instrument

of execution. In fact, this style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

Why, then, was the cross so easily accepted by “Christians”? Vine’s Dictionary continues: “By the

middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain

doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical

system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were

permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent

form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

The Evolution of the Cross

Was it love for Christ that caused the cross, at this late time, to become such an object of

veneration? The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: “With the 4th cent[ury] magical

belief began to take a firmer hold within the Church.” As with a magic charm, simply making the

sign of the cross was thought to be “the surest defence against demons, and the remedy for all

diseases.” Superstitious use of the cross continues to this day.

Over the years, some 400 different styles of crosses developed. At first, Christ himself was not

portrayed. Rather, a youth holding a jeweled cross would be depicted. Later, a lamb was

included. In 691 C.E., the council in Trullo made “official” a cross showing the bust of a young

man, instead of a lamb, over the cross. In time this developed into the crucifix—a cross with a

representation of the body of Christ.

Did Christ Die on a Cross?

‘But does not the Bible teach that Christ actually died on a cross?’ one may ask. To answer this,

we must look into the meanings of the two Greek words that the Bible writers used to describe the

instrument of Christ’s death: stau·ros´ and xy´lon.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”:

“Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground.

. . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around

settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law

were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly

dishonored).”

True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in

translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stau·ros´. Because the

Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was

necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even

amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally

an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”

The book The Non-Christian Cross adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous

writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence

to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or

stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed

together in the form of a cross.” Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stau·ros´)

known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic

scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century.

What of the other Greek word, xy´lon? It was used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the

Bible at Ezra 6:11. In the New World Translation this reads: “And by me an order has been put

through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and

he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.”

Clearly, a single beam, or “timber,” was involved here.

Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) therefore translate

Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew,

hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International

Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how

your Bible translates xy´lon at: Acts 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24.

Walking by Faith, Not by Sight

Even after considering such evidence that Christ really died on a stake, some may still see

nothing wrong with wearing a cross. ‘It’s just an ornament,’ they may say.

Bear in mind, though, how the cross has been used down through history—as an object of pagan

worship and of superstitious awe. Could wearing a cross, even as just an ornament, be

harmonized with the admonition of the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:14: “Therefore, my

beloved ones, flee from idolatry”?

What about true Christians today? They, too, should be conscious of the need to ‘guard

themselves from idols,’ as the Bible counsels. (1 John 5:21) So they do not find the cross to be an

appropriate ornament. They recall Paul’s statement: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a

stake,” and therefore prefer to think of Christ as a glorious enthroned King!—Galatians 3:13;

Revelation 6:2.

Though such Christians do not wear crosses, they deeply appreciate the fact that Christ died for

them. They know that Christ’s sacrifice is a marvelous demonstration of “God’s power” and

eternal love. (1 Corinthians 1:18; John 3:16) But they need no material object like a cross to help

them worship this God of love. For, as Paul exhorted, they “are walking by faith, not by

sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.

People wear crosses around their necks, on hats, shirts, have them on their cars, churches have

them, on their steples, doors, behind the pastor, stain-glass windows, on their Bibles (not true for

all religions). List goes on. Can you say that the cross is not part of peoples worship?

Look at the history of some Popes and tell me if their actions are in harmony with the Bibles laws.

"one God... " ...three entities

God begin three entities make him (or them) unapproachable. How can you draw close to an unapproachable being(s)? The holy spirit isn't even a being, its referred to in the Bible various times as an 'it'. Luke 3:22 says: "and the holy spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: 'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.' " This is when Jesus was baptized. Notice God, Jesus, adn the holy spirit are in this scripture. The holy spirit is in the shape of a dove. God, is speaking from heaven, and Jesus is in the water. Does it make sense that they're all the same, and Gods approving of Jesus... why approve of himself? John 14:26 calls the holy spirit "that one." Not 'he' or 'she'. Acts 11:16 says of baptism of holy spirit. Can someone be baptized into someone?
To baptize means to immerse, to dip, to submerge. A person can baptize others with water, dipping them into it, as John did, and a person can baptize others with fire by immersing them in flames or causing their destruction; but how can one person baptize others with another person? Since neither water nor fire is personal, is it not reasonable to conclude that the holy spirit is also not a person? Besides, Peter stated that God poured out ‘some of his spirit’ upon all kinds of flesh. Can we imagine some of a person being poured out on thousands of other persons, as was the case at Pentecost after Peter had preached to the Jews?—Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:17, 38, 41, NW.

That the holy spirit is without personality is also indicated by the fact that it has no distinctive name. God, the Creator, has many distinctive appellations. His name is Jehovah, and he only is “The God,” or “The [true] God,” he only is the “Most High” and the “Almighty.” He is thus distinctly distinguished from other gods or mighty ones. Likewise with his Son, Jesus Christ. There is only one by that name, only one “only-begotten Son,” only one “First-born,” only one Logos or “Word.”

But not so with the holy spirit. Jehovah, Christ and the faithful angels are all holy spirits. Is the holy spirit “The holy spirit”? If so, in what way does he excel Jehovah and Christ either as respects being a spirit or being holy? And more than a hundred times the holy spirit is referred to as “the spirit of Jehovah,” “God’s spirit,” “my spirit” and “spirit of Jesus Christ.” All such possessive uses of the holy spirit further argue that it is an instrumentality rather than a separate and distinct person.—Judg. 3:10; Matt. 3:16; Acts 2:18; Phil. 1:19, NW.

And note still another point, that of location. The Bible tells us that God dwells in heaven, that he holds court there. Also that Jesus in his prehuman existence was rejoicing in his Father’s presence, that he came to earth to perform special missions, especially at the time he came as a man, and that he has now returned to heaven. Where was or where is the holy spirit now if it is a person? Did “he” come down upon Jesus at Jordan and then remain, or return and then come again at Pentecost? Is “he” now in heaven with God and Christ, or is “he” scattered throughout the earth wherever Christ’s followers are to be found?

The fact is that the truth about the holy spirit has been beclouded by the prejudices of Bible translators. Their use of capital letters cannot be used to prove the holy spirit is a person. Why not? Because at the time the Scriptures were written proper and common nouns were not thus distinguished from each other. The same is true regarding their adding the definite article the before holy spirit in some hundred instances where the Bible writers had not done so. To omit the definite article seemed disrespectful to such Bible translators but not to the Bible writers. Thus Paul wrote that God’s kingdom meant “peace and joy with holy spirit,” not “with the holy spirit.” And Peter wrote that God’s servants spoke, being “borne along by holy spirit,” not “by the holy spirit.”—Rom. 14:17; 2 Pet. 1:21, NW.

Colossians 1:15 says about Jesus: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Firstborn of all creation. Creation needs a creator. 1 Corithians 8:4 (last part) "there is no God but one." Not, 'there is no God, but three-in-one." Daniel, Stephen and John in visions saw representations of the Father and the Son, but never one of the holy spirit. Why not, if the holy spirit is equal to the Father and the Son in glory, power, etc.? The creed may state that unless we believe that the holy spirit is equal to God we shall perish, but Jesus, in giving us the rule for life, does not even mention the holy spirit: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3, NW.

Btw, I have no problem with God and Evolution co-existing. Grayhaze, I can sympathize with you when you say that many 'christians' will 'regurgitate' bible verses when you question their faith.

Even with the book of Genesis saying differently?

Not regurgitating. Merely showing you evidence. Backing up my claims.

I think if they have to interpret a translation from Hebrew to English to get the feeling of the text then there is room for error or someone else's interpretation to be more accurate.



I'm leaving the suffering children issue alone.


There have been decisions (sometimes heated) over the sentence "Thou Shall Not Kill".

Taken literally could mean any believer could not participate in any Wars, death sentences or even in the worst case scenario defend themselves with lethal force. (Or for that matter use a sufficient amount of force above the force being used by the other perpetrator that would lead to the perpetrators death)



Then someone said, "I think the real translation is 'Thou Shall Not Murder'".



This is why I strongly believe at this point in my life that belief and faith is something that is always in flux and in constant learning. There is no specific right answer, but it is a guide to getting closer to God.

I tend to and want to be open with my beliefs otherwise I will be doomed to stagnation of my spirituality.

----------------

Creation Vs. Evolution??? Like saying Tomato or TomAto (toe-MOT-toe). One bigats the other in an endless chicken before/after egg cycle.

BTW, I have no problem with God and Evolution co-existing.Grayhaze, I can sympathize with you when you say that many 'Christians' will 'regurgitate' bible verses when you question their faith.Even with the book of Genesis saying differently? Not regurgitating. Merely showing you evidence. Backing up my claims.

Well, yes.

I can believe in one thing but I know I am limited in my understanding of these matters. I personally did not translate the Book, I myself read it and even then can see how it can be interpreted as evolution.

Eve coming from Adam... created or is it that Adam held both male and female attributes? Males are x/y and females are x/x (or y/y I forget)

could it be the creation can be considered and evolving?

Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today.

I can conceive of a possibility that as a group (Christianity et al) can have misinterpreted the readings. (Notice I didn't say the Bible was wrong but the readers interpretation of it)


It is quite possible that evolution is part of the plan. I could be wrong but I could be right.


I feel that the Universe is far more complex than what we can conceive at this moment in time. The Bible is not a simple book. Everything is stuffed in their and I do not think it is to be taken lightly or that even a simple phrase is 'simple'.


This is not childs play and I would reject (yes, without giving it the time of day) that anyone here has an simple answer.

*Methinks Grayhaze has opened a giant can 'o' worms.... which icidentally are what will eat us when we die.* Personally, I believe we evolved from space dust. The basic elements to everything in the universe are also within us.
I dont wanna be buried or burned when I go... just leave me to become what I was, and to return to the cosmos, blown on the wind.

call it (w)reckless thinking!

Yes, I recall someone saying that we are made of stars.

It would make sense to me, since we are in this universe, that we would have the basic elements in the universe within us.

So did we evolve to this state by design or by chance? Or by having evolved are new creations and therefor have been created?

This debate is driving me smurfing mad!

Or could it be the chance was by design?

Does anyone here know about the properties of atoms? Is it possible that those atoms could have a signiture that would eventually bring forth a life form by design? Like DNA controls what type of animal you are? How tall you grow to?

hmmmmm....

'You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.'

I seem to remember it as,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"

Even you stated that when things are translated, you lose some of the original meaning. I think this is the problem here...When the Bible (or any book for that matter) is translated, then updated, (for more modern language) and then updated again, (and perhaps...yet again) things can get quite jumbled up and meanings can get twisted.

People do not 'worship' the cross. It is kept as a reminder of what and who it stands for. (Christ and the crucifixion) It is also a symbol that says ,"I am a christian"

As for Evolution and God, you can interpret the 6 day creation story literally (6 24hr days) or as a day might be to God. (thousands or even millions of years) I am inclined to think that Gods idea of time is not the same as our own.

Sorry if I dont answer all your points, but I do not have as much time to spend on this subject as you do.

I think if they have to interpret a translation from Hebrew to English to get the feeling of the text then there is room for error or someone else's interpretation to be more accurate.

But if there is a God, don't you think he'd make sure the translation was correct?

There have been decisions (sometimes heated) over the sentence "Thou Shall Not Kill". Taken literally could mean any believer could not participate in any Wars, death sentences or even in the worst case scenario defend themselves with lethal force. (Or for that matter use a sufficient amount of force above the force being used by the other perpetrator that would lead to the perpetrators death) Then someone said, "I think the real translation is 'Thou Shall Not Murder'".

Deliberate murder is what it is speaking of, but as for self-defense it's permitted. Ex 22:2, 3

Eve coming from Adam... created or is it that Adam held both male and female attributes? Males are x/y and females are x/x (or y/y I forget) could it be the creation can be considered and evolving? Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today. I can conceive of a possibility that as a group (Christianity et al) can have misinterpreted the readings. (Notice I didn't say the Bible was wrong but the readers interpretation of it) It is quite possible that evolution is part of the plan. I could be wrong but I could be right. I feel that the Universe is far more complex than what we can conceive at this moment in time. The Bible is not a simple book. Everything is stuffed in their and I do not think it is to be taken lightly or that even a simple phrase is 'simple'. This is not childs play and I would reject (yes, without giving it the time of day) that anyone here has an simple answer.

Its unlikely that Adam had both male and female attributes. The Bible always refers to Adam as a 'he.' Also, since there was Eve created after Adam, and God knowing before that Eve would be created, there would be no use for Adam to have both attributes.

Tell me if you got something that says Adam looked like humans of today. That cows in Genesis look like cows of today.

"The creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative 'day' the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33. The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur. In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.” "



"From dust you are and to dust you will return."

I seem to remember it as,"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" Even you stated that when things are translated, you lose some of the original meaning. I think this is the problem here...When the Bible (or any book for that matter) is translated, then updated, (for more modern language) and then updated again, (and perhaps...yet again) things can get quite jumbled up and meanings can get twisted.

It says the same, though. God is happy with what his Son has done.

Well, doing it that way might present a problem, but going to the original scriptures in their original language, you can do a direct translation. Also, God will make sure that his word survives.

People do not 'worship' the cross. It is kept as a reminder of what and who it stands for. (Christ and the crucifixion) It is also a symbol that says ,"I am a christian"

Maybe so, but Jesus is no longer on the 'cross,' suffering. He is now ruling as King in Heaven. Though him dieing for us is something to remember, is his pain and suffering something to remember too? Do you think he enjoyed that? And an image of him dieing, do you think he would like to be reminded of what he went through? Also, the cross being a phallic symbol, do you think Jesus would enjoy being on a phallic symbol, being what it is? One more thing, no one today knows what Jesus looked like, so why are there images of him? I see some images of him showing him as 'white' (peach), but he wasn't 'white' he lived in Jerusalem, the Middle East area, and they tend to be darker in complexion. So this point to the 'Jesus' as not Jesus, but most likely as someone else. Jesus was also a carpenter and probably would have been a bit bigger in build (muscles) than the person on the cross as seen today. Christains don't need symbolys to tell people what they are... their actions, attitude, works, and faith are what tell people who and what they are. God can read the heart and can tell if we're Christain or not, he doesn't look at symbols. Matthew 22:20 says an image is "Any representation or likeness of a person or thing.—Mt 22:20." So, it'd be correct to call the cross an image. Exodus 20:4 says: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth." Psalm 78:58, Isaiah 42:8. John 4:23, 24, JB: “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (Those who rely on images as aids to devotion are not worshiping God “in spirit” but they depend on what they can see with their physical eyes.)

2 Cor. 5:7, NAB: “We walk by faith, not by sight.”

Isa. 40:18, JB: “To whom could you liken God? What image could you contrive of him?”

Acts 17:29, JB: “Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man.”

Isa. 42:8, JB: “My name is Yahweh, I will not yield my glory to another, nor my honour to idols [“graven things,” Dy]

Jer. 10:14, 15, JB: “Every goldsmith blushes for the idol he has made, since his images are nothing but delusion, with no breath in them. They are a Nothing, a laughable production.”

Isa. 44:13-19, JB: “The wood carver takes his measurements, outlines the image with chalk, carves it with chisels, following the outline with dividers. He shapes it to human proportions, and gives it a human face, for it to live in a temple. He cut down a cedar, or else took a cypress or an oak which he selected from the trees in the forest, or maybe he planted a cedar and the rain made it grow. For the common man it is so much fuel; he uses it to warm himself, he also burns it to bake his bread. But this fellow makes a god of it and worships it; he makes an idol of it and bows down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire, on the live embers he roasts meat, eats it and is replete. He warms himself too. ‘Ah!’ says he ‘I am warm; I have a fire here!’ With the rest he makes his god, his idol; he bows down before it and worships it and prays to it. ‘Save me,’ he says ‘because you are my god.’ They know nothing, understand nothing. Their eyes are shut to all seeing, their heart to all reason. They never think, they lack the knowledge and wit to say, ‘I burned half of it on the fire, I baked bread on the live embers, I roasted meat and ate it, and am I to make some abomination of what remains? Am I to bow down before a block of wood?’”

Ezek. 14:6, JB: “The Lord Yahweh says this: Come back, renounce your idols [“dungy idols,” NW] and give up all your filthy practices.”

Ezek. 7:20, JB: “They used to pride themselves on the beauty of their jewellery, out of which they made their loathsome images and idols. That is why I mean to make it an object of horror [“uncleanness,” Dy; “refuse,” NAB] to them.”

True, a 'day' to God can be a thousands of years or millions. "Length of Creative Days. The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself." "Sometimes the word “day” is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions “a day’s journey” and “a sabbath day’s journey.”—Nu 11:31; Ac 1:12; see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

In prophecy a day is at times used to stand for one year. This can be noted at Ezekiel 4:6: “You must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.”—See also Nu 14:34.

Certain specific numbers of days given in connection with prophecies are: three and a half days (Re 11:9); 10 days (Re 2:10); 40 days (Eze 4:6); 390 days (Eze 4:5); 1,260 days (Re 11:3; 12:6); 1,290 days (Da 12:11); 1,335 days (Da 12:12); and 2,300 days (Da 8:14).

The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.

Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894."

Its quite understandable, but I do ask that you and others ponder the points.