PDA

View Full Version : Adam Was Formed Well After the Six Days of Creation



rhamlet
Dec 4th 2007, 01:59 AM
The following study will open the subject of:



Adam Was Formed


Well After the Six Days of Creation





Genesis Chapter 1

…11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day…

…20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

· THEN God created man, male AND female…

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. …And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

· God created man, BOTH male and female, on the same day.



Genesis 2


1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

· At this point in time, God COMPLETED ALL that He said He created.

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

· The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.


(Note: "There was no man that could cultivate the earth". There were only the hunter/gatherers that were created in the beginning, both male and female. In this lies the reason for misunderstanding. Most believe that "No man to cultivate the ground" to mean that there were NO MEN)

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

· The next event is out of sequence with the description of events of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. It indicates that certain trees were not yet in the earth, yet in the first six days of creation, it clearly states that they were created BEFORE man was created. This indicates a confusion of the account of events or a different sequence of events is “Now” being related.

9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

· This is a “planting” and a “caused to grow” and not a “creation”.

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

· Why was man “alone” when God created them male and female on the same day?

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

· Again, this is out of sequence from Genesis 1. In the first six days, God made the animals and then man. This cannot be the first six days or it contradicts the sequence of events. God was very specific about what He did, and the order of it, on specific days.


20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

· How long did the naming of animals take (considering there are many thousands of species) before Eve was fashioned (on the same day)?

21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

· Here is a completely different phenomenon. This is NOT, “27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

· God performed a “fashioning” of a woman from the body of a man. This is not God “speaking” a thing into existence and therefore not consistent with the manner in which God performed in the six days of creation.

As a result of failing to see that the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "spoken into existense" creation, Christians have had to try and defend a 6,000 year old creation because we can estimate the length of time from Adam's lineage to Jesus to present. This is solely because we believe that Adam was created along with those who were created male and female "in the beginning".

dhtraveler
Dec 4th 2007, 02:23 AM
Cookie 1:26 And I made cookies, some large and some small.... and I made them both on the same day.

Cookie 2:?? and I fashioned cookies, with chocochips and raisins, I used cinnamon and sugar..


and I declared, the cookies were good.


dht

rhamlet
Dec 4th 2007, 02:54 AM
Did you make cookies by "speaking" them into existense and the same cookies by taking the dust of the ground? Two specific DIFFERENT cooking processes for the same batch?

Did you make cookies and perform other duties that took weeks or months and then add raisins all IN THE SAME DAY?

Was Adam was alone for a couple hours so God said, it is not good when He MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE AT THE SAME TIME?

Adam was alone after God fashioned him from the dust of the ground. He was alone for the weeks and months that he named all of the animals that were brought before him to see if there was a suitible helper. Adam was lonely and he didn't get that way if Eve was there having been created on the same day.

jeffweeder
Dec 4th 2007, 09:05 AM
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

God created man on the 6th day, and this finished his creative work of all things, and he rested.

GEN 2

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.



The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something.

No, have to disagree, he takes you back to early on the third day. It is supplementry , with added details, otherwise it would be contradictory.The author of Gen is no fool.

GEN 2:4

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.





· The next event is out of sequence with the description of events of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. It indicates that certain trees were not yet in the earth, yet in the first six days of creation, it clearly states that they were created BEFORE man was created. This indicates a confusion of the account of events or a different sequence of events is “Now” being related.

I think the problem is with the way you are understanding it, not that the author of Gen was confused and sloppy and contradicted himself.

Did you know that Gen is composed of 11 documents, its not all one document.

dhtraveler
Dec 4th 2007, 02:49 PM
Thank you Jeffweeder,

You certainly weeded out the misunderstood, and brought clarity and understanding. I guess my attempt at it, was just to flippant.

:lol:

I do agree with yours. But I had such fun writing mine.;)

dht

ServantofTruth
Dec 4th 2007, 02:50 PM
There are so many tough questions posed by the bible and our faith. Why do each of us, me included, like to make one more important than all the others? This topic seems to be an american war ground mainly. Perhaps we would do well to discuss the other 1,000s of topics and return to this afterwards? This has been given far too much time under different headings and in different forums on this site and always leads to one 'christian' abusing another 'christian.' They will know us by the love amoungst ourselves. :pray:

dhtraveler
Dec 4th 2007, 03:00 PM
the issue here is not the lack of love being shown to a brother in Christ, but the lack of love in rightly dividing the word of god , even though we are to love each other as Christians do, we also must Love Gods word and correctly divide it. To not correct a misunderstanding of Gods word to someone who so clearly misunderstands it, is a lack of Love for Gods word. We love our brothers by hoping to bring clearer understanding of its truth.

Now my post was flippant because I was not going to try to explain the truth, thinking the op was already convinced in his mind that he was correct. I was going to just wait until someone else came along to do it. Which I thank Jeffweeder for doing so.

and a good job he did too.
dht:hug:

The Shadow
Dec 4th 2007, 05:33 PM
Chapter one of Genesis basically summarizes what God did on each day. Covering Day one thru Day seven.


Chapter 2 just simply narrows the lense on to one particular day (Day 6). Why?? What was his most important creation during all of this? We were.....mankind.

Since the Bible is basically God's redemptive plan for a sinful man, it is important to detail the account on how we fell from grace. That is what chapter 2 does for us.

rhamlet
Dec 4th 2007, 06:00 PM
I am completely familiar with the accepted understanding of the creation account as it is understood by all who group Adam's "formation" from the dust of the ground and Eve's "fashioning" from Adam's rib as part of the six days of creation.

This "understanding" is responsible for Christians having to defend the scientifically impossible position that the earth is only 6,000 years old because Adam's lineage can be estimated.

This "misunderstanding" cannot account for the obvious scientific evidence and acheological evidence that exist in the fossil record. This is why anyone remotely educated in the sciences must reject the Genesis account (as faithful Christians understand it) based on the EVIDENCE they observe. Faithful Christians for centuries have misunderstood the account. Faithful Christians today defend the faithful Christians of old who had no scientific investigative method of forming their understanding of what and how and when God created everything. The only reason why we do not today believe that the world is not flat nor is the center of the universe is because it has been scientifically observed and proven. Otherwise, the prevailing "misunderstanding" would be what the faithful would defend, believing themselves to be faithful to God's word, while denying the truth of what God Himself has engineered.

Many recorded biblical accounts occurred approximately 3500 years ago. That means that that recent historical account occurred only 2500 years after creation. That means that all the dinosaurs, prehistoric fossils, all of the evidence of mankind and verifyable and very old and VERY LONG archeological evidence ALL lived and died in only 2,500 year period. Maybe that was acceptible to the average Christian in the year 1400, but now it is absolutely dismissed by the average Christian who has any exposure to the scientific evidence. THEREFORE, we must re-examine what we believe and why we believe what we believe to see if WE have misunderstood instead of saying that Galileo was wrong because we "believe what we believe".

For me, I decided to examine it and not dismiss the POSSIBILITY that something was wrong with, not how GOD did things, and not when GOD did things, but how WE may have misunderstood things and deny that POSSIBLITY, and so, never examine it again.

"I think the problem is with the way you are understanding it, not that the author of Gen was confused and sloppy and contradicted himself."

Precisely! God was not confused and sloppy or contradicted Himself. If there are obvious descrepancies which can be itemized, examined and discussed to see if WE have misunderstood what He did PERFECTLY, IN ORDER, AND IN EXACT SEQUENCE, we are a sorry lot if we dismiss the examination of our understanding, thinking that we are faithful to God and that we are questioning HIM instead of OUR understanding.

God's Word will stand up to the closest scrutiny. We are not doing God a service by seeing something that doesn't line up with the most simple understanding of a person's account and asking, "How can these two distinctly different accounts be the same account?" We jump to God's defense, "There are no desrepancies because I cannot have misunderstood and I must be faithful to defend God!"

The Genesis account of creation has absolutely irreconcilable contradictions that God did NOT engineer IF Adam and Eve were made on the same day and in the begining. Therefore, it MUST be something we misunderstood. If Adam and Eve were formed in the creation that took place in the first six days, there are SPECIFIC IRRECONCILABLE CONTRADICTIONS right in the midst of the account. If Adam and Eve were formed 6,000 years ago in a separate, special intention of God, thousands of years AFTER God created man male and female in the beginning, the irreconcilable contradictions disappear and the scientific and archeological evidence completely align to what God actually did.

If there is no possibility to examine and discuss it, then I guess this is a closed issue and Christians will have to live in a world where science and the Word of our God do not perfectly align as God has intended, while attempting to defend the indefensible.

It was the "religionists" who burned scientists at the stake for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe. They were clearly the all-knowing authority at the time. What a sad lot indeed.

Science will only prove out what God has created. To assume that a several thousand year old understanding of scripture with no scientific knowledge at the time would be the final understanding on the subject for all time and that there would be no possible revelation that science could contribute at the cost of that accepted understanding is absurd. Science is not the enemy of God's word. It is an ally. It can be, however, an enemy of the close-minded who cannot bring themselves to consider that there may be something that was not yet observable 2,000 years ago that can shed LIGHT on God's account of how and when, He created all things.

rhamlet
Dec 4th 2007, 06:11 PM
Chapter one of Genesis basically summarizes what God did on each day. Covering Day one thru Day seven.


Chapter 2 just simply narrows the lense on to one particular day (Day 6). Why?? What was his most important creation during all of this? We were.....mankind.

Since the Bible is basically God's redemptive plan for a sinful man, it is important to detail the account on how we fell from grace. That is what chapter 2 does for us.

That is the accepted understanding of the account.

Are you willing to examine to see if there is any reason to question what you believe based on objective (not predetermined) investigation?

It is not an attack on God to question why we believe what we believe. It makes sure that we have personally heard, reasoned and understand what we tell others about God's word. I don't want to believe that the earth is the center of the universe because all of the religious authorities say it is. I want to know the truth. In the 1400's you would have been labled a heritic to question the possibility that maybe what everyone believes may not be accurate.

There are SPECIFIC things to examine and not explain away. Once examined they require thoughtful consideration with the understanding that, "I may not know everything already".

Steve M
Dec 4th 2007, 06:44 PM
So who are these people that were spoken into existence (as opposed to the God-breathed Adam in your theology)?

treeindawind
Dec 4th 2007, 06:46 PM
Hello rhamlet

I do not have time for or intellect to give this a proper debate. Used to be I may have agreed with what you are getting at, but not now. I too learned the facts that science teachs public school kids. Thought it must be true because they said so. But science can not explain a God that can create the universe but I do believe in Our Creator, and the salvation offered through his Son, Jesus. Not only science but many religions fail to grasp this truth. Even some that acknowledge Jesus lived deny his divine nature. Truth is science is just another belief system, one that only offers the hope that our flesh will be recycled by nature when we die. I prefer to believe in God and eternal salvation.

Peace be yours, Stan

macarnett
Dec 4th 2007, 11:05 PM
This is only a problem if you want to make Genesis strictly literal. There are quite a number or such "errors", which are not errors at all, if you understand that it is allegorical.

rhamlet
Dec 4th 2007, 11:55 PM
Hello rhamlet

I do not have time for or intellect to give this a proper debate. Used to be I may have agreed with what you are getting at, but not now. I too learned the facts that science teachs public school kids. Thought it must be true because they said so. But science can not explain a God that can create the universe but I do believe in Our Creator, and the salvation offered through his Son, Jesus. Not only science but many religions fail to grasp this truth. Even some that acknowledge Jesus lived deny his divine nature. Truth is science is just another belief system, one that only offers the hope that our flesh will be recycled by nature when we die. I prefer to believe in God and eternal salvation.

Peace be yours, Stan

Hi Stan,

I know that this is going to sound rude, but I do not mean it to be. If you say, "I do not have the time or intelect to give this a proper debate", then why do you feel it is appropriate to give your opinion? If you don't have the time or knowledge to support what you believe, then you should read what others who are willing to discuss a matter to get to the truth, and not comment. Again, I do not mean to be disrespectful.

I do, however, completely agree that the school system and the "world" in general have turned science into a religion to support an atheistic/evolutionary world view. This does not, however, make objective, unbiased scientific investigation and knowledge void of merit because many use it to promote falsehood.

Science can not be used to prove God's existence or that God created everything. It cannot go beyond what is seen and observable. Since science has never seen anything "created" it cannot support, or deny, the claim that all things were created by God. Unfortunately, science HAS over-stepped the bounds of "evidence" and has devoted itself to "theory" of our origins and thus promote the lie of evolution.

I will say that science has discovered vast numbers of existinct dinosaur bones and human remains that date back to MANY thousands of years before Adam appeared just 6,000 years ago. It should not be scientists, but Christians, who ask, "Why do I believe that the earth is only six thousand years old and could there be something to consider in the scriptures that may be a perfect explaination to the obvious problem of the earths longevity in the Genesis account?" There is an answer and the Lord would have us dig in to see what He has done.

So many are afraid that to investigate a seeming contradiction or evidence to the contrary of what they believe the scripture to mean, that they themselves are guilty of clinging to a belief that flies in the face of evidence rather than seeking to find the trurh that is there to be discovered and shared.

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 12:12 AM
Steve,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Finally a question that asks, "How can these things be?"



So who are these people that were spoken into existence (as opposed to the God-breathed Adam in your theology)?

Six times God “SAID” and a part of creation occurred in response to His spoken word. All other spoken commands were to bring order to what He had created. Twice the account says “God created”, both times referring to the previous scripture of something He had just spoken into existence.

· Day 1 God created “the heavens”, earth, and light.
· Day 2 God created “heaven”.
· Day 3 God created vegetation.
· Day 4 God created the sun and the moon.
· Day 5 God created the sea creatures and birds.
· Day 6 God created the beasts of the earth and …man…male and female

In the beginning God created a great deal of vegetation of all different kinds, waters teeming with creatures of all different kinds, and created man…male and female.
Question: How many men and women were created? How many kinds of men were created?

Genesis Verse 1:26 Then God SAID, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over all the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

1:27 And God created man (referencing the previous spoken creation) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;…

Chapter 2

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were COMPLETED, and ALL their hosts.

The verses clearly indicate that during creation the work was COMPLETED and ALL THEIR HOSTS. The Webster’s dictionary defines hosts as multitudes. ALL THEIR MULTITUDES WERE COMPLETED.

Questions:

· Did God create multitudes of fish, sea creatures and birds of all kinds, thus completing His work concerning them?

· Did God create multitudes of beasts, cattle and creeping things, thus completing His work concerning them?

· Did God create multitudes of “man” of varying skin color, bone structure, and location on earth, thus completing His work concerning them?


2:2 And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had CREATED and made (ordered).

2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven.

The End. Creation was complete and ALL ITS MULTITUDES. All its vegetation, multitudes of creatures in the sea, multitudes of birds, multitudes of beasts, multitudes of creeping things, and multitudes of “man”. You will not see another scripture saying, “Then God said” …and it was so. Everything that was created in the first six days was spoken into existence. EVERYTHING and in great numbers.

It was after this entire creation, in all its fullness, teeming with life of every kind including man made male and female, that God rested. The next verses begin to describe the new way God was working on what he had created. Just 6,000 years ago He made a garden, he formed a man from the dust of the ground (did not "speak" him male and female into existence). Later, after God brought all the animals in His creation before Adam to see if there was a "suitable helper", not finding one, God "fashioned" Eve from Adam's rib. This is NOT what is described when God "said" Let us make man..." and it was so.

This was different. This was not a "creative" action but taking a substance already created in the beginning, dirt, and forming it into a man.

There are more convincing proofs which I can offer, but I don't want to be accused of giving too much to read. Following accounts of Cain being put out of the garden also clearly indicate that men were outside the garden who may harm him. God acknowledged Cain's concern by marking him to prevent it.

jeffweeder
Dec 5th 2007, 01:21 AM
This is NOT what is described when God "said" Let us make man..." and it was so.

This was different. This was not a "creative" action but taking a substance already created in the beginning, dirt, and forming it into a man.

So are you saying that the first man in Gen 1 isnt Adam?
I think it is Adam-the first man, and here is why;



GEN 1
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."



GEN 5
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

this shows you that Adam was indeed alive and well on the 6th day.

New testament Adam


1COR 15
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive

Adam is responsible for bringing death into the world,so that must make him the first man.


GEN 2
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


I tried to explain before that Gen 2 goes back to the days when God created the heavens and the earth, which is in Gen 1, and picks up the story again in the days when God created Man, but this time explaining more fully the creation of the woman and the Fall.

THE 11 DOCUMENTS OF GENESIS;

The creation hymn - Gen 1:1 - 2:3
Generation of H/E 2:4 - 4:26
Gen of Adam 5:1 - 6:8
Noah 6:9 - 9:28
no' sons -11:9
Shem 11:10-26
Terah 11:27 - 25:11
then the generations of Ishmael---Isaac, Esau and Jacob.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 5th 2007, 02:05 AM
So, in your view these first 'creations' were hermaphrodites? :hmm:

matthew94
Dec 5th 2007, 02:09 AM
This is why anyone remotely educated in the sciences must reject the Genesis account (as faithful Christians understand it) based on the EVIDENCE they observe

Not only does this sound quite arrogant, but it is also plainly false. I personally know well educated geologists that reject the 'old' age of the earth. Either you don't know very many people or you are guilty of exaggeration.

jeffweeder
Dec 5th 2007, 02:11 AM
:hmm: :B

JesusisGod
Dec 5th 2007, 02:47 AM
Hi rhamlet.
I think the Genesis 1 and 2 texts are in harmony. Ge.2 begins by saying the heavens and earth and all their host were finished in 6 and God rested the 7th.
Ge.2:4-5 says "these" (meaning what is described in Ge.1) are the generations of the heavens, earth, plants and man.
Ge.2:6 simply tells us how the earth was watered before rain.
Ge.2:7 tells us how God created Adam.

You mentioned how Ge.2:5 begins with the word "Now". The word "now" isn't in the text. It was added by translators.

Also, I think the idea that in the beginning God created thousands of species is a mistake. There might have been a few different types from which thousands emerged. In other words, Adam could have easily named them in a few hours. Just some thoughts.

Steve M
Dec 5th 2007, 03:00 AM
Steve,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Finally a question that asks, "How can these things be?"




Six times God “SAID” and a part of creation occurred in response to His spoken word. All other spoken commands were to bring order to what He had created. Twice the account says “God created”, both times referring to the previous scripture of something He had just spoken into existence.

· Day 1 God created “the heavens”, earth, and light.
· Day 2 God created “heaven”.
· Day 3 God created vegetation.
· Day 4 God created the sun and the moon.
· Day 5 God created the sea creatures and birds.
· Day 6 God created the beasts of the earth and …man…male and female

In the beginning God created a great deal of vegetation of all different kinds, waters teeming with creatures of all different kinds, and created man…male and female.
Question: How many men and women were created? How many kinds of men were created?

Genesis Verse 1:26 Then God SAID, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over all the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

1:27 And God created man (referencing the previous spoken creation) in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;…

Chapter 2

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were COMPLETED, and ALL their hosts.

The verses clearly indicate that during creation the work was COMPLETED and ALL THEIR HOSTS. The Webster’s dictionary defines hosts as multitudes. ALL THEIR MULTITUDES WERE COMPLETED.

Questions:

· Did God create multitudes of fish, sea creatures and birds of all kinds, thus completing His work concerning them?

· Did God create multitudes of beasts, cattle and creeping things, thus completing His work concerning them?

· Did God create multitudes of “man” of varying skin color, bone structure, and location on earth, thus completing His work concerning them?


2:2 And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had CREATED and made (ordered).

2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven.

The End. Creation was complete and ALL ITS MULTITUDES. All its vegetation, multitudes of creatures in the sea, multitudes of birds, multitudes of beasts, multitudes of creeping things, and multitudes of “man”. You will not see another scripture saying, “Then God said” …and it was so. Everything that was created in the first six days was spoken into existence. EVERYTHING and in great numbers.

It was after this entire creation, in all its fullness, teeming with life of every kind including man made male and female, that God rested. The next verses begin to describe the new way God was working on what he had created. Just 6,000 years ago He made a garden, he formed a man from the dust of the ground (did not "speak" him male and female into existence). Later, after God brought all the animals in His creation before Adam to see if there was a "suitable helper", not finding one, God "fashioned" Eve from Adam's rib. This is NOT what is described when God "said" Let us make man..." and it was so.

This was different. This was not a "creative" action but taking a substance already created in the beginning, dirt, and forming it into a man.

There are more convincing proofs which I can offer, but I don't want to be accused of giving too much to read. Following accounts of Cain being put out of the garden also clearly indicate that men were outside the garden who may harm him. God acknowledged Cain's concern by marking him to prevent it.
You still didn't answer my question.

So if you have this God-breathed Adam... and this multitude of spoken people...

Am I from God-breathed Adam? Are you from the (inferior) spoken people?

Or the other way around?

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 04:59 AM
You still didn't answer my question.

So if you have this God-breathed Adam... and this multitude of spoken people...

Am I from God-breathed Adam? Are you from the (inferior) spoken people?

Or the other way around?


All of the men and women created in the beginning were on the face of the earth. Adam, the first "God-breathed" man was in the garden with Eve. They had two sons Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and was put out of the garden into the midst of the peoples alive outside. They intermarried.

We may be of any combination of ancestors. But Adam's lineage was recorded exactly since his lineage would bring forth our Savior according to God's promise that Eve's seed would crush the serpent's head. That lineage is the only recorded lineage from Adam's day to the appearing of Christ in fulfillment of God's promise.

Cain killed Abel and was cursed…

4:12 When you cultivate the ground the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you; you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.”

4:13 And Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear!

4:14 “Behold, thou hast driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden, and I shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and it will come about that whoever finds me will kill me.”

Question: Whenever who finds him? At this point, if there were only Adam, Eve, Cain and dead Abel, who would find and kill Cain?

4:15 So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, lest anyone finding him should slay him.

The Lord did not say, “Have no fear Cain, you’ll be the only one out there.” He confirmed Cain’s assertion and took measures to prevent Cain’s legitimate fears from coming about. There were people out there who may be very interested in killing him. Possibly because he was unlike them?

In the following 9 verses, Scripture details lands indicating cities and peoples known for certain aspects of their culture.

4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

4:17 And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

Question: Who was Cain’s wife that he had relations with and conceived? Sadly, men have reasoned that it must have been his sister since that is the only person other than his mother it could have been, if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans on earth at creation.

Question: Cain built a city for himself, wife and son as the only occupants? What is a city if it is not, first of all, people? What would be the point?

The verses detailing Cain’s lineage continue naming descendants and their wives omitting the names of whose daughters these wives were born from. This is consistent with scripture that omits similarly the names outside the lineage it records. The alternative again, is incest until a few generations put distance between the relatives.

Question: If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, would he be responsible for an abomination of incest at the beginning of mankind, and later judge man guilty for that same offense?

Scripture continues, going back to the garden…

4:25 And Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel; for Cain killed him.”

Cain went out from his parents and the land that he was able to cultivate with them, under God’s protection. He was sent out to wander among the inhabitants of the world. To their cities, their customs and cultures. He took a wife, had sons and grandsons and built a city.

Chapter 5 details the lineage of the descendants of Adam. If all of what we know to be the lineage from Adam to Jesus to the present, we can trace it back 6000 years. The lineage accounts for the length of time that most of them lived. Even though that length of life was considerably longer than the present day, it still does not go back beyond 6000 years.


Chapter 6

6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

The sons of God were the descendants of Adam. The sons of men were those made at creation. They began to inter-marry. These abounding, indiscriminant marriages occurred after hundreds of years of recorded lineage.

6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

This indicates a culture of people who were giants.

After this, God becomes increasingly sorry that He made man and subsequently destroys the earth. In the genes of all the descendents who survived, is the embodiment of all ethnics of people alive today. They are clearly diverse and numerous.

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 05:24 AM
Not only does this sound quite arrogant, but it is also plainly false. I personally know well educated geologists that reject the 'old' age of the earth. Either you don't know very many people or you are guilty of exaggeration.

I too am familiar with geologists who believe in a young earth and those who believe in a very old earth. The question remains why do I believe what I believe?

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth only 6,000 years ago at the same time as Adam, Enoch, Noah...

QUESTION 2: How long did they exist and when did they go extinct? (Was it within the 6,000 years from when they were create along with Adam?)

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 05:34 AM
Hi rhamlet.

Also, I think the idea that in the beginning God created thousands of species is a mistake. There might have been a few different types from which thousands emerged. In other words, Adam could have easily named them in a few hours. Just some thoughts.

So you believe in evolution of species? This suggests that thousands of separate species came from preexisting species. That is evolution and I do not believe that. Therefore, there were thousands of different species for Adam to name and it could not have been done in a day.

Even so, it seems silly for God to parade these animals before Adam looking for a "suitable helper" when He "spoke" and made them male AND female in the same day.

Think about this for a while...

matthew94
Dec 5th 2007, 06:01 AM
I too am familiar with geologists who believe in a young earth and those who believe in a very old earth. The question remains why do I believe what I believe?

QUESTION 1: Do you believe that the dinosaurs roamed the earth only 6,000 years ago at the same time as Adam, Enoch, Noah...

QUESTION 2: How long did they exist and when did they go extinct? (Was it within the 6,000 years from when they were create along with Adam?)

I do believe they roamed the earth 6000 years ago. In fact, i wouldn't be shocked if we found one today. There are some recorded sightings of what we would probably call dinosaurs since the turn from BC to AD. Beyond that, a lot of tribal traditions include dinosaur like animals in their ancient history. Cave paintings are further evidence that dinosaurs and men co-existed in the not too distant past. What's more, the Bible seems clear that land animals were created in the 6th day. I'm not sure why you used the word 'only.' 6000 years is an amazing amount of time, but to answer your question, I'd guess that there were still some dinosaurs left long after the flood.

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 06:45 AM
Jeffweeder,

God made man in His own image, both male and female on the sixth day. I am saying that He made many male and female humans in His own image on that day, having a soul, thoughts, feelings, capability beyond the creatures and the potential for God's whole plan.

I am saying that Adam, also made in the image of God, was the FIRST of his kind in that he was the first "living being" alive to God as opposed to the rest of humanity (known as the gentiles). From Adam, all of the "living" covenant chosen people that God would bring forth "life" to all the families of the earth. They were not alive to God, having His spirit.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

GEN 2
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.


QUESTION: How long was this period of time when "no shrub of the field had yet sprouted, God had not sent rain, there was no man to cultivate the earth, a mist "used to rise" and water the whole surface of the ground? Does this sound like a day or two before Adam was formed?

No. It is a description of a period of time and a condition of the earth that was waiting for God to do something...

The explanation:

2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not yet sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

2:6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

Here is where our misunderstanding begins…

Because the scripture says there that “no shrub of the field was yet in the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprouted” and “there was no man to cultivate the ground”, we assume that this is a further detailing of the creation account during the first six days. Since we know that all creation took place during the first six days, including all shrubs, plants and man, we draw the conclusion that this is part of that creation. This is incorrect.

The key to this is before our eyes in the very same scripture. It refers specifically to “shrubs and plants of the field”, those that require a “man to cultivate the ground”.

“No shrub of the field was in the earth”. No shrub of the field that required cultivation by man was visible in the earth. “no plant of the field had yet sprouted” but was in the soil, waiting for rain. “there was no man to cultivate the ground”. Scripture does not say, “there were no men”. The “man” that would cultivate the shrubs and plants of the field was not yet “formed”, Adam. Those men who had been created on the sixth day gathered from the trees and plants (other than those that would need cultivation) and ate from the animals that were created for food for man. These pre-Adam men are evident in the fossil record all over the planet.

2:7 Then the Lord God formed of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

2:9 And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food…



The Lord did not speak a garden into existence. He took the ground and "planted" a garden with the “shrubs and plants of the field”, those that require a man to cultivate from what He had previously created. “Out of the ground the Lord caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food”. “Caused to grow”, not spoke and it was so. The pleasing trees not all trees like those previously created.

2:15 Then the Lord God took the man and put Him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

This was a special man, in a special place, for a special purpose, for a special destiny. He was the FIRST LIVING BEING ALIVE AND IN RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

When God said, "The day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, YOU WILL SURELY DIE.", Adam died spiritually that day and became like all other flesh men on the earth. He continued to "live" in the same way that the flesh men lived, but lost the life of God in himself and the potential for immotality.


1COR 15

21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive

Adam, the only "living being" alive to God, brought death to all since he was supposed to be the bringer of the only life-giving heritage to his descendents and all of the families of the earth. God's plan wasn't ruined. He continued to watch over Adam and his lineage and brought forth Abraham who brought Adam's lineage into covenant relationship with God. The gentiles were still outside the "life" that was promised to Abraham's seed, but we were promised that, through Abraham, "all the families of the earth" would be blessed.

After the Jews rejected Jesus, His sacrifice and eternal life were, for the first time, given to those outside of Adam's lineage, the gentiles, those who descendents were created on the sixth day.

Duane Morse
Dec 5th 2007, 09:01 AM
Early in the discussion:

"The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something."

"No, have to disagree, he takes you back to early on the third day. It is supplementry , with added details, otherwise it would be contradictory.The author of Gen is no fool."


This is saying that the events of Genesis 2:4 onward (to the very end of Revelation, mind you) take place within the third 'day' of the overall Creation.

Not, the sixth.

Not that I disagree in any way, mind you.
Because that is how I understand things.

We are currently in the 'third day' of the Creation.
And all events from Genesis 2:4 are a more detailed account of the 'Third Day of Creation'.


Which means, we have a very long way to go before the actual finishing events - and the perfecting of Man - of and within the sixth day of the Creation, which leads to the actual 'rest' period in the seventh day.

As evidence that we are currently in the 'third day', as opposed to the 'sixth day' or 'eighth day' or whatever, I would challange any to do a search on those terms in the Bible - and to the significance thereof.

What did Jesus have to say about "the third day"?
???

JesusisGod
Dec 5th 2007, 12:14 PM
Hi rhamet.
You said,
Even so, it seems silly for God to parade these animals before Adam looking for a "suitable helper" when He "spoke" and made them male AND female in the same day.
The text doesn't say God paraded the animals before Adam so he could find a mate. It says God brought them to Adam to see what he would he call them. That no other form of life was compatable for Adam as a mate is incidental to why God brought the animals to him in the first place.

You are reading too much into the text without letting it just say what it says. Remember, Hebrew doesn't have the punctuation we have and the translators added it (along with words like "Now", etc).

Ge.1 tells us that on the 6th day God created animals from the earth, man in His own image and female. (Ge.1:24-21)

Ge.2 says heaven, earth and everything in them was done by the end of the 6th day (vs.1) and that God rested the 7th day (vs.2) and blessed the 7th day (vs.3).

Ge.2:4-5 says this is the history of the days of creation before anything sprouted from the ground or man existed. That is all the text says.

It then goes on to say how God created man and woman.

And so it is written the first man Adam was made a living soul. 1 Cor.15:45

I will not allow a woman to have authority over a man because Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Ti.2:12-13

Lk.3:23-38 gives a human geneology of Jesus back to our first parent, Adam.

Also, we can disagree about how many animals and birds Adam had to name. I have heard this argument from atheists also (who by the way are happy to report that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution). It seems that some people want it both ways, but only when it suits them.

JesusisGod
Dec 5th 2007, 12:26 PM
Hi rhamlet.
If I can interject something here, you said,
When God said, "The day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, YOU WILL SURELY DIE.", Adam died spiritually that day and became like all other flesh men on the earth. He continued to "live" in the same way that the flesh men lived, but lost the life of God in himself and the potential for immotality.

I think again you are reading something into the text that isn't stated.

God told Adam that in the day he ate the fruit, he would die. God never said Adam would die the same day, but only that he would die. Do you understand?

"Adam, the day you eat this, you're going to die." or

"Adam, the day you eat this, you're going to die the same day."

God only told Adam that he would die and Adam did die when he was 900+ years old.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 5th 2007, 12:37 PM
You see, rhamlet, in your interpretation, God created man along with, death, disease, and suffering and called it good. :o That would mean that death and suffering are NOT a curse man brought to himself, but something God created and called good. :rolleyes: That just does not fit with what I see in the rest of scripture, in my view.

God Bless!

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 05:15 PM
Hi Guys,

I want to let you know that I appreciate the thought-provoking discussion that has not, as is common with disagreement, resulted in contention. It is good to sift through and reason out what we believe and why we believe it. No one's salvation rides on who has the perfect understanding and knowledge of God's word. He meant to have "thoughts above our thoughts".

The Shadow
Dec 5th 2007, 05:35 PM
That is the accepted understanding of the account.

Are you willing to examine to see if there is any reason to question what you believe based on objective (not predetermined) investigation?

It is not an attack on God to question why we believe what we believe. It makes sure that we have personally heard, reasoned and understand what we tell others about God's word. I don't want to believe that the earth is the center of the universe because all of the religious authorities say it is. I want to know the truth. In the 1400's you would have been labled a heritic to question the possibility that maybe what everyone believes may not be accurate.

There are SPECIFIC things to examine and not explain away. Once examined they require thoughtful consideration with the understanding that, "I may not know everything already".


I guess my question to you is:
Why do you think that my understanding was not gained thru an objective lense ??? :confused

The simple art and science of biblical interpretation leads you to only one conclusion.

rhamlet
Dec 5th 2007, 06:01 PM
I do believe they roamed the earth 6000 years ago. In fact, i wouldn't be shocked if we found one today. There are some recorded sightings of what we would probably call dinosaurs since the turn from BC to AD. Beyond that, a lot of tribal traditions include dinosaur like animals in their ancient history. Cave paintings are further evidence that dinosaurs and men co-existed in the not too distant past. What's more, the Bible seems clear that land animals were created in the 6th day. I'm not sure why you used the word 'only.' 6000 years is an amazing amount of time, but to answer your question, I'd guess that there were still some dinosaurs left long after the flood.


Thank you for having the courage and convictions to answer a tough question.

Since we disagree, I would like to state my case with no intended condesention or implied disregard for your position.

You said, "I'm not sure why you used the word 'only.' 6000 years is an amazing amount of time."

In terms of archeology, 6,000 years is not a long time.

Just 2,000 years ago, Jesus walked the earth and we have a tremendous amount of recorded history of the world at that time. That was not an amazing amount of time in terms of the earth's longevity.

Just 4,000 years ago, Egypt existed and we have many civilization's writings that do not indicate a presence of the huge numbers (not possible sightings) of Dinosaurs.

The Chinese Dyanasties are documented to have exited more than 6,000 years. These are not "prehistoric" years.

The "prehistoric" years END in and around 6,000 years ago. The prehistoric years (and pre-Adam years) went on for a VERY LONG TIME.

If 6,000 "historical" years included the enormous dinosaur age and Ice Age, then it would be written about in history by the civilizations that existed.


My only intention is to get us to look at the serious problem that comes to us when we attempt to dismiss huge impossibilities proven by objective scientific discovery rather than go back to the word of God and see if there is a plausible explanation based on our own POSSIBLE misunderstanding of how, and when, God did what he did.

If a Christian believes that the planet was teeming with dinosaurs and cavemen during the generations of Adam and his "historical" time and his children, and grandchildren's time, then that is their option.

If a Christian is confronted with mountains of objective scientific evidence that predates Adam and chooses to investigate the matter, they are not questioning God's word, they are examining the POSSIBILITY that the accepted understanding of the day may be inaccurate and that there is a very good explanation, that God Himself, would want us to know and share.

matthew94
Dec 5th 2007, 07:00 PM
Hey rhamlet


Thank you for having the courage and convictions to answer a tough question.

Actually it didn't take any courage. I don't even think it was a tough question. I think the evidence is pretty straight-forward that large beasts (what we decided to call dinosaurs) existed alongside humans.


Since we disagree, I would like to state my case with no intended condesention or implied disregard for your position.

You said, "I'm not sure why you used the word 'only.' 6000 years is an amazing amount of time."

In terms of archeology, 6,000 years is not a long time.

In terms of your 'interpretation' of the evidence. In my view, the world is about 7000 years old. 7000, then, is the absolute maximum age of anything here on earth. Thus, in my view, 6000 is very much an amazing amount of time. You are committing a logical fallacy by assuming your argument as true before arguing for it.

We do have records of incredible beasts roaming the earth. It's strange that you mentioned China when their whole culture glorifies giant dragons. We would not expect, as historians, to find every recent civilization to have a 'dinosaur' tradition after thousands of years of not seeing them. Stories die with time and lack of new information. But we do have enough surviving stories to point toward the conclusion that large beasts co-existed with human society. A point which you did not address.


My only intention is to get us to look at the serious problem that comes to us when we attempt to dismiss huge impossibilities proven by objective scientific discovery rather than go back to the word of God and see if there is a plausible explanation based on our own POSSIBLE misunderstanding of how, and when, God did what he did.

Once again, you're using your conclusion to make your argument. That is a logical fallacy. You're also assuming, it seems, that those who disagree with you aren't open to the possibility of errant interpretation on their part. In reality, I've thoroughly considered 5 leading interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and I simply find the YEC position to line up best with the evidence.


If a Christian believes that the planet was teeming with dinosaurs and cavemen during the generations of Adam and his "historical" time and his children, and grandchildren's time, then that is their option.

Once again, you're reading evolutionary ideas INTO the YEC position, assuming you imagine 'cavemen' as dim-witted scavengers. The YEC position doesn't believe in such cavemen. There may have been people who lived in caves, but they were not dim-witted or without language. If anything, I believe men are getting less intelligent with time (but that is hard to notice since we are accumulating the information of yesteryear).


If a Christian is confronted with mountains of objective scientific evidence that predates Adam and chooses to investigate the matter, they are not questioning God's word, they are examining the POSSIBILITY that the accepted understanding of the day may be inaccurate and that there is a very good explanation, that God Himself, would want us to know and share.

Again, you are interpreting that there are mountains of objective scientific evidence that predates Adam. I'm open to that possibility, but I just don't think it's true based on the evidence. I think the supposedly apparent age of the earth is due to the post-Adam Noahic flood.

I like your posts. You have thought through your position well. But your argument is flawed with logical fallacy. In other words, even if you are correct you aren't arguing your position well b/c you're assuming your conclusion from the get-go. You'll have to actually make your arguments to have an argument.

In Christ,
matthew

rhamlet
Dec 6th 2007, 12:00 AM
Hi Matthew,

You said,

"...you aren't arguing your position well b/c you're assuming your conclusion from the get-go."

I suppose that anyone arguing their position, assume their conclusions are correct or they wouldn't argue them.

In any case, if someone is convinced that there is no issue with the 6,000 year old earth (all a historical time period and no prehistorical existence of many thousands of years), then it would be much more difficult to discuss potential explanations to an issue that they sincerely believe does not exist.

The reason why I argue from my conclusion is for someone who would see an issue and want to discuss the possible explanations of what would seem to be irreconcilable issues between the 6,000 year old earth belief and the evidence, believed by them to be consistent with a much older earth.

I respect your sincere belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. In support of that belief, I would refer to the water that Jesus turned into wine.

One certainty about "good wine" is it is older. Additionally, for it to "appear" miraculously as wine, it did not have to exist in time and go through a time consuming process of grape growing to ripeness, crushing, straining and fermenting. It was made "old" in its first minute of existense. It skipped the process of time.

So too, for the earth to have a "tree" appear full-grown after God spoke, it would have to have been created at a certain age without having experienced a minute of actual time. Normally, a tree would have had to go through a time consuming process, growing from seed to, seedling to each foot in height. The day it was created, it was old to some point of age. It would appear to have existed before that first day and science would probably be able to estimate its age based on the measuring standards that exist after observing them grow and comparing them.

Therefore, God had to have created the earth "aged" to some degree in the first six days of creation. In order to create a man, He must have created him older than a baby and a boy. That being the case, it is entirely possible that God created everything to "appear" have had a long history, but did not experieince, in time, a minute of it prior to the day it was created "old".

Something to think about.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 02:41 AM
I think you may have hit on something there rhamlet. You mention the conflict if one believes the evidence of an old earth, which I don't, so there is no conflict. The example you give of Jesus' wine miracle is a good one that I've used before. Anyone drinking His wine would be expected to assume time in the grapes growing and the wine being made and of it fermenting and aging. We know, however, that even though that would be the intelligent assumption, it would be wrong. I think the bottom line with the question of origins is that due to the nature of the subject it is not one that can be proven. In that case I will go with the clear reading of the word of God which does not go against non-speculative science (true science).

God Bless!

matthew94
Dec 6th 2007, 03:27 AM
I suppose that anyone arguing their position, assume their conclusions are correct or they wouldn't argue them.

That's not quite what I meant. I agree that everyone that argues for something believes their argument is correct. Otherwise, as you said, they wouldn't be arguing for it. But that is very different from USING your conclusion to prove your argument. In other words, you won't convince people that there are mountains of evidence for an old earth by saying there are 'mountains of evidence for an old earth.' The person you are debating (me, in this case) doesn't interpret the evidence as you do. You have to provide the supposed evidence and convince me with the details, not the conclusion. You have explained WHAT you believe, but you haven't explained WHY anyone else should believe it.


In any case, if someone is convinced that there is no issue with the 6,000 year old earth (all a historical time period and no prehistorical existence of many thousands of years), then it would be much more difficult to discuss potential explanations to an issue that they sincerely believe does not exist.

I don't know that many or any people think there is no issue. I just think many believe the issue is explained well by the flood and whatnot.


The reason why I argue from my conclusion is for someone who would see an issue and want to discuss the possible explanations of what would seem to be irreconcilable issues between the 6,000 year old earth belief and the evidence, believed by them to be consistent with a much older earth.

Yep, that's cool.


I respect your sincere belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

And I your belief that it is much older. In fact, a month or so ago I led a Bible study in which we discussed the pros and cons of the 5 leading interpretations of Genesis 1. Is was an edifying chat.


In support of that belief, I would refer to the water that Jesus turned into wine. One certainty about "good wine" is it is older. Additionally, for it to "appear" miraculously as wine, it did not have to exist in time and go through a time consuming process of grape growing to ripeness, crushing, straining and fermenting. It was made "old" in its first minute of existense. It skipped the process of time.

So too, for the earth to have a "tree" appear full-grown after God spoke, it would have to have been created at a certain age without having experienced a minute of actual time. Normally, a tree would have had to go through a time consuming process, growing from seed to, seedling to each foot in height. The day it was created, it was old to some point of age. It would appear to have existed before that first day and science would probably be able to estimate its age based on the measuring standards that exist after observing them grow and comparing them.

Therefore, God had to have created the earth "aged" to some degree in the first six days of creation. In order to create a man, He must have created him older than a baby and a boy. That being the case, it is entirely possible that God created everything to "appear" have had a long history, but did not experieince, in time, a minute of it prior to the day it was created "old".

Something to think about.

While YEC's do agree that men and animals and plants were created with some degree of age, this is NOT how YEC's explain the apparent age of the earth (at least not the majority or the degreed ones). In fact, YEC's do NOT believe the earth appears to be old. We believe it appears to be deluged and destroyed by a worldwide flood. In other words, there are 2 ways to look bad. Get old or get beat up, haha

I didn't realize until about 5 years ago that, in the scientific community, in general, ONLY YEC's believe that Noah's flood was global. Old Earth Creationists, for instance, almost never believe in a worldwide flood because they know that THAT would explain the appearance of the rocks. It's really an issue of catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism.

In Christ,
matthew

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 12:29 PM
Hey Matthew!

I have seen the appearance of age hypothesis used not to explain things that the flood catastrophe caused, but more as a possible option for why (without deception) God may have created things, like the universe for example, that those looking back may misinterpret as having age. The wine example shows that though it would not have been Yeshua's intent to deceive, in this miracle it is reasonable to assume someone looking back would believe the wine had much more age than it actual had. That would have been their error; not an attempt by Messiah to be deceptive. When you transfer that concept and apply it to those who say that God would not lie to deceive us into believing the world has more age, I say that He has not deceived, in fact He has given us a book that tells us. If there is any error it would be on the part of those who may misinterpret the age. :D

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 02:34 PM
Genesis 2

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Adam with the atrical was diffent than the sixth day man. Eighth day man
"The Adam" is who the seed would be called.

I know the planet is older than 6000 years. I am a Christian and I love to
dig into history of man and the history of our planet. The dinosaur bones and artifacts
along with the oil we use had to come from a age a lot older than 6000 years
old. This does not discount the Bible but will make it a lot clearer. I found out
the hard way that carbon dating has its problems but so does the idea that
eveything that has happened has happened in 6000 years.

Quote:
To arrive at the true meaning of this expression, we must note that there are two words translated "foundation" in the New Testament : (1) themelios, and (2) katobole.
The noun, themelios, occurs in Luke 6:48, 49; 14:29; Acts 16:26 Rom. 15:20
1 Cor. 3:10 , 11, 12. Eph. 2:20; 1Tim. 6:19 Heb. 6:1; 11:10 . Rev. 21:14, 19.
It is nver used of the world (kosmos) or the earth (ge). Heb. 1:10.
A comparison of all these passages will show that these are proper and regular terms for the English words " to found ", and "foundation".
The noun katabole, occurs in Matt. 13:35; 25:34. Luke 11:50 John 17:24 Eph. 1:4 Heb 4:3;
9:26; 11:11. 1 Peter 1:20 Rev. 13:8; 17:8; and the corresponding Verb (kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.
Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Heb. 6:1, where, instead of
"not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation
already laid, of repentance, & e., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left
and progress made unto the perfection.
Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated
"disruption", or "ruin".
The remarkable thing that in all occurrences (except Heb. 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Gr. kosmos. Ap. 129.1), and therefore the expression should be rendered
"the disruption (or ruin) of the world". clearly referring to the condition indicated in Gen 1:2,
and described in 2 Peter3:5, 6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isa. 45:18), but became so,
as stated the Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 and confirmed by 2 Peter 3:6, where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Gen 1:1), perished, and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word" were created (Gen. 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2 Peter 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth"
of 2 Peter 3:13.
"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensation
of the ages. In Gen. 1:1 we have the founding of the world (Heb 1:10 = themelioo), but in Gen 1:2 we have its overthrow.
This is confirmed by a further remarkable fact, that the phrase, which occurs ten times,
is associated with the Preposition apo = from (Ap. 104. iv) seven times, and with pro = before
(Ap. 104 xiv) three times. The former refers to the kingdom, and is connected with the
"counsels" of God; the latter refers to the Mystery (of secret. See Ap 192 ) and is connected with the "purpose" of God (see John 17:24. Eph 1:4. 1 Peter 1:20).
Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded
in Gen. 1:2, that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste and desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and earth which are now"
(2 Peter 3:7).

(Appendix 146 The Companion Bible, Kregel )

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 03:25 PM
I know the planet is older than 6000 years. I am a Christian and I love to dig into history of man and the history of our planet. The dinosaur bones and artifacts along with the oil we use had to come from a age a lot older than 6000 years old. Actually, you BELIEVE the earth is over 6,000 years old. The ONLY way you could KNOW would be if you had been here for 6,000 years + one moment. I can say that I know my mother was born in Philadelphia but in reality I believe she was because I believe her when she tells me this or I would believe the information on the official birth certificate, but the bottom line is that I could not know; and this is the same. You see, you BELIEVE the earth is more than 6,000 years old, just as I BELIEVE it is less than 6,000 years old. The fact is that neither of us was there to validate these beliefs, which is fine as long as we both understand and use the proper language to relate our understanding. ;)

As for oil being proof of time, this goes back to the wine miracle example. It's easy to BELIEVE that the existence of certain elements proves time, however, things like oil, coal, diamonds have been to be able to be produced in days and not millions of years. (sources rapid oil production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/oil.asp) rapid coal production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp) rapid diamond production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/diamonds.asp)) Things that have been used to 'prove' time for so long, do not really 'prove' anything. :rolleyes: You see, I have NO PROBLEM with you believing any of this as long as everyone involved understands what that really means. :D

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 03:40 PM
Actually, you BELIEVE the earth is over 6,000 years old. The ONLY way you could KNOW would be if you had been here for 6,000 years + one moment. I can say that I know my mother was born in Philadelphia but in reality I believe she was because I believe her when she tells me this or I would believe the information on the official birth certificate, but the bottom line is that I could not know; and this is the same. You see, you BELIEVE the earth is more than 6,000 years old, just as I BELIEVE it is less than 6,000 years old. The fact is that neither of us was there to validate these beliefs, which is fine as long as we both understand and use the proper language to relate our understanding. ;)

As for oil being proof of time, this goes back to the wine miracle example. It's easy to BELIEVE that the existence of certain elements proves time, however, things like oil, coal, diamonds have been to be able to be produced in days and not millions of years. (sources rapid oil production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/oil.asp) rapid coal production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp) rapid diamond production (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/diamonds.asp)) Things that have been used to 'prove' time for so long, do not really 'prove' anything. :rolleyes: You see, I have NO PROBLEM with you believing any of this as long as everyone involved understands what that really means. :D

God Bless!
I have no problem with you not believing the Word of God. I guess we would call this faith as you have in your mothers birth. Speeding up the process of making oil,coal or diamonds does not change the creation. Maybe a good read in Job after you research Gen you will see it is written about the sons of God when that were happy and sang together.
God Bless

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 04:03 PM
I have no problem with you not believing the Word of God. I guess we would call this faith as you have in your mothers birth. Speeding up the process of making oil,coal or diamonds does not change the creation. Maybe a good read in Job after you research Gen you will see it is written about the sons of God when that were happy and sang together.
God BlessLOW BLOW ALERT!!! :o We have a different interpretation of scripture. I would NEVER even imply that you don't BELIEVE the word of God. You claim to KNOW something you can not based on a simple understanding of the word so I made a light-hearted correction and cited reasons. We disagree on interpretation and that's fine; or at least it should be. I don't agree with everything my natural brother may believe but I will always love and respect him. Why do believer's not give spiritual siblings the same respect? :cry:

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 04:14 PM
LOW BLOW ALERT!!! :o We have a different interpretation of scripture. I would NEVER even imply that you don't BELIEVE the word of God. You claim to KNOW something you can not based on a simple understanding of the word so I made a light-hearted correction and cited reasons. We disagree on interpretation and that's fine; or at least it should be. I don't agree with everything my natural brother may believe but I will always love and respect him. Why do believer's not give spiritual siblings the same respect? :cry:
Sorry did not mean to insult just was reading your post. I respect you and what you believe. Using a concordance it might help and I will keep you in my prayers. No harm intended.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 04:20 PM
Sorry did not mean to insult just was reading your post. I respect you and what you believe. Using a concordance it might help and I will keep you in my prayers. No harm intended.Glad to clear that up as God's word is my final authority in all things! Once we get to glory I don't think these things will have nearly the importance that they seem to have now. We'll have to rent the creation dvd when we get there. :lol:

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 04:32 PM
Glad to clear that up as God's word is my final authority in all things! Once we get to glory I don't think these things will have nearly the importance that they seem to have now. We'll have to rent the creation dvd when we get there. :lol:

God Bless!
Denise you do not have to wait to find out the facts. The Companion Bible is a great study tool and you are young and life is long so dig in and study to show yourself approved. You lead youth in your church so be a light and a leader for them by rightly dividing the Word. If you do not understand the beginning you can not understand the end. The churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia understood.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 04:41 PM
Denise you do not have to wait to find out the facts. The Companion Bible is a great study tool and you are young and life is long so dig in and study to show yourself approved. You lead youth in your church so be a light and a leader for them by rightly dividing the Word. If you do not understand the beginning you can not understand the end. The churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia understood.I think we must be misunderstanding each other. :P I've studied this very topic for more than five years intensely! Both scripturally and scientifically. In libraries and online. I am very clear on understanding EXACTLY why I believe what I believe and am confident in my understanding, spiritually, scripturally, and scientifically! :spin: As I said initially, unless you are 6,000+ years old and were there to watch it happen, 'KNOW' is NOT the proper word to use. BELEIVE is! Now, I'd advise everyone to stick to facts when stating things as fact, and please....cite sources! ;)

BTW, the Holy Spirit is my Companion to my Bibles! :spin:

God Bless!

doppelganger
Dec 6th 2007, 04:47 PM
People have some interesting ideas.

Here (http://www.louwho.com/answers3.html)'s a guy who says the Chinese were created on the 5th day, all the other races on the 6th day, and Adam was created on the 8th day.

This strikes me as along the same vein as some of the teaching of Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel (http://www.carm.org/shepherds_chapel.htm), who has some strange ideas about the Kenites, Cain, and the Creation, among other things.

It seems to me that some of these ideas could easily foster racism. The "good" people are those descended from Adam, and the people descended from Cain or from other non-Adamic roots are "lesser" people. Not only that, I would think it makes interpretation of Romans, and our fallen nature based on the sin of the "first man" quite interesting.

I also see no reason to tie any of these ideas to the age of the earth. Arguing for Old-Earth Creation does not necessitate (I don't think) humans before Adam. (Although, there's a lot to the Old-Earth arguments that I don't buy or understand.)

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 04:51 PM
I think we must be misunderstanding each other. :P I've studied this very topic for more than five years intensely! Both scripturally and scientifically. In libraries and online. I am very clear on understanding EXACTLY why I believe what I believe and am confident in my understanding, spiritually, scripturally, and scientifically! :spin: As I said initially, unless you are 6,000+ years old and were there to watch it happen, 'KNOW' is NOT the proper word to use. BELIEVE is! Now, I'd advise everyone to stick to facts when stating things as fact, and please....cite sources! ;)

BTW, the Holy Spirit is my Companion to my Bibles! :spin:

God Bless!
Well I guess five years of study and you still do not consider it to be facts says enough. I believe I made my point. You "believe" this planet is 6000 years old well sleep on.:hmm: I guess John Smith went out and buried those dinosaur bones :lol: I will not preach her some have blinders. Keep up your good work with the kids it is sure needed in this world.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 05:21 PM
People have some interesting ideas.

Here (http://www.louwho.com/answers3.html)'s a guy who says the Chinese were created on the 5th day, all the other races on the 6th day, and Adam was created on the 8th day.

This strikes me as along the same vein as some of the teaching of Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel (http://www.carm.org/shepherds_chapel.htm), who has some strange ideas about the Kenites, Cain, and the Creation, among other things.

It seems to me that some of these ideas could easily foster racism. The "good" people are those descended from Adam, and the people descended from Cain or from other non-Adamic roots are "lesser" people. Not only that, I would think it makes interpretation of Romans, and our fallen nature based on the sin of the "first man" quite interesting.

I also see no reason to tie any of these ideas to the age of the earth. Arguing for Old-Earth Creation does not necessitate (I don't think) humans before Adam. (Although, there's a lot to the Old-Earth arguments that I don't buy or understand.)
I agree you do not understand. I see you like to infer quite a bit about me and my post :hmm: I do not foster racism. Do you ? Have you read the book of Genesis ? I would recommend that you talk to someone in genetics. There is a Professor at LSU that developed a DNA test that can pinpoint someone no matter the sex or race. Being used in court ;) What we have here Sir is a difference in interpretation. It is very clear in Genesis that God told Isaac to not marry from outside the tribes of Israel. What did it say about Noah and his lineage ?? Was the flood world wide ? Some may choose to stay plugged into the matrix I choose to unplug and think with out having it spoon fed to me for one hour on Sunday. I do not sit to judge any mans soul now or ever so before you judge me think. Go ahead and show where I am wrong I will read your post and reply with do respect. God created all his children and it was good. HE loves each and everyone of them as he created them.

Kahtar
Dec 6th 2007, 05:30 PM
Well I guess five years of study and you still do not consider it to be facts says enough. I believe I made my point. You "believe" this planet is 6000 years old well sleep on.:hmm: I guess John Smith went out and buried those dinosaur bones :lol: I will not preach her some have blinders. Keep up your good work with the kids it is sure needed in this world.


Some may choose to stay plugged into the matrix I choose to unplug and think with out having it spoon fed to me for one hour on Sunday. I do not sit to judge any mans soul...........
Leave off with the condescending attitude my friend. Not necessary. Disagree all you want, but leave out the condescension.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 05:52 PM
Well I guess five years of study and you still do not consider it to be facts says enough. I believe I made my point. You "believe" this planet is 6000 years old well sleep on.:hmm: I guess John Smith went out and buried those dinosaur bones :lol: I will not preach her some have blinders. Keep up your good work with the kids it is sure needed in this world.Who here has denied the existence of dinosaurs? :o No one buried dinosaurs bones. The creatures we call dinosaurs lived and then they died, that's what is known. The bone does not come with a stamp that says 'Made millions of years ago'. There are creatures spoken of in the Bible that many believe ARE dinosaurs. We merely disagree on the time in which those 'dinosaurs' roamed the earth. ;)

As we discuss this topic let's remember that heresy is NOT defined as those opinions that do not line up with our own. God's word is my final authority in ALL things and my view lines up perfectly with it and the scientific data as I interpret it, as quite obviously you believe your interpretation does as well. Hopefully, we as believers, can get to a point where we can discuss these things without the judgmental tone.

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 06:18 PM
I see I am playing with some heavy hitters here. Kahtar with 5017 post and Studyin'2SHOW with 4845 post. I was trying to make a point about the age of the earth after being called into question by someone else. I was not being anymore condescending than other posters on this thread. I made apologies for those who might have had their feeling hurt here. I ask for info to back up the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. That is all ? I do not like the truth candy coated nothing more or less. I welcome any documentation any of you might have pro or con. :D

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 06:34 PM
I see I am playing with some heavy hitters here. Kahtar with 5017 post and Studyin'2SHOW with 4845 post. I was trying to make a point about the age of the earth after being called into question by someone else. I was not being anymore condescending than other posters on this thread. I made apologies for those who might have had their feeling hurt here. I ask for info to back up the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. That is all ? I do not like the truth candy coated nothing more or less. I welcome any documentation any of you might have pro or con. :DIsaac, I'm not sure what you feel is being heavy hit here. The number of post by any member has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof in any information. You say you've asked for documentation to prove the age of the earth. Well, though I didn't see you make this request :hmm: I can say the exact same thing. I'd like to see proof that the planet is 'X' billion years old. Keep in mind that just having a bunch of people that say so, is not proof. Time magazine said that God was dead. I didn't believe that either. Truth is truth and assumption is not necessarily truth. I look for the truth; period! I do not just accept information because everyone else may seem to say so. I need to dig deeper than that. The more I dig on this subject, the less I buy into the party line. Each of us needs to challenge ourselves to go beyond what we may have been spoon fed to believe. I was NOT brought up believing in a young earth but the opposite. The more I dug for the truth the more I realized that what I believed was not based on fact but assumption. ;)

We all need to be able to discuss this issue without making judgments or assumptions about each other or what the other guy may or may not believe and why. :yes:

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 07:03 PM
Isaac, I'm not sure what you feel is being heavy hit here. The number of post by any member has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof in any information. You say you've asked for documentation to prove the age of the earth. Well, though I didn't see you make this request :hmm: I can say the exact same thing. I'd like to see proof that the planet is 'X' billion years old. Keep in mind that just having a bunch of people that say so, is not proof. Time magazine said that God was dead. I didn't believe that either. Truth is truth and assumption is not necessarily truth. I look for the truth; period! I do not just accept information because everyone else may seem to say so. I need to dig deeper than that. The more I dig on this subject, the less I buy into the party line. Each of us needs to challenge ourselves to go beyond what we may have been spoon fed to believe. I was NOT brought up believing in a young earth but the opposite. The more I dug for the truth the more I realized that what I believed was not based on fact but assumption. ;)

We all need to be able to discuss this issue without making judgments or assumptions about each other or what the other guy may or may not believe and why. :yes:

God Bless!
Heavy hitting is when you call in the troops. That is OK Sister Isaac has big shoulders. Yes Carbon Dating is a good start. Maybe a study on dinosaurs would be fun too ;) I am OK with you assuming a thing I think we all do it at some time or another. I do think spiritual discernment is always good to practice. My opinion is the planet is millions of years old and that flesh man has been here anywhere from 10000 to 14000 years and that flesh man did not coexist with dinosaurs. I do not think there is a geologist on the planet that would concur with the planet being 6000 years old end of story.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 07:18 PM
Heavy hitting is when you call in the troops. That is OK Sister Isaac has big shoulders. Yes Carbon Dating is a good start. Maybe a study on dinosaurs would be fun too ;) I am OK with you assuming a thing I think we all do it at some time or another. I do think spiritual discernment is always good to practice. My opinion is the planet is millions of years old and that flesh man has been here anywhere from 10000 to 14000 years and that flesh man did not coexist with dinosaurs. I do not think there is a geologist on the planet that would concur with the planet being 6000 years old end of story.So, your TRUTH is based on man's assumptions? :rolleyes: So, there are NO geologists on the planet that believe in a young earth, huh? Well, here one for you, Robert G. Sigler, geologist and YEC. ;) (source and his testimony (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0228sigler.asp)) He was a scientist and an evolutionist like me and did not change his view until he had the courage to challenge what he had been spoon fed. Remember that as we discuss this issue it is wise to stick to the facts.

God Bless!

jeffweeder
Dec 6th 2007, 08:55 PM
I ask for info to back up the idea that the earth is 6000 years old

From the scriptures.
The author of Genesis is the one where we get the idea that the earth is 6000 years old.
There was evening and there was morning 1 day
There was evening and there was morning a 2nd etc,
He trys hard to say 24hr days . I would think if those days were not 24 hr days, he would have left out the phrases--evening and there was morning.

IF that isnt enough the author then goes on to state the geneology, which is were we get 6000 years.



Someone will come along now and say that there are gaps in the geneology-which is not true and would make a mockery of such a document.


So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

There is only 1 place were we get 6000 years,and its the Bible.

7 literal days are also infered with the keeping of the Sabbath day every week.

The bible leads you to this belief ,does it not?

peace

matthew94
Dec 6th 2007, 09:15 PM
I do not think there is a geologist on the planet that would concur with the planet being 6000 years old end of story.

You think incorrectly.

Dr. Marcus Ross
Dr. John R. Baumgardner
Dr. Kurt P. Wise

Are just three examples in geological fields.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 09:18 PM
From the scriptures.
The author of Genesis is the one where we get the idea that the earth is 6000 years old.
There was evening and there was morning 1 day
There was evening and there was morning a 2nd etc,
He trys hard to say 24hr days . I would think if those days were not 24 hr days, he would have left out the phrases--evening and there was morning.

IF that isnt enough the author then goes on to state the geneology, which is were we get 6000 years.



Someone will come along now and say that there are gaps in the geneology-which is not true and would make a mockery of such a document.



There is only 1 place were we get 6000 years,and its the Bible.

7 literal days are also infered with the keeping of the Sabbath day every week.

The bible leads you to this belief ,does it not?

peace

I like your post. Much thought placed into it. There many different schools of thought on how many days or years it took for the creation. I think we agree on it was God that created the heavens and earth. Adam and Eve where real people. If Adam was in fact a real living soul he would have descendants living today. I have to ask does anybody here use any kind of concordance or lexicon to break back to the ancient Hebrew or to Greek ?
I am not a preacher or teacher but a student like all of you and I am always open to your post. Thank you for your input. The answers are coming and the harvest is near.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 6th 2007, 09:40 PM
So, your TRUTH is based on man's assumptions? :rolleyes: So, there are NO geologists on the planet that believe in a young earth, huh? Well, here one for you, Robert G. Sigler, geologist and YEC. ;) (source and his testimony (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0228sigler.asp)) He was a scientist and an evolutionist like me and did not change his view until he had the courage to challenge what he had been spoon fed. Remember that as we discuss this issue it is wise to stick to the facts.

God Bless!
I can see you found a geologist that agrees with what you believe. What did he become after he was a scientist and evolutionist ? I can honestly say I never considered evolution as a real possibility. Thank you so much for your post and I think we can agree to disagree :kiss: no hard feelings here with old Isaac.
God Bless

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 12:58 AM
You think incorrectly.

Dr. Marcus Ross
Dr. John R. Baumgardner
Dr. Kurt P. Wise

Are just three examples in geological fields.
I am incorrect there are a few. I must say I am surprised that they could go out on a dig and come back with that conclusion. Bad Lands or Ash Falls or a trip to South America might shed some light here for Brother Ross, Baumgardner and Wise. Thanks for your post Matt. :D

Kahtar
Dec 7th 2007, 02:27 AM
I would just point out that two people can examine the exact same piece of evidence and come to differing conclusions.
If one examines the strata of say the Grand Canyon with the 'millions of years' framework firmly established in his mind, what he sees and how he interprets what he sees is going to be greatly influenced by that, whereas another with a YEC perspective will view it with that set of glasses on.
To assume (and that's all it is) that these gentlemen (being geologists) have never examined the evidence is a tad high-minded in my view.

As to whether any of us here have ever looked at the Hebrew or Greek using Strong's or some other source, I think you will find that a very large majority here have, in fact. Perhaps getting to know some of us a bit better prior to forming such opinions would be a good idea. Think?

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 01:50 PM
I would just point out that two people can examine the exact same piece of evidence and come to differing conclusions.
If one examines the strata of say the Grand Canyon with the 'millions of years' framework firmly established in his mind, what he sees and how he interprets what he sees is going to be greatly influenced by that, whereas another with a YEC perspective will view it with that set of glasses on.
To assume (and that's all it is) that these gentlemen (being geologists) have never examined the evidence is a tad high-minded in my view.

As to whether any of us here have ever looked at the Hebrew or Greek using Strong's or some other source, I think you will find that a very large majority here have, in fact. Perhaps getting to know some of us a bit better prior to forming such opinions would be a good idea. Think?
Kahtar I was just asking the question not trying to say that you and the others do not use a concordance. I agree we all have a different view point or perspective. I have had my first lesson in trying to get to know folks here and I found Brother Parson to be very up front and a nice man.
I am sure as time goes by I will get to know some others Lord willing. When the 2nd Advent takes place we will all know the facts no guess work and I hope to see you all on that day and what a great and wonderful day it will be. Keep you lamp full of oil and ready for the wedding !!!
Isaac

Studyin'2Show
Dec 7th 2007, 02:53 PM
One thing I have to offer is that when posting on a message board, it is easy for people to misinterpret the spirit behind any particular post. Sometimes I will tell my children that it's not always 'what' you say but 'how' you say it. In normal conversations we can look at the speaker's countenance which makes it easier to discern 'how' something was said. That's not possible with typed words on a page. ;)

God Bless!

John68
Dec 7th 2007, 05:37 PM
One thing I have to offer is that when posting on a message board, it is easy for people to misinterpret the spirit behind any particular post. Sometimes I will tell my children that it's not always 'what' you say but 'how' you say it. In normal conversations we can look at the speaker's countenance which makes it easier to discern 'how' something was said. That's not possible with typed words on a page. ;)

God Bless!
The best post in the whole thread!:pray::pray::pray: AMEN!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 06:18 PM
Just for the record Isaac loves to laugh and cut up with my employees, wife, daughters, fishing buddies and on it goes. I make my self laugh. I picked Isaac because Sarah laughed when she found out she was pregnant with Isaac. Sons of laughter !!! So please do not take me as a mean spirited guy :rofl: I do love to study our Fathers Word and I still listen to as many different teachers as I can not matter the denomination. I am well founded enough in the Word to listen to anybody teach. My brother is a pastor and my sister is married to a pastor. My dad is a deacon in the Baptist faith. Isaac loves secular history and Biblical History and I spend two to three hours a morning reading the Word and other related books. I love all post if they are from the heart even with passion. I think secular history is often over looked. It does validate the Bible. No more about me just thought that might help other members know a bit about me. Back to the topic. :D

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 07:09 PM
That is the accepted understanding of the account.

Are you willing to examine to see if there is any reason to question what you believe based on objective (not predetermined) investigation?

It is not an attack on God to question why we believe what we believe. It makes sure that we have personally heard, reasoned and understand what we tell others about God's word. I don't want to believe that the earth is the center of the universe because all of the religious authorities say it is. I want to know the truth. In the 1400's you would have been labeled a heretic to question the possibility that maybe what everyone believes may not be accurate.

There are SPECIFIC things to examine and not explain away. Once examined they require thoughtful consideration with the understanding that, "I may not know everything already".

This makes some very good points. I have done some research and will do some more. These are the kind of things I have not been able to discuss in my home town. I like to hear different ideas and this one is different.
So Adam was a tiller of the ground. My opinion is " this planet is much older than 6000 years" this does give scientist reason to question religion because someone is trying to fit it all in a 6000 year box. I say science and secular history validate the Bible in a major way. Great post I hope you will follow up with some more input on this subject and mean while I will do some major reading this weekend.

rhamlet
Dec 7th 2007, 08:38 PM
This makes some very good points. I have done some research and will do some more. These are the kind of things I have not been able to discuss in my home town. I like to hear different ideas and this one is different.

So Adam was a tiller of the ground. My opinion is " this planet is much older than 6000 years" this does give scientist reason to question religion because someone is trying to fit it all in a 6000 year box. I say science and secular history validate the Bible in a major way. Great post I hope you will follow up with some more input on this subject and mean while I will do some major reading this weekend.

I'd love to discuss your findings after your reading. May the Lord bless your understanding that you may be a blessing to others.

In Him,

Rick

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 08:44 PM
I'd love to discuss your findings after your reading. May the Lord bless your understanding that you may be a blessing to others.

In Him,

Rick
Thank you Rick,
Is there any recommended reading on this subject that you like best ? I do not do as much reading on weekends as I do M-F so it might be next week sometime before I post my findings. Please check back in if you have a chance. (ISH) the man :pray:

rhamlet
Dec 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
Thank you Rick,
Is there any recommended reading on this subject that you like best ? I do not do as much reading on weekends as I do M-F so it might be next week sometime before I post my findings. Please check back in if you have a chance. (ISH) the man :pray:

For this topic, I would recommend reading my study so that we can see exactly where we agree/disagree and discuss the merits of each point. It's not that long and I can email it to you. If you Private Message me with your email address, I'll send it over.

Rick

doug3
Dec 8th 2007, 01:13 AM
Hi,


Recommended reading for all: Job 38-39 :):hmm::)

Studyin'2Show
Dec 8th 2007, 01:16 AM
Hi,


Recommended reading for all: Job 38-39 :):hmm::)Are you referring Job 39 and 40 that speaks of leviathan and behemoth?

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 8th 2007, 08:01 AM
For this topic, I would recommend reading my study so that we can see exactly where we agree/disagree and discuss the merits of each point. It's not that long and I can email it to you. If you Private Message me with your email address, I'll send it over.

Rick
Hey Rick,
Thanks for your reply. I see you do not have any kind of private message or email here on this board. If you could just post a link and I will go to it and check out what you have. I did notice that when this thread is posted to it never makes it to the front board of new post :hmm::hmm: I can see like three guest and four members showing but only three members avatar name are showing while the 4th is a ghost ? Rick I do have my private message turned on so if you like then contact me there. Honest debate and freedom of speech should not be censored it is not the Christian thing to do. :kiss: Job where were you when the foundations of the earth were laid ? My soul came from God and will go back to God when I leave this clay shell. ;) The Word discusses someone that tries to suppress the Word of God. I will have to look up the verse or chapter and post it here later. Do not keep your candle under a basket.

The Parson
Dec 8th 2007, 02:59 PM
Actually, the Word isn't suppresed here my friend. There are certain topics that are limited here however. And those topics are allowed only in the Controversial area or World religions.

Just for an FYI folks. There are many who come to this board thinking it is a free for all type of thing where unothodox new teachings can be mingled into time tested, bible backed doctrines. That would be an error. The ones who have these new teachings then holler that the Word is being suppressed. Far from it. We have a premise here: Galations 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

This board as I see it is trying to remain faithful to the Lord and His non complicated teachings, looking for the day He returns. Because it's prophesied: 2nd Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Please, if there is a problem with the way the board is run, take it to the management... Not the board.

tgallison
Dec 9th 2007, 12:15 AM
The following study will open the subject of:



Adam Was Formed


Well After the Six Days of Creation





Genesis Chapter 1

…11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day…

…20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

· THEN God created man, male AND female…

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. …And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

· God created man, BOTH male and female, on the same day.



Genesis 2


1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

· At this point in time, God COMPLETED ALL that He said He created.

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

· The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.


(Note: "There was no man that could cultivate the earth". There were only the hunter/gatherers that were created in the beginning, both male and female. In this lies the reason for misunderstanding. Most believe that "No man to cultivate the ground" to mean that there were NO MEN)

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

· The next event is out of sequence with the description of events of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. It indicates that certain trees were not yet in the earth, yet in the first six days of creation, it clearly states that they were created BEFORE man was created. This indicates a confusion of the account of events or a different sequence of events is “Now” being related.

9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

· This is a “planting” and a “caused to grow” and not a “creation”.

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

· Why was man “alone” when God created them male and female on the same day?

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

· Again, this is out of sequence from Genesis 1. In the first six days, God made the animals and then man. This cannot be the first six days or it contradicts the sequence of events. God was very specific about what He did, and the order of it, on specific days.


20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

· How long did the naming of animals take (considering there are many thousands of species) before Eve was fashioned (on the same day)?

21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

· Here is a completely different phenomenon. This is NOT, “27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

· God performed a “fashioning” of a woman from the body of a man. This is not God “speaking” a thing into existence and therefore not consistent with the manner in which God performed in the six days of creation.

As a result of failing to see that the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "spoken into existense" creation, Christians have had to try and defend a 6,000 year old creation because we can estimate the length of time from Adam's lineage to Jesus to present. This is solely because we believe that Adam was created along with those who were created male and female "in the beginning".

rhamlet greetings

In Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:---------."

When God said us, was He one God or plural? He made man in his image, a plural image. Male and female in one.

Genesis 2:24 "---------and they shall be one flesh.

When Adam was created, he had both a masculine and feminine side in one person. God created both male and female in one person. He separated them when he took the rib out of Adam.

That is why men and women are so different, each one half of man.

It doesn't say what day He separated them.

Science changes from generation to generation. That which is true today is untrue tomorrow.

God never changes. I will follow him and not man.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

rhamlet
Dec 9th 2007, 01:30 AM
tgalliston wrote:
"Science changes from generation to generation. That which is true today is untrue tomorrow."

Rhamlet writes:
Science doesn't change. The conclusions that men make about what science discovers, ie. "theories" about what science discovers, changes. When science proves that, "Every action requires and equal and opposite reaction", it is a "physical law" that science has proven. It is no longer a theory because it can be proven.

If science proves that the radio-activity of carbon (carbon 14) decays at a measurable and predictable rate over a period of time, and can measure the age of things by how far along that decay is in an object and estimate its age with a certain proven degree of accuracy, then we have a tool to measure how old things are. If we discover that this tool, based on the physical laws, determine that there are objects much older than 6,000 years, we should take a look at why we believe that the entire creation is only 6,000 years old based soley on our understanding of the Genesis account.

I believe the Genesis account is EXACTLY correct. I believe that we misinterpreted it and have concluded that 6,000 year old earth, based on Adam's lineage, is incorrect and I have proposed a possible explanation.


tgallison wrote:
In Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:---------."

When God said us, was He one God or plural?

Rhamlet writes:
Plural- Father, Son and Holy Spirit



tgalliston wrote:
He made man in his image, a plural image. Male and female in one.

Genesis 2:24 "---------and they shall be one flesh.

When Adam was created, he had both a masculine and feminine side in one person. God created both male and female in one person. He separated them when he took the rib out of Adam.

That is why men and women are so different, each one half of man.

It doesn't say what day He separated them.

Rhamlet writes:
A very good point. I have suggested that it was a long time between Adam's "formation" and Eve's "fashioning" simply by reading the account. Adam was alone for a period of time LONGER than one day, yet the Genesis account says that man was made on the SAME DAY, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE. If Adam and Eve were a part of that "same day", then substantial problems come into play. We would still have to look at the fact that, in the creation account of man, on the sixth day was "spoken" into existence like EVERY other created animal in the first six days. Adam was "formed" out of the dirt which indicates that He was not created by the spoken "word" of God, he was a special earthen vessel formed out of all His creation to have God's Spirit breathed into his nostrils and become the first "LIVING BEING".

At creation, every other created animal and, I believe, every man, was created both male and female, EXACTLY as He said.

Adam was a unique and separate man. His "helper" was to be "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh" which is why God took Adam's rib to fashion Eve rather than what He did at creation with all other humans, created them male and female from the same moment He spoke them into existence, just as He did every other mammal, bird, and fish. This male and female creation was bless to go and populate the earth with the "Sons of men". Adam and Eve were blessed to populate the earth with the "Sons of God", with His Spirit.

Thanks for the good comments and thoughts in your post!

Rick

Studyin'2Show
Dec 9th 2007, 02:45 AM
If science proves that the radio-activity of carbon (carbon 14) decays at a measurable and predictable rate over a period of time, and can measure the age of things by how far along that decay is in an object and estimate its age with a certain proven degree of accuracy, then we have a tool to measure how old things are. If we discover that this tool, based on the physical laws, determine that there are objects much older than 6,000 years, we should take a look at why we believe that the entire creation is only 6,000 years old based soley on our understanding of the Genesis account. Just for clarification, science has NOT PROVEN the radioactivity of carbon as it relates to the predictable rate over a period greater than the control period where the hypothesis can be tested. For example, if one absolutely knows that a particular document is let's say, 200 years old, then we can test the theory to see if it applies practically. The hypothesis of whether the theory relating to carbon 14 works can only be proven within the parameters of a control. The control in the above example was the 200 year old document whose age could be confirmed. Take that back 1000 years, 2000 years, even more. All the hypotheses regarding carbon 14 assume that the amount of carbon 14 in a live organism, let's say, 4,500 years is the same standard amount we'd find in an organism today. One thing many forget to consider is that it is very likely things were VERY different before the flood. Before the flood lifespans according to genealogies were commonly 8 to 9 hundred years. After the flood, lifespans drop drastically. One would have to absolutely know the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 before that time. The fact is that no one can. We've only known about radiocarbon dating for about 100 years, so how could we even know the decay rate has been constant for tens of thousands? Therefore, we can safely say that beyond the oldest 'control' which is about 4,000 years, carbon dating has NOT been proven. ;)

As to your assumption that those who believe that the earth is less than 6,000 years old believe so solely based on the biblical account, I'm sorry but that's incorrect as well. I came to this conclusion within the past 5 years based on empirical scientific data. BTW, it is the data that is true but not always the conclusions that are drawn from that data. Anyway, I'm a little busy right now but I'll give you just one empirical fact that points toward a young earth. The current population is about 6.5 billion people. Using a starting amount of 2 and a conservative growth rate it is easy to come to over 8 billion in 6,000. Now, if you spread that out over just 50,000 years even factoring in wars, disease, famine and other population diminishers, we would have been looking for alternate planet colonization about 30,000 years ago. (source Population Rate Article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people)). Simple conservative arithmetic pointing to a young earth. :spin:

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 9th 2007, 10:48 AM
Just because flesh man has been here 6000 - 14000 years that does not tell us how old this planet is. I will agree that carbon dating has flaws but I do not see how someone can fit the dinosaurs into this 6000 year box and still have room and time for the migrations of man. ;) I was hoping that Rick would shed some more light on this subject I am curious as to what facts he could add to this thread that might shed some light if any to what we are all talking about. Where did ya go Rick ? One other question for the Mods. Why is it that this thread does not make it to the new post board ?

Duane Morse
Dec 9th 2007, 11:02 AM
Just because flesh man has been here 6000 - 14000 years...

YEC would suggest right around 6000 years for both the age of Man and Earth.
Scientists and OEC would go as far as ~4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and possibly 200,000 years for Man (as in Homo-Sapiens).

I am wondering why you put the spread of 6000-14000 years.
Why the extra 8000 years?

The dating from Genesis would suggest that Adam was formed/created ~6000 years ago - not 14,000.


Just interested in what your thinking is on the dating, not trying to cause conflict.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 9th 2007, 12:57 PM
One other question for the Mods. Why is it that this thread does not make it to the new post board ?Isaac, you've likely subscribed to this thread which means that to see when there's been a new post, you simply click the User CP (http://bibleforums.org/usercp.php) in the upper left corner of the page. Noone sees the threads they've subscribed to in the 'New Posts' link. But everyone who has NOT subscribed to this thread DOES see it when they click the 'New Posts' link. Try it with any other thread to which you've subscribed and you will see that it's the case. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Dec 9th 2007, 01:15 PM
Just because flesh man has been here 6000 - 14000 years that does not tell us how old this planet is. I will agree that carbon dating has flaws but I do not see how someone can fit the dinosaurs into this 6000 year box and still have room and time for the migrations of man.6,000 years is a very, very long time. That man has lived on the planet with very, very large creatures is NOT an unbelievable thing. There are many creatures that I have never seen in my environment, yet I live on the planet with them right now. BTW, most dinosaurs were about the size of a small horse or goat. The really big ones just get all the press. :D When you look at the fact that EVERY continent has stories of large creatures/dragons, for me it's hard to understand why people refused to consider that man HAS lived with these creatures. The Ica Stones (http://www.viewzone.com/dinostone.ica.html) were carved thousands of years ago and they have pictures that clearly show man riding or slaying creatures that appear to be what we call dinosaurs. Most people have simply been taught that man never lived with dinosaurs so they don't question it. But I do.

God Bless!

Kahtar
Dec 9th 2007, 02:06 PM
And along with that there is the footprint discovered inside of a dino print.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 9th 2007, 10:05 PM
I see a bunch of conflicting evidence here. I understand what it is you believe I just have read a bunch about the dinosaurs all my life that would indicate that they have been around much longer than 6000 years. There is a geological boundary call the uridium boundary that indicates to "me" that there was life and then a time with NO life plant or animal and then again life as we know it. I guess we could knock this around all day and the nice folks on this thread would not agree at least with me. I in no way discount the Bible. I was hoping Rick might make another post or two so we all could hear his ideas. I do not see how we can place a boundary on time. Is one thousand years the same as one day with the Lord ? I believe so. did God continue the creation after the 7th day ? What I get from Gen 2 is yes HE did. This has a direct effect on how we look at the first few chapters of the Bible. Knowing the beginning it to understand the end. I am a student in quest of all info on the subject I can find and I will not ever close the book on investigating new evidence. If we are six days from Adam then the 7th day would be the millennium.

On another note thank you for your help on how to understand this forum and how to move about it. ;)

Kahtar
Dec 9th 2007, 10:31 PM
I agree with the life, then no life, then life again thing, because that's exactly what the Bible describes. Life, then worldwide flood destroying all life, then life again. There would naturally be a layer of clean, lifefree flood-laid silt on top of that first life. Of course, the length of time is the issue.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 9th 2007, 10:42 PM
I agree with the life, then no life, then life again thing, because that's exactly what the Bible describes. Life, then worldwide flood destroying all life, then life again. There would naturally be a layer of clean, lifefree flood-laid silt on top of that first life. Of course, the length of time is the issue.
I agree Kahtar it is the issue. The answer will make a huge difference on how Genesis is viewed. Noah's flood is not old enough to fit this boundary my opinion. There have been palm wood found drilling in Alaska and in the north west part of the Gulf of Mexico and in to Texas a treasure of fossils. Kahtar do you live near where that meteor hit in NM ? Great stuff for sure.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 9th 2007, 10:57 PM
Glad to be of service Isaac. There is so much data that is not disputed, it is only the conclusions that are drawn from that data that are up for discussion. I believe this scripture says a lot as far as my experience with this goes.

Proverbs 18:17 - The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

I was taught one side of the story and it sounded good and I accepted it as fact. Then, about five or six years ago, I was presented with the other side. The more I examine and cross-examine, the more believe the earth is less than 6,000 years old. If your interested in examining the other side AiG (Answers in Genesis) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) has the most complete information available that supports a young earth. Check out their video on demand section (http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/) to see what other scientists have to say. ;)

God Bless!

the_celtic_one
Dec 10th 2007, 01:15 AM
The following study will open the subject of:





Adam Was Formed



Well After the Six Days of Creation





Genesis Chapter 1

…11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day…

…20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

· THEN God created man, male AND female…

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. …And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

· God created man, BOTH male and female, on the same day.



Genesis 2


1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

· At this point in time, God COMPLETED ALL that He said He created.

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

· The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.


(Note: "There was no man that could cultivate the earth". There were only the hunter/gatherers that were created in the beginning, both male and female. In this lies the reason for misunderstanding. Most believe that "No man to cultivate the ground" to mean that there were NO MEN)

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

· The next event is out of sequence with the description of events of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. It indicates that certain trees were not yet in the earth, yet in the first six days of creation, it clearly states that they were created BEFORE man was created. This indicates a confusion of the account of events or a different sequence of events is “Now” being related.

9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

· This is a “planting” and a “caused to grow” and not a “creation”.

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

· Why was man “alone” when God created them male and female on the same day?

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

· Again, this is out of sequence from Genesis 1. In the first six days, God made the animals and then man. This cannot be the first six days or it contradicts the sequence of events. God was very specific about what He did, and the order of it, on specific days.


20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

· How long did the naming of animals take (considering there are many thousands of species) before Eve was fashioned (on the same day)?

21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

· Here is a completely different phenomenon. This is NOT, “27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

· God performed a “fashioning” of a woman from the body of a man. This is not God “speaking” a thing into existence and therefore not consistent with the manner in which God performed in the six days of creation.

As a result of failing to see that the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "spoken into existense" creation, Christians have had to try and defend a 6,000 year old creation because we can estimate the length of time from Adam's lineage to Jesus to present. This is solely because we believe that Adam was created along with those who were created male and female "in the beginning".


This may have already been discussed, but, I only read the first page (feeling too lazy and the Colts are about to play, ;)).

You are discussing a theory very close to something called the "gap theory" which claims there to be a long period of time, or a "gap" between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2... This theory, much like yours, works on gaining credibility through word play... Citing the signifigance of certain words over others which most regard as being equally important. This thought in and of itself is flawed for a few reasons:
1.) it tends to ignore other words, and if you scrutinize every single word down to the most insignifigant adjective, then we arrive at a problem of ignoring OTHER key words. In the case of the gap theory it is ignoring the word "and" at the beggining of verse 2, of Gen. chapter 1. The word and shows a continuation... A complete lack of pause... I am sure the same can be said of your theory.
2.) The Bibles we have are not accurate enough to the origional manuscripts (most of which we haven't seen) in order to scrutinize every single word... While I beleive the Bible was essentially written by God I believe it is on more of a thought-by-thought premisses than a word-by-word. This is also quite proven, because there are many "possibly origional" manuscripts that have been found, which differ GREATLY in the wording. However, they do share the same THOUGHTS.

Now on a different note/level:

These theories exist because they are trying to fill in the gap between the pseudo-sciences that are spoken of in evolution and the like, and Christianity. Christianity is in and of itself uncomprimising, unlike science. We no longer beleive that blood is useless, the sun revolves around the earth of that the earth is flat... Even though the Bible has been saying these facts thousands of years before science finally caught up. Haha

So, as far as appeasing these "old earth" beleifs, consider the following facts:

1.) Rapid and high water often causes a lot of rapid matter displacement, changing a signigant amount of landscape in a very short amount of time. I can attest to this, I live next to a creek. When it rains hard the creek rises. It can rise for one night... If it overflows the banks, then the banks are drasticly altered. These theories of the earths layers, the Grand Canyon and many other features don't have to be explained by TIME, it could easilly have been caused by a great cotastrophe, such as Noah's flood.
2.) There is no accurate way to date rocks. This is where the term pseudo-science comes in. The way that old-earth scientists date rocks is by using something called "radioactive dating". While this term SOUNDS impressive, it is made to support itself, by using itself as proof. Let me elaborate on this further. They beleive that the rock is dated by the place it is in the "geologic column". In turn, the geologic column is dated by that rock they found. The very idea is absurd! Try to apply this sort of logic to anything else... You will get no where.

The truth is, that they say the earth is millions of years old, because it is what they want to beleive, mostly because of darwinian beleifs... There is no proof they just say "I beleive in evolution, so it has to be this old. Therefore if it is this old, each layer must represent such and such amount of years. If this is true, then radioactive dating proves how old stuff is".

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

Bottom line, you don't have to use those ideas to make it "science compatible". The Bible is already compatible with real science, pseudo science is just far behind.

Kahtar
Dec 10th 2007, 02:23 AM
I agree Kahtar it is the issue. The answer will make a huge difference on how Genesis is viewed. Noah's flood is not old enough to fit this boundary my opinion. There have been palm wood found drilling in Alaska and in the north west part of the Gulf of Mexico and in to Texas a treasure of fossils.The palm trees in Alaska would support what Genesis speaks of in chapter 2, before the flood, where it had not yet rained, but mist rising up from the ground watered the surface. One gets the idea that there was a 'greenhouse' situation at that time, which fairly evenly distributed the warmth to all parts of the globe, thus making it warm enough there to support heavy vegetation and dinos.
That all would have changed in the flood though.

Kahtar do you live near where that meteor hit in NM ? Great stuff for sure.:hmm: Which one? there have been several, one not too long ago near Aztec, which is 15 miles west of me. Probably the one you're talking of is the one in Arizona which left that mile wide crater. I'm not very close to that one, though I have been through the general area there. Haven't got to go see it yet though. I'd like to.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 10th 2007, 02:43 PM
I have been reading over the weekend and most evidence points to a sudden extinction followed by a long period of darkness and no life forms. Just happened that last night National Geographic had a hour show on this very subject. I respect your point of view I just do not agree that this planet is 6000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

In no way do I believe in any kind of evolution !! NO WAY ! With that said I do not doubt the word of God but I do doubt the translations of that Word by many different people. I read some stuff on new world creationist and they spend much time trying to discount science. I have yet to read or hear anyone give me a good time frame for dinosaurs and man. I believe Adam was about 6000 years ago no problem there. God used five of HIS days to make other things as we all know. Could that be 5000 years in itself ? I am not trying to limit the power of God but more to understand it as the rest of you do. I will continue to do my homework and not limit myself to the box. I welcome any info you other avatars might want to add.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 03:27 PM
Just curious, Issac, most of the scientists that will tell you that the planet more than 6,000 years old as if it is a proven fact, will also tell you that darwinian evolution is a proven fact. Why is it that you accept their scientific view for one thing (earth's age) but not the other (evolution)?

As for your source that seems to discount science, I would again recommend answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) They have many scientists on staff and definitely don't attempt to discount true science. I, personally, LOVE science. I've just learned to critically examine EVERYTHING, and when I do, I find that much of what has been thought to have been proven, is really still on the table.

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 10th 2007, 03:35 PM
Just curious, Issac, most of the scientists that will tell you that the planet more than 6,000 years old as if it is a proven fact, will also tell you that darwinian evolution is a proven fact. Why is it that you accept their scientific view for one thing (earth's age) but not the other (evolution)?

As for your source that seems to discount science, I would again recommend answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) They have many scientists on staff and definitely don't attempt to discount true science. I, personally, LOVE science. I've just learned to critically examine EVERYTHING, and when I do, I find that much of what has been thought to have been proven, is really still on the table.

God Bless!
It comes down to one mans interpretation over another mans ? I see science as some hard evidence and what I have read and watched never mention evolution. I am going to go to this web site you have posted and I will spend some time there and will post again after I get done. Thank you for the link. I wonder what ever happened to Rick ?

Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”7 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife#fnList_1_7)

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 03:52 PM
I wonder what ever happened to Rick ?Some people don't post everyday. Rick is a newer member only having joined this month so I don't know his pattern. :hmm: Once you and he have been members for 30 days and have 40 posts, you will be able to use the Private Messaging system. :)

Kahtar
Dec 10th 2007, 04:08 PM
Interesting thing I have seen about science is that all those things that science has proven to be fact do not contradict God's Word in the least.
The unproven, and unprovable, theories of science often do depart from the Word. Macro evolution is a good example.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 10th 2007, 04:26 PM
I should know how to quote could use some help on that. I do not think our Father to be sloppy in His writings. I do see people content to stay plugged in to the matrix and not question "men" about God. I do not question God just flesh men or women that will not try to look outside the box. I enjoy the study of science I have a telescope and go to the local college star party ( no zodiac for me) I love to read about digs done in the Americas and other countries and read secular history. I think that this statement makes some new and good points. So I just copy and pasted this quote from Rhamlet :

This "misunderstanding" cannot account for the obvious scientific evidence and archaeological evidence that exist in the fossil record. This is why anyone remotely educated in the sciences must reject the Genesis account (as faithful Christians understand it) based on the EVIDENCE they observe. Faithful Christians for centuries have misunderstood the account. Faithful Christians today defend the faithful Christians of old who had no scientific investigative method of forming their understanding of what and how and when God created everything. The only reason why we do not today believe that the world is not flat nor is the center of the universe is because it has been scientifically observed and proven. Otherwise, the prevailing "misunderstanding" would be what the faithful would defend, believing themselves to be faithful to God's word, while denying the truth of what God Himself has engineered.

Many recorded biblical accounts occurred approximately 3500 years ago. That means that that recent historical account occurred only 2500 years after creation. That means that all the dinosaurs, prehistoric fossils, all of the evidence of mankind and verifyable and very old and VERY LONG archaeological evidence ALL lived and died in only 2,500 year period. Maybe that was acceptable to the average Christian in the year 1400, but now it is absolutely dismissed by the average Christian who has any exposure to the scientific evidence. THEREFORE, we must re-examine what we believe and why we believe what we believe to see if WE have misunderstood instead of saying that Galileo was wrong because we "believe what we believe".

For me, I decided to examine it and not dismiss the POSSIBILITY that something was wrong with, not how GOD did things, and not when GOD did things, but how WE may have misunderstood things and deny that POSSIBILITY, and so, never examine it again.

"I think the problem is with the way you are understanding it, not that the author of Gen was confused and sloppy and contradicted himself."

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 08:35 PM
You should see a "QUOTE" button in the bottom right hand corner of the post you want to quote. That will set everything up for you so you can just add your comment from there.

I believe I understand the point you are making, and be assured that I have not come into this with a preconceived idea of how Genesis must be interpreted. The more I have studied it, I have formed an opinion of the interpretation but that came with time and study. Where I see sort of a line in the sand is in what kahtar is describing. Actual provable, repeatable, observable science and then areas that, though they may be filled with good hypotheses, can neither be proven, repeated, or observed. That's where I see the possibility of serious misunderstanding and miscalculation. This is why I have trouble with ABSOLUTE statements regarding something that is so abstract. The fact is that there are many Spirit-filled believers who interpret these things differently and that's alright by me. ;)

God Bless!

rhamlet
Dec 10th 2007, 09:09 PM
Hi Guys,

Sorry about not checkin' in over the weekend. I had family stuff to be present for. I see that the discussion goes on in good form.

I believe it can be assumed that each of us (those contributing and those reading only) have a sincere and honest desire to know the truth of God's word. None of us is questioning God's word when we suggest that man's understanding of it may be inaccurate. Our God is a God of Truth. Science will only support what God has done if it is used by honest men. It will be equally contradictory of God's truth if used by men who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (the world).

Questions about the church's present understanding is not a challenge to the accuracy of God's word. When a question is raised, honest Christians should acknowledge that there may be some truth to be examined if the so-called evidence suggests a problem. If the only response is, "There is no problem and I'll fight anyone who suggests that there is!" then sincere and honest Christians will be silenced. When that happens, light is darkened.

Here is a simple observation:

According to the church's present understanding of the Genesis account, where Adam and Eve were made along with all of creation, they were made on the same day. If that was the case, then some "curiousities" arise.

1. God brought all of the animals before Adam to be named, thousands of species, and he named them. How long did that take?

2. God brought the animals to Adam to see if he could find a suitible helper. Why? The Genesis 1 account says He created them male and female, just as He created every other living animal.

3. God said, "It is not good for man to be alone." Why? Was Adam being impatient during the same day that God had created Eve? Why would God say that it was not good for Adam to be alone if it was only for several hours?

This is a single curious statement that should provoke another look at another possible understanding than the present day understanding. There are others and it doesn't mean that heritics are attacking the accuracy of God's word. Can we agree that something is "curious"?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 09:44 PM
1. God brought all of the animals before Adam to be named, thousands of species, and he named them. How long did that take?

2. God brought the animals to Adam to see if he could find a suitible helper. Why? The Genesis 1 account says He created them male and female, just as He created every other living animal.

3. God said, "It is not good for man to be alone." Why? Was Adam being impatient during the same day that God had created Eve? Why would God say that it was not good for Adam to be alone if it was only for several hours?Thanks for the input, Rick! I don't see the conflict that you seem to see but I'll go ahead and address your questions.

1. A few hours. Remember, we are talking about birds and beasts, not sea creatures or insects or simple-celled organisms and such. As for each kind of animal, I don't believe there was the variation that we see today. For example, the bear. There are black bears, brown bears, polar bears, sun bears and more. I believe God created two bears with all the genetic variation within the genome. Because I believe the climate was uniform (palm trees in the Arctic) polar bears may have been obsolete. Anyway, I don't see it taking more than a few hours to name them.

2. Why not? In the Genesis 1 account it says He created them on the same day, not the same moment. But even if you believe it was at the same moment, that would be fine since Eve was actually within Adam. I believe God created each bird and beast again for a purpose. Adam was able to see who the Creator was by watching Him create. He also would have a greater appreciation for Eve.

3. There is no implication that Adam was somehow impatient. How do you read that into the text? God was laying down a pattern to show Adam something, just as He has always done. He teaches us in parables; always has. He learned that day that Eve was unique, special; as every husband should recognize. :D

God Bless!

rhamlet
Dec 10th 2007, 11:47 PM
OK , so you don't see any "curiousity" in the text that you cannot explain. I accept that you do not.

Here is another curiousity:

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


Follow my supposition...

In verse 4, it says that "This is the account..." of the way God created everything. The text flows right into the next verse which says that certain "shrubs of the field" and "no plant of the fields" had "yet sprouted" because...the Lord had not sent rain AND there was no man to "cultivate the ground".

Just suppose...That all the men on the earth for several thousand years were hunter/gatherers as is seen in the fossil records and cave drawings...just suppose. If that were the case, then "there was no man to cultivate the ground" until Adam. Correct? (Just supposing. I am not asking you to agree).

Now we know that God created the trees and vegetation on the third day according to Genesis 1. Yet in verse 9 of Genesis 2, it says that the trees in this particular case are made after Adam was "formed".

1. Why was the order of man's creation and the vegetation diffferent from the Genesis account? Not at least a curiousity?

My continued suggestion is that the "planting of a garden", the "formation of Adam", the "fashioning of Eve from Adam's rib", the "caused to grow shrubs and trees pleasing to the eye", the "tree of Life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" were all a special, separate action of God at a later date than the first six days where He "SPOKE" and every word was so. Not a single word that was used in the events around Adam and Eve's origin was characterized in the same way.

Adam was a special man, with a special purpose, in a special place, in special surroundings to be the first "living being" alive to God in a relational way. I find it so obvious that this is a distincly different sequence of events. I can see why the prevailing understanding wants to superimpose the two accounts, one on top of the other, but you really have to ignor that two distinctly different descriptions of HOW they came about exist. Yes, it can be explained away if you let words have ambiguous, flexible meanings. I believe God is specific and deliberately described "speaking" and "creating" differently from "forming", fashioning from", "planting" and "causing to grow".

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 11th 2007, 12:03 AM
OK , so you don't see any "curiousity" in the text that you cannot explain. I accept that you do not.

Here is another curiousity:

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


Follow my supposition...

In verse 4, it says that "This is the account..." of the way God created everything. The text flows right into the next verse which says that certain "shrubs of the field" and "no plant of the fields" had "yet sprouted" because...the Lord had not sent rain AND there was no man to "cultivate the ground".

Just suppose...That all the men on the earth for several thousand years were hunter/gatherers as is seen in the fossil records and cave drawings...just suppose. If that were the case, then "there was no man to cultivate the ground" until Adam. Correct? (Just supposing. I am not asking you to agree).

Now we know that God created the trees and vegetation on the third day according to Genesis 1. Yet in verse 9 of Genesis 2, it says that the trees in this particular case are made after Adam was "formed".

1. Why was the order of man's creation and the vegetation different from the Genesis account? Not at least a curiosity?

My continued suggestion is that the "planting of a garden", the "formation of Adam", the "fashioning of Eve from Adam's rib", the "caused to grow shrubs and trees pleasing to the eye", the "tree of Life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" were all a special, separate action of God at a later date than the first six days where He "SPOKE" and every word was so. Not a single word that was used in the events around Adam and Eve's origin was characterized in the same way.

Adam was a special man, with a special purpose, in a special place, in special surroundings to be the first "living being" alive to God in a relational way. I find it so obvious that this is a distinctly different sequence of events. I can see why the prevailing understanding wants to superimpose the two accounts, one on top of the other, but you really have to ignore that two distinctly different descriptions of HOW they came about exist. Yes, it can be explained away if you let words have ambiguous, flexible meanings. I believe God is specific and deliberately described "speaking" and "creating" differently from "forming", fashioning from", "planting" and "causing to grow".

Good to hear from you Rick. I read all the new post and you have a very interesting view Sir. I like it and it does make much more sense than what I have read here so far. I have read Genesis over and over and this just clicks more than I have heard so far. I have been raised in the Baptist faith and they just have never talked much about Genesis much more than Eve ate a apple which I have not found either. Good post. I tried your PM and email does not work yet the mod said. You might can send me one ?
Thanks for your post and the other avatars too this has been a learning experience.

the_celtic_one
Dec 11th 2007, 12:11 AM
I should know how to quote could use some help on that. I do not think our Father to be sloppy in His writings. I do see people content to stay plugged in to the matrix and not question "men" about God. I do not question God just flesh men or women that will not try to look outside the box. I enjoy the study of science I have a telescope and go to the local college star party ( no zodiac for me) I love to read about digs done in the Americas and other countries and read secular history. I think that this statement makes some new and good points. So I just copy and pasted this quote from Rhamlet :

This "misunderstanding" cannot account for the obvious scientific evidence and archaeological evidence that exist in the fossil record. This is why anyone remotely educated in the sciences must reject the Genesis account (as faithful Christians understand it) based on the EVIDENCE they observe. Faithful Christians for centuries have misunderstood the account. Faithful Christians today defend the faithful Christians of old who had no scientific investigative method of forming their understanding of what and how and when God created everything. The only reason why we do not today believe that the world is not flat nor is the center of the universe is because it has been scientifically observed and proven. Otherwise, the prevailing "misunderstanding" would be what the faithful would defend, believing themselves to be faithful to God's word, while denying the truth of what God Himself has engineered.

Many recorded biblical accounts occurred approximately 3500 years ago. That means that that recent historical account occurred only 2500 years after creation. That means that all the dinosaurs, prehistoric fossils, all of the evidence of mankind and verifyable and very old and VERY LONG archaeological evidence ALL lived and died in only 2,500 year period. Maybe that was acceptable to the average Christian in the year 1400, but now it is absolutely dismissed by the average Christian who has any exposure to the scientific evidence. THEREFORE, we must re-examine what we believe and why we believe what we believe to see if WE have misunderstood instead of saying that Galileo was wrong because we "believe what we believe".

For me, I decided to examine it and not dismiss the POSSIBILITY that something was wrong with, not how GOD did things, and not when GOD did things, but how WE may have misunderstood things and deny that POSSIBILITY, and so, never examine it again.

"I think the problem is with the way you are understanding it, not that the author of Gen was confused and sloppy and contradicted himself."


My question to you though, is how do you know the earth is older than most Christians say it is? What method of dating are you using? Why can't that all be possible?

As far as dinosaurs go there are possible instances of them being mentioned in the bible, for example a verse in Job states "Be still, Behemoth" which is beleived by some to be dinosaurs. I do find it unlikely that they would have survived the flood though... Even though Noah would have taken a pair of dino's on the boat, the world was drastically changed after the flood. The places they could have lived would have been dramatically limited, and I doubt they would have lasted long.

I agree that our understanding is more of a hinderance than science ever will be. Just as someone stated earlier about macro-evolution... It keeps proving itself wrong, and unscientific. What I am saying though, is we shouldn't try so hard to make our faith coincide with other beleifs we have... It just seems like a big stretch from the common Gen. theory to what you are saying.

I don't beleive our earth is old... And I have yet to find any scientific documentation that can guess the age of the earth, except for things like Radioactive Dating, which proves nothing. However, if you can show me doccuments on WHY you beleive the earth is old, then I will look at them. If I find convincing evidence, I will look at your theory again.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 11th 2007, 12:26 AM
I think you can google up the facts as I have. Science has different ways of dating things. Thank you for your reply. I can in no way see dinosaurs and man from start until today going on in 6000 years. The bones and the size of the animals would tell you they would never fit in Noah's Ark. I do think the facts in this matter what ever they turn out to be will be very important to our understanding of Genesis. I will be looking for other post on this matter and I will read them all.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 11th 2007, 01:20 AM
The bones and the size of the animals would tell you they would never fit in Noah's Ark.The big dinosaurs were very big, but the little dinosaurs were very little. :D I think Noah would've been bright enough to take the babies. ;) Not only would they be smaller and easier to feed, but they would have a longer reproductive life after the flood than full grown animals. BTW, that would go for ALL the animals.

God Bless!

Duane Morse
Dec 11th 2007, 01:25 AM
The big dinosaurs were very big, but the little dinosaurs were very little. :D I think Noah would've been bright enough to take the babies. ;)
:rofl:

Funny how the most obvious and sensible answers are so often overlooked by those that want to prove something wrong.

Kahtar
Dec 11th 2007, 02:15 AM
Another possibility overlooked is, if Adam and those other preflood people lived for hundreds of years, as the Word tells us, then, without doubt, the animals did as well.
Most reptiles continue to grow their entire lives. How large would say, an iguana, become after a thousand years of growth?
Who's to say that the dinos of that time are not the reptiles of today with much shorter lifespans?

rhamlet
Dec 11th 2007, 04:41 AM
If you have ever been to the Museum of Natural History in NYC or similar, you would have been struck by the prehistoric artifacts and time lines. Adam's lineage takes place in HISTORIC times, in that it and other writings of ancient civilizations exist. The quantities and huge variety of fossils are staggering. The enormous size of the dinasaurs when standing next to a reconstructed one is very impressive.

Although there are a very few mentions of a big creature in the word, leviathan, it does not, in my opinion, come close to recording the presence of thousands of now extinct creatures that are so intimdating and yet they didn't say much about them, if at all. There are no "historic" accounts other than legends of dragons. There are no pictoral records in the ancient tablets that were carved. So, I find it reasonable that these "monsters" were not living side by side with Adam's lineage, although they were clearly living side by side with prehistoric man.

Also, I would just like for us to consider the time line of Adam. The Egyptian civilization that existed 4,000 years ago is a well-documented civilization and, by that time, no dinosaurs existed. That means that if Adam was "formed" at the same time as all of creation, the dinosaurs proliferated on the earth leaving thousands of fossils of creatures that took many years to grow to the size they were, and yet came and went in just 2,500 years. This is about the same amount of time from Jesus Christ to the present time. Again, there was no mention of the earth teeming with the presence of these creatures in any of the ancient writings dating to the earliest times, yet they are evident, and in great numbers, in every part of the world in the fossil record.

A VERY plausible explanation is that Adam, the garden and the plan of God for mankind and His kingdom was initiated well after the many many years that the prehistoric record was being laid out over the earth since creation. This in no way refutes a single bible verse and lines up perfectly with the evidence of older than 6,000 year old archeology.

Kahtar
Dec 11th 2007, 05:33 AM
Of course, if there were dinos living at the time of Adam, the first 1500 years, they all would have disappeared rather suddenly, same time as all but eight of the human population disappeared, in the same event. So any documentation post-flood would make little mention of them, beyond legends from the preflood world.
Since man seemingly did not begin writing until after the flood, there are of course no written records from the pre flood era, beyond wall paintings.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 11th 2007, 12:23 PM
Although there are a very few mentions of a big creature in the word, leviathan, it does not, in my opinion, come close to recording the presence of thousands of now extinct creatures that are so intimdating and yet they didn't say much about them, if at all. There are no "historic" accounts other than legends of dragons. There are no pictoral records in the ancient tablets that were carved. So, I find it reasonable that these "monsters" were not living side by side with Adam's lineage, although they were clearly living side by side with prehistoric man.

A VERY plausible explanation is that Adam, the garden and the plan of God for mankind and His kingdom was initiated well after the many many years that the prehistoric record was being laid out over the earth since creation. This in no way refutes a single bible verse and lines up perfectly with the evidence of older than 6,000 year old archeology.You comment on the few mentions of big creatures in the Bible, what about the many mentions of big creatures in other writings. One thing one must remember is that the word 'dinosaur' was created in very recent history. So, we can't expect to see the word. What we do see in pretty much every ancient culture is large creatures called dragons or sea monsters. That should cover this issue for you. BTW, are you aware that most dinosaurs were smaller than the size of a small horse?

Your explanation concerning prehistory and then history does seem to have some issue with some scripture. Here's an example:

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

This seems to clearly be saying that through the sin of Adam, death CAME into the world. That would mean that there was no death before Adam sinned and therefore no way to have bones of dead things BEFORE Adam. Now, AFTER Adam, sure stuff died for close to two millennia. Then the flood was sufficient to properly preserve things as fossils. That's my take out it. ;)

God Bless!

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 11th 2007, 01:00 PM
Question for Rick ? If there were two creations does this mean the different races came on different days of the creation ?

With the hard scientific evidence dinosaurs did not fit into 2500 years this I can agree with. My opinion. What Rick has posted makes some good sense. I have enjoyed researching this issue and I too enjoy reading the post about how some folks believe this fits into a 6000 year box. I do have a question as to why I have never heard of this before and I am 47 ?? That seems odd for sure.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 11th 2007, 01:41 PM
As a black woman, I'd like to hear what Rick has to say about the so-called 'races' as well as his comment on death before sin, though the Bible says that sin was before death. My hubby is white, our youngest daughter has blond hair and a fair complexion like a Scandinavian. Our middle son has olive-skin and brown eyes like a Middle Eastern, and our oldest daughter (the upside down one in my avatar) is light but not fair with dirty blond hair; many people think she is Latin. The fact is that there is only ONE RACE and that is the human race. We just have different genetic traits that could easily have come from the two made by the very hand of God. Call me silly but to even imply that some people are from some substandard 'race' is dangerous and is what led to Arianism and the Holocaust in Germany as well as other ethnic cleansings around the world.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 11th 2007, 02:25 PM
As a black woman, I'd like to hear what Rick has to say about the so-called 'races' as well as his comment on death before sin, though the Bible says that sin was before death. My hubby is white, our youngest daughter has blond hair and a fair complexion like a Scandinavian. Our middle son has olive-skin and brown eyes like a Middle Eastern, and our oldest daughter (the upside down one in my avatar) is light but not fair with dirty blond hair; many people think she is Latin. The fact is that there is only ONE RACE and that is the human race. We just have different genetic traits that could easily have come from the two made by the very hand of God. Call me silly but to even imply that some people are from some substandard 'race' is dangerous and is what led to Arianism and the Holocaust in Germany as well as other ethnic cleansing around the world.

I do not think any person no matter the race is substandard ! You have a very nice family as I do. God created all his children and it was "GOOD" ;)
You have every right to be proud of your fine family. We do all have different genetic traits and they did come from the hand of God. Please do not think I am part of Arianism or any other group. I am Christian and that sums it up get to go. There are many different races on this planet and I do think following the migrations that they could have been created different not that one is better than the other only different. That is only my opinion based on migrations. I did take time and visited your web site and read most of the post there. I do not have a Bible web site only one for my business that has no bearing here.

rhamlet
Dec 11th 2007, 09:18 PM
As a black woman, I'd like to hear what Rick has to say about the so-called 'races' as well as his comment on death before sin, though the Bible says that sin was before death. My hubby is white, our youngest daughter has blond hair and a fair complexion like a Scandinavian. Our middle son has olive-skin and brown eyes like a Middle Eastern, and our oldest daughter (the upside down one in my avatar) is light but not fair with dirty blond hair; many people think she is Latin. The fact is that there is only ONE RACE and that is the human race. We just have different genetic traits that could easily have come from the two made by the very hand of God. Call me silly but to even imply that some people are from some substandard 'race' is dangerous and is what led to Arianism and the Holocaust in Germany as well as other ethnic cleansings around the world.


This is the perfect example!

On the sixth day of creation, God created man, male and female, just as he created every other bird, fish mammal and creature, BOTH male and female. May I suggest that He created them in as many "races" as are evident in the earth, just as He created many kinds of the same species of animals? When He created a dog, He did not create a single breed. They are genetically the same "kind", and therefore can inter-breed, but they are a breed, or "race" in their genetic makeup that is definable and distinguishable from other breeds. There is not one breed "superior" to another, that is man's stupidity.

Following the point, may I suggest that God not only made a variety of men (which is apparent on the earth), but He also made large numbers of men, just as He did with every other creature at creation.

Continuing, each race has specific genetic characteristices that are defined. They are recognizable and distinct. When we say, "That person is Asian" or "That person is Scandinavian looking", we are pointing out that obvious recognition. If these genetic characteristics are kept in a closed culture in a region of the world, no new genetic contributions alter that race's distinguishing characteristics and they grow in numbers and are unchanged.

When cultures inter-marry their genetic characteristics and features blend and the results can vary widely, even in the same family as is true of yours. Depending which culture your children marry into, will further the blending. The point is, that if the obvious races (ethnos) exist (and they are stated as existing in the bible) then if they are not blended with other cultures, they remain intact as would a breed of dog would remain intact as a "pure breed".

God is not responsible for man's hatred between the races that He created, men in a fallen world are. That is not our discussion. Our discussion is to see if these obvious evident curioisities have a God-given explanation that we may not have considered. When Cain was put out of the garden, he said to God that he was afraid of being harmed by people. God didn't say,"HELLO! There's no one out there but you!" No, God marked Cain and promised protection from the legitimate concern that Cain was stating.



On your first point...

Studyin'2Show wrote:

"Your explanation concerning prehistory and then history does seem to have some issue with some scripture. Here's an example:

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

This seems to clearly be saying that through the sin of Adam, death CAME into the world. That would mean that there was no death before Adam sinned and therefore no way to have bones of dead things BEFORE Adam. Now, AFTER Adam, sure stuff died for close to two millennia. Then the flood was sufficient to properly preserve things as fossils. That's my take out it."


Rick writes:

Another great question!

"Death, as we define it, is the absence of physical life in the body. "Death" as God defines it is not. God said to Adam, "The DAY you eat of the fruit...You will surely die". With our definition of death, we would assume that his physical body would lose life. It did not. I've heard "explain-away" explanations on this point, but for the sake of following a point, bear with me...

Jesus said to a man who would follow Him once he had buried his father, "Let the dead bury their own dead". He was talking about the living, as we define it, but He was referring to their spiritual deadness, not as we define death as physical. Another time Jesus said, Lazarus is "asleep". His disciples didn't understand that Jesus meant he was dead, because of their defintion of "death". Finally, Jesus said plainly, "Lazarus is dead."

I suggest that we have wrongly defined "death" as only physical and applied it to creation. To say that no plant died in the eating of it, that no bug died that the birds feed on and the beasts step on, to say that there was no decomposition that fed the soil and gave its nutrients to the next crop, is to say that absolutely everything God created changed when Adam sinned. It means that vegetarian species became carnivores and their teeth, that were previously suited for eating plants, evolved into perfect carnivorous hunting and eating animals (again all in 2500 years). Do we now believe in evolution or were the carnivoires always carnivoires and we have misunderstood God's defintion of "death"?

Now, for Adam...Adam was the first "Living Being". He was a special earthen vessel made from the dust of the ground and God Himself "breathed His Spirit into his nostrils". All other men and animals were mortal and had life spans that would end in physical death. Adam was alive Spirtually to God unlike any other man. When Adan sinned, he "died" THAT DAY to God, though he "lived" (as we define it). Adam brought death to everyone that would come after Him. Everyone who came after Adam was born "dead in trespasses and sins". Without becoming "born again" in the Spirit, we die a mortal life. Hence, we are "dead" as God defines death, but alive, as we define it. So the scripture you sight as "no death" physically in the world before Adam, is a spiriual death, and that is how Paul was using the definition.

Are you familiar with the scripture,

20Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.


This is one of the scriptures that cause the misconception (in my opinion) that Adam and Eve were the first and only "man" created on the sixth day. Eve was the mother of all the "living", those alive to God. Through her, God had planned to bring forth the entire creation to Himself...But first He had to rope the devil into breaking God's eternal law so He could judge him....This was God's plan from the beginning...And it was, and is, GOOD!

rhamlet
Dec 11th 2007, 09:41 PM
Question for Rick ? If there were two creations does this mean the different races came on different days of the creation ?



There were not two creations. There was one creation and it happened exactly as God described it over a six day period. All the races (ethnos) were created on the sixth day, both male and female in every race evident today (including extinct races as seen in the fossil record).

Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and all of the activity surrounding this event, was many years later and 6,000 years ago. It was not a creation event. There is NO MENTION of a single "created" action on God's part. He "formed", "fashioned", "planted", but NEVER "Spoke and it was so". God had rested from ALL His creative works on the seventh day and has never created a single thing since.

He has, however, been working within His creation ever since. Jesus never performed a "creative" miracle. He only multiplied what He had to work with. He healed what was sick or lame. He changed the nature of one thing into another (water to wine) or commanded nature (the storm).

Creation was a six day long work. The lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world was for the future sin of Adam and our redemption. Adam was the special man God formed from the dust of the ground, made alive to Himself and through him, redeemed ALL men who would come to Christ.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 11th 2007, 10:04 PM
Isaac, I wasn't implying that you were Arian. Not at all, I apologize if it seemed that way. I was just commenting that the belief that some come from an Adamic 'race' and others come from some prehistoric race is simply what led to theories like that. In nature, different 'races' would not be able to procreate. That is what I meant when I said there is only one race! There are many different 'people groups'. That is different.

Adam DID die on that day; both physically AND spiritually. Adam did not live past 1,000 years. With a day being like 1,000 years, Adam was doomed to die before he reached 1,000. As you articulated, he also died spiritually. Now, if he was dead 'spiritually', how did he father all the 'living' if that phrase concerning Eve is ONLY speaking of spiritual life and not physical life. Also, according to the flood account, Noah and his family were of the line of Adam and were the sole survivors of the catastrophe, which would have, even in your scenario, made us ALL now from the same 'race'.

Your explanation in fact, assumes that God created physical death, suffering, diseases like cancer and the like and then looked at it and called IT good! :o I believe these things are a result of the fall of man, not the goodness of God. BTW, fossils have been found with diseases like cancer so God created all those things and called them good? I don't think so. Those things are the perversion of creation caused by the sin of man, in my opinion.

God Bless!

Kahtar
Dec 11th 2007, 10:37 PM
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)
In the scenerio described previously, in which all the various races were created on the sixth day, it would require each one of them to come and eat from the tree. But we know this is not the case, because we are TOLD it's not the case.
Why are all guilty of sin now? Because of the act of ONE man, not several, and because all of us were 'within' Adam when he sinned, and in effect we all experienced that death right along with Adam, because we were a part of Adam at that point, still in his loins, ya see?
And now, by the death of One, we are given life.
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

A dog is a dog is a dog, regardless of his sex, color, or breed.
A man is a man is a man, regardless of his sex, color, or breed.
The distinguishing factors of color, breeding, etc. are nothing more that the product of gene mixing and mutations ( yes we're all a bunch of mutants!:lol:)
One set of dogs in the beginning, probably brown, all colors and breeds variating from them.
One man in the beginning. Through that one man all other humans came, regardless of how we group and differentiate between them now.

The reason so many try to find 'other people', 'seed of satan' etc, is simply because they have such a difficult time accepting that fact that Cain married a sister, neice, or cousin, as if that is some great leap, some how greater than the ideas they propose.
Some sources say Adam and Eve had (at least) 33 children in all. Not a hard thing to accomplish in 900 years. They could have done it in the first 33!
Some of those 33 would have married. Remember, genetically they were close to perfect, so problems which NOW arise with close familial relationships were not a problem then.
If half of the 33 were male, that would give a potential 15 couples. If each of them had 33 children, that gives us 1000 people on the planet within the first 200 years roughly.
We don't know how old Cain was when he married, or who he married. He potentially could have married a sister, or a niece, or a first cousin, second cousin, third cousin, etc.
There is no reason, nor any basis, for trying to come up with different people groups or seed of satan to get poor Cain married off. He probably had 2 or 3 hundred to choose from. Fact is, he married two, if I recall.

rhamlet
Dec 11th 2007, 10:42 PM
In nature, different 'races' would not be able to procreate. That is what I meant when I said there is only one race! There are many different 'people groups'. That is different.

Adam DID die on that day; both physically AND spiritually. Adam did not live past 1,000 years. With a day being like 1,000 years, Adam was doomed to die before he reached 1,000. As you articulated, he also died spiritually. Now, if he was dead 'spiritually', how did he father all the 'living' if that phrase concerning Eve is ONLY speaking of spiritual life and not physical life. Also, according to the flood account, Noah and his family were of the line of Adam and were the sole survivors of the catastrophe, which would have, even in your scenario, made us ALL now from the same 'race'.

Your explanation in fact, assumes that God created physical death, suffering, diseases like cancer and the like and then looked at it and called IT good! :o I believe these things are a result of the fall of man, not the goodness of God. BTW, fossils have been found with diseases like cancer so God created all those things and called them good? I don't think so. Those things are the perversion of creation caused by the sin of man, in my opinion.

God Bless!

In nature, different races can't procreate? No, different "kinds" cannot procreate. A German Shepherd can procreate with a beagal. They are the same "kind" as humans are the same "kind". Different races as with different breeds, can procreate.

You said, "Adam died both phyically and spirually THAT DAY." This is one of those "explain-away" scriptures that make the meaning of the words ambiguous. If Adam died PHYSICALLY THAT DAY, then he stopped breathing THAT DAY, not almost 1,000 years later. He experienced spiritual death that day and it was evident by his reaction to what was evident to him. He became aware that he was naked and hid himself.

The all-inclusive escape from the meaning of words is the 1,000 years is a day scripture. That scripure is used in other areas to avoid the obvious and most easily understood meaning of the text. "TO GOD a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." This is telling us that God is not subject to time. He is omni-present in time. Adam was not. TO ADAM, a day was as a day, and a thousand years was as a thousand years.

Concerning Noah and his family, the reason for God's destruction of the whole world occurred as a result of the "sons of men marrying the daughters of men" and evil began to grow to intolerable heights. Noah's sons married women who had the genes of the races that would be evident after the flood that are evident today.

What God calls, "Good" may not be what we call, "Good". He promises that all that He created He can work out so that everything we go through will be considered "momentary light affliction compared to what He will give us."

Consider this carefully, The same God, who knew the end from the beginning, and saw all the horror that would occur before he created ANYTHING, whose Son, who was the lamb of God who was slain BEFORE the creation of the world, created everything despite the fact that He KNEW it would fall BEFORE He created it....And still called it, "Good." I agree with God that it is good, regardless of how the world suggests it is not. I will wait to see Him and believe that He is Good despite the horror that He can stop in a split second if He chose to. He is good and His creation is good, regardless of what we say about it until He fulfills His whole intention.

rhamlet
Dec 11th 2007, 10:55 PM
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)
In the scenerio described previously, in which all the various races were created on the sixth day, it would require each one of them to come and eat from the tree. But we know this is not the case, because we are TOLD it's not the case.
Why are all guilty of sin now? Because of the act of ONE man, not several, and because all of us were 'within' Adam when he sinned, and in effect we all experienced that death right along with Adam, because we were a part of Adam at that point, still in his loins, ya see?
And now, by the death of One, we are given life.
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

A dog is a dog is a dog, regardless of his sex, color, or breed.
A man is a man is a man, regardless of his sex, color, or breed.
The distinguishing factors of color, breeding, etc. are nothing more that the product of gene mixing and mutations ( yes we're all a bunch of mutants!:lol:)
One set of dogs in the beginning, probably brown, all colors and breeds variating from them.
One man in the beginning. Through that one man all other humans came, regardless of how we group and differentiate between them now.

The reason so many try to find 'other people', 'seed of satan' etc, is simply because they have such a difficult time accepting that fact that Cain married a sister, neice, or cousin, as if that is some great leap, some how greater than the ideas they propose.
Some sources say Adam and Eve had (at least) 33 children in all. Not a hard thing to accomplish in 900 years. They could have done it in the first 33!
Some of those 33 would have married. Remember, genetically they were close to perfect, so problems which NOW arise with close familial relationships were not a problem then.
If half of the 33 were male, that would give a potential 15 couples. If each of them had 33 children, that gives us 1000 people on the planet within the first 200 years roughly.
We don't know how old Cain was when he married, or who he married. He potentially could have married a sister, or a niece, or a first cousin, second cousin, third cousin, etc.
There is no reason, nor any basis, for trying to come up with different people groups or seed of satan to get poor Cain married off. He probably had 2 or 3 hundred to choose from. Fact is, he married two, if I recall.



When Adam sinned, death came to all men, the possibility of "Life" through him. When Adam sinned, the LAW was brought to mankind and found them all guilty, thus dead. They each were now accountable to the Law that was not brought into the world until Adam sinned. They didn't have to eat from the tree personally, Adam brought the Law down upon mankind.

Jesus, ONE MAN, "the last Adam", took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and freed the world from the curse of the law, which is death. One man, Adam, brought it in, and One Man, Jesus, redeemed us.

There is one eternal reason that God could not and would not allow Cain to marry his sister. It is His own ETERNAL LAW against incest. Would God who will judge the whole world by ETERNAL LAW, Himself violate it to populate it? NEVER HAPPENED. There are no cousins and nieces without incest first in your scenerio.

Kahtar
Dec 11th 2007, 11:27 PM
The law of incest was not instituted until 2500 years later at Mt. Sinai. Wasn't necessary till then.
Do you have anything that supports your supposition of several 'races' being created on the sixth day? I sure can't think of any.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 12th 2007, 12:15 AM
When Adam sinned, death came to all men, the possibility of "Life" through him. When Adam sinned, the LAW was brought to mankind and found them all guilty, thus dead. They each were now accountable to the Law that was not brought into the world until Adam sinned. They didn't have to eat from the tree personally, Adam brought the Law down upon mankind.

Jesus, ONE MAN, "the last Adam", took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and freed the world from the curse of the law, which is death. One man, Adam, brought it in, and One Man, Jesus, redeemed us.

There is one eternal reason that God could not and would not allow Cain to marry his sister. It is His own ETERNAL LAW against incest. Would God who will judge the whole world by ETERNAL LAW, Himself violate it to populate it? NEVER HAPPENED. There are no cousins and nieces without incest first in your scenario.

The genetic laws should be the same then as they are now. I agree that God did not need to incorporate incest to create man. Cain went to the land of Nod and took wives. I do have a question here. Let us say Adam and Eve had many children did they give and take in marriage with each other ? I know in Genesis Isaac and his descendants were instructed to not take a wife from any group except the tribes of Israel. How long did it take for man to master cultivation, building, irrigation and last but not least metallurgical arts ? Just a idea here but did this knowledge come from God to Adam in the garden ? These are but a few questions and Rick I do not want you to think I am after you post I am learning a lot here and hope you and all the others will keep posting in this friendly debate. :D

jeffweeder
Dec 12th 2007, 12:58 AM
All the races (ethnos) were created on the sixth day, both male and female in every race evident today

Just read this in Acts 17


"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 01:01 AM
The law of incest was not instituted until 2500 years later at Mt. Sinai. Wasn't necessary till then.
Do you have anything that supports your supposition of several 'races' being created on the sixth day? I sure can't think of any.

The Law of God is ETERNAL. It is as pure and enduring and ever-existing as our Holy God. He made Physical laws "in the beginning" concerning electricity, radio waves, space travel, etc. These laws were are what founded the earth from the beginning regardless of the fact that they weren't necessary for thousands of years until recently. They existed from the beginning.

ETERNAL Laws have no beginning and no end. They are forever in place. Before Adam sinned, they never had consequences that were enforced. They weren't necessary because of obedience, but they were there, nonetheless, fully enforcible. As soon as Adam sinned, He received the consequences and they are eternal consequences.

God's Law about incest is an ETERNAL Law. Anyone committing it regardless of what anyone may think is "necessary" , is guilty of breaking an eternal Law. That is why Moses threw down and smashed the tablets containing the 10 commandments. He was demonstrating that the Law had been broken BEFORE man even had the opportunity to think he could obey it. Our God changes not. He does not make the ETERNAL Law as He goes along. He establishes a thing and does not change His mind...In the beginning...

The question of supporting the supposition that there were several "races" made on the sixth day are the several races that exist before our eyes today. I look at what "is", and ask, "How can these things be?" If Nicodemis didn't ask that question, we may not have heard the words of Jesus' reply, "You must be born again." To Nicodemis, these statements of Jesus were completely "new", yet they were hidden in the law and the prophets until He revealed them. There are many things that Daniel was told were sealed until the last days that would. only then, be revealed. We, in the last days, must be looking and also keenly aware of the potential of the false. They will co-exist.

The genetic patterns (a modern day discovery) shows us that races are defined and distinct. They are meant for us to discover what God has created in all its wonder. Did you know that the "Levites" can be traced by their DNA? It is distinctly a genetic identification. I will not be surprised if we see the entire Jewsih nation identifyable by tribe before the Lord returns as well as other breth-taking confirmations. Can you imagine if a drop of blood of Jesus is found and DNA tested? God will confound the wise before its all over.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 01:33 AM
When Adam sinned, death came to all men, the possibility of "Life" through him. When Adam sinned, the LAW was brought to mankind and found them all guilty, thus dead. They each were now accountable to the Law that was not brought into the world until Adam sinned. They didn't have to eat from the tree personally, Adam brought the Law down upon mankind.If the sin made them all dead (spiritually), which I agree with, how are you changing the meaning of the words that say Eve is the mother of all LIVING? According to this interpretation, they were all dead until Messiah, yet Genesis was written long before Calvary and it says she IS the mother of all LIVING. That is the present continuous tense. It is not speaking of the future spiritual living but a present and continuous physical living. When you change this to spiritual it seems you are merely doing what you are accusing us of doing with the thousand years which in my view at least has scriptural basis.:D

The clincher for me, however, is the scripture jeffweeder posted from Acts 17:26 that says He has made from ONE ALL NATIONS (one blood in the KJV). How do you reconcile that when you seem to think that the different nations are from several different family trees?

BTW, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister and God blessed their union. Yet, when the Law was given it clearly states that you are NOT to marry the daughter of your father or mother.

Leviticus 18:9 - The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.

It makes it quite clear that things were different before the Law was given. ;) BTW, do you believe the flood was a worldwide flood according to scripture?

God Bless!

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 02:27 AM
Just read this in Acts 17

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."


Paul is clearly talking about Jesus as the "One" ("Man" does not appear in the text, it was added by the translators). "The God who made the world and all things in it...He made from one man (Jesus) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He (Jesus) was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

He made every nation "to live" on the face of the earth. The rest of the text is talking about the "One" being Jesus as the "judge".

31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

If the scripture said "Adam" instead of "one" (by the way, "man" is italicized meaning it is not in the text and added by the translators), then your point would be immovable and this discussion would be over. The whole text quoted is talking exclusively about Jesus, there is no mention of Adam, but this one scripture, which does not say "Adam", when made to stand out of Paul's context, can be made to imply that Adam is the "One" who made every nation to live on the face of the earth.

Let's agree that it is Jesus through whom all nations came to live on the face of the earth.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 03:03 AM
So many good points!



If the sin made them all dead (spiritually), which I agree with, how are you changing the meaning of the words that say Eve is the mother of all LIVING? According to this interpretation, they were all dead until Messiah, yet Genesis was written long before Calvary and it says she IS the mother of all LIVING. That is the present continuous tense. It is not speaking of the future spiritual living but a present and continuous physical living. When you change this to spiritual it seems you are merely doing what you are accusing us of doing with the thousand years which in my view at least has scriptural basis.:D

The clincher for me, however, is the scripture jeffweeder posted from Acts 17:26 that says He has made from ONE ALL NATIONS (one blood in the KJV). How do you reconcile that when you seem to think that the different nations are from several different family trees?

BTW, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister and God blessed their union. Yet, when the Law was given it clearly states that you are NOT to marry the daughter of your father or mother.

Leviticus 18:9 - The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.

It makes it quite clear that things were different before the Law was given. ;) BTW, do you believe the flood was a worldwide flood according to scripture?

God Bless!


Studyin'2Show wrote:

"If the sin made them all dead (spiritually), which I agree with, how are you changing the meaning of the words that say Eve is the mother of all LIVING? According to this interpretation, they were all dead until Messiah, yet Genesis was written long before Calvary and it says she IS the mother of all LIVING. That is the present continuous tense. It is not speaking of the future spiritual living but a present and continuous physical living. When you change this to spiritual it seems you are merely doing what you are accusing us of doing with the thousand years which in my view at least has scriptural basis.

Rick writes:

EXCELLENT!!!

Eve is the mother of all the living. Through her seed, Jesus the Lamb of God who was slain at the foundation of the world, who takes away the sins of the world, would save her "life" and all those who fell under the curse of death that she and Adam would bring into the world. God would not leave His special man, his wife and the whole creation to die without preplanning the redemption,"the end from the beginning". It wasn't until the sacrifice of Jesus that the redemption was complete and the curse of death lifted from her and all those after her until Jesus, but it was always God's plan.

After the curse God spoke to them He promised a redeemer, from the seed of Eve, that would crush the head of the serpent (which was God's intended purpose all along).

BTW, I am not "accusing" anyone of anything. I hope that we, together, are investigating a matter without drawing battle lines. I have no desire to wrangle about the precious Word of God. It will destroy the Spirit's intention to give light. If there is something that you completely disagree with, that's completely OK with me. I care too much about you to want to make you an adversary over the Word of our Lord.

Studyin'2Show wrote:

The clincher for me, however, is the scripture jeffweeder posted from Acts 17:26 that says He has made from ONE ALL NATIONS (one blood in the KJV). How do you reconcile that when you seem to think that the different nations are from several different family trees?

Rick writes:

Let's see if we can loosen the clinch. See my reply to Jeffweeder on the subject.


Studyin'2Show wrote:

BTW, Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister and God blessed their union. Yet, when the Law was given it clearly states that you are NOT to marry the daughter of your father or mother.


Rick writes:

Sarah was Moses' half sister. I guess that was enough for God, so it will have to be enough for me...

Studyin'2Show

BTW, do you believe the flood was a worldwide flood according to scripture?

Rick writes:

Yes. I will admit that I would rather that scripture left open the possibility that there were some left alive in some outer reaches that would explain the closed cultures of the same distinct genetic characteristics. There have been some who have looked at the translation of "the whole world" and "face of the land" and said that it refers to all of the regions surrounding and including the land that Noah lived, but I haven't studied it so I can't agree or disagree. For now, my understanding is a worldwide flood with no life other than Noah and all survived.

Kahtar
Dec 12th 2007, 03:27 AM
If the scripture said "Adam" instead of "one" (by the way, "man" is italicized meaning it is not in the text and added by the translators), then your point would be immovable and this discussion would be over.
Interesting, but incorrect.
'man' is NOT italicized there. In fact, here is the text, along with the Strong's numbers for each word:
Act 17:26 And5037 hath made4160 of1537 one1520 blood129 all3956 nations1484 of men444 for to dwell2730 on1909 all3956 the3588 face4383 of the3588 earth,1093 and hath determined3724 the times2540 before appointed,4384 and2532 the3588 bounds3734 of their848 habitation;2733
It says one blood, not man, and it is a word that definately appears in the text, and here is it's meaning:
G129 αἷμα aima hah'ee-mah Of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specifically (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication bloodshed, also kindred: - blood.

He (Christ, the Word, Who was in the beginning) has made from one blood(the blood of one man, whom we know was Adam) all nations of men:

As to God's Eternal law:
The laws of physics undoubtedly were created right along with the universe, and the earth. Eternal mean all eternity, no beginning, no ending. This universe, and this earth, will come to an end.

There were many things that came about at the time of Moses, that were not seen before that. Those things are not God's Eternal Law, but rather the Law of Moses, the ordinances established with the nation of Israel at Sinai. The law of Moses INCLUDED God's Eternal law, however.
Here is an example:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:3-8)

As you can see, the divorce thing did not come into being until Moses.
There is no mention of incestial law prior to Moses, that I can recall, and no reason to think it was part of God's eternal law, which, by the way, are the ten commandments, and a few others, but not the laws of physics, which have nothing to do with incest or any of man's behaviors.
There is reason to think that Noah, and his sons, were closely related, and married closely related, due to the corruption of the REST of mankind at that point. It says he was perfect in his generations. Not defiled. His generations, that is, his bloodline, was the ONLY one that remained pure. Since all others were corrupted, marrying into one of them would have corrupted his.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 04:39 AM
Kahtar wrote:

There is no mention of incestial law prior to Moses, that I can recall, and no reason to think it was part of God's eternal law, which, by the way, are the ten commandments, and a few others, but not the laws of physics, which have nothing to do with incest or any of man's behaviors.


Rick writes:

"No reason to think it was part of God's eternal law"?

No reason? None?

So you are putting forth that any abhorrent behavior of man, that is now an abomination to a Holy unchanging God, was acceptible to Him before Moses...

So, fathers having sex with their daughters was not mentioned then, therefore it was OK with a Holy God...

And, fathers having sex with their five year old daughters was not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, so you conclude it was OK with a Holy unchanging God...

And, men having sex with animals (not one of the ten commandments) was OK with a Holy, unchanging God...

Just the suggestion that God did not look upon these "behaviors" as evil and under the condemnation of His eternal law makes me sick...Maybe that's just me...

Kahtar
Dec 12th 2007, 04:51 AM
Please try not to fill my mouth with too many words, friend. I said what I said, not what YOU said.;)

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 12:07 PM
Rick writes:

Let's see if we can loosen the clinch. See my reply to Jeffweeder on the subject.

Rick writes:

Sarah was Moses' half sister. I guess that was enough for God, so it will have to be enough for me...

Rick writes:

Yes. I will admit that I would rather that scripture left open the possibility that there were some left alive in some outer reaches that would explain the closed cultures of the same distinct genetic characteristics. There have been some who have looked at the translation of "the whole world" and "face of the land" and said that it refers to all of the regions surrounding and including the land that Noah lived, but I haven't studied it so I can't agree or disagree. For now, my understanding is a worldwide flood with no life other than Noah and all survived.I read your response to jeffweeder, and yes, it's still the clincher for me. :D I usually use the NKJV or KJV whose translators used the Textus Receptus autograph for translation. These both use the word 'blood' as I mentioned previously and as kahtar mentioned. And BTW, that's NOT in italics. ;)

You meant to say that Sarah was Abraham's half sister; not Moses, right?:hmm: The point is simply that she is the daughter of his father and according to the Leviticus law, prohibited. But as we see, God blessed their union. Any geneticist will tell you that in the animal kingdom, for example, interbreeding is fine but when you go down too many generations and continue it, it can create genetic problems. The prohibition of incest was of necessity. in my view.

With your understanding of the flood, how do you reconcile that ALL nations, if nothing else, bottlenecked at that point and came through ONE family line; Noah's (a descendant of Adam)?

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 12th 2007, 01:35 PM
I would like to mention that Noah's flood "might" not have been world wide. Here is a link http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html
I have read a book about this and I am NOT saying this is absolute just found it very interesting read. If in fact this was the case it opens the door for the migrations of other peoples. I hope this helps. I am enjoying this discussion and my hats off to Kahtar, Studyin'2show, Rhamlet and Brindel too ;) Thank you for your imput :saint:

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 02:16 PM
Please try not to fill my mouth with too many words, friend. I said what I said, not what YOU said.;)

Respectfully, and without putting any words in your mouth, answering a simple "Yes" or "No", please answer a question based on your position on God's Eternal Law.

Is the behavior of having s*x with a five year old daughter, which is not itemized in the 10 Commandments prior to Moses' Law, NOT a sin against God's Eternal Law?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 02:57 PM
Respectfully, and without putting any words in your mouth, answering a simple "Yes" or "No", please answer a question based on your position on God's Eternal Law.

Is the behavior of having s*x with a five year old daughter, which is not itemized in the 10 Commandments prior to Moses' Law, NOT a sin against God's Eternal Law?Whoa! Where is there EVER a mention of age in scripture concerning this? Please, let's just stick to the facts of scripture. In your very graphic example am I to understand correctly that the problem is that the child is his daughter? If so, would it be then acceptable for it to be a child not his own? :o Of course not! There is NO union ANYWHERE in scripture that says or even vaguely implies that it is okay to have relations with a young child. Why not use the more proper example of Lot and his daughters if you want to discuss this issue? Going for shock value is unnecessary. :no:

God Bless!

Kahtar
Dec 12th 2007, 02:59 PM
The obvious answer to your pointless question is no.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, marrying one's sister in preflood times.
Do not assume or twist my words, or try to make me out to be saying that incest today is okay, or child molestation, or any of that, because I am NOT saying that, and you know it. This is nothing more than a distraction from the OP, so let it go. Get back to the topic.

Kahtar
Dec 12th 2007, 03:05 PM
Isaac, I am going to make some comments about the article you provided in that link, but I'm a bit short on time this a.m. I didn't want you to think you're being ignored....;)

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 04:24 PM
I read your response to jeffweeder, and yes, it's still the clincher for me. :D I usually use the NKJV or KJV whose translators used the Textus Receptus autograph for translation. These both use the word 'blood' as I mentioned previously and as kahtar mentioned. And BTW, that's NOT in italics. ;)

You meant to say that Sarah was Abraham's half sister; not Moses, right?:hmm: The point is simply that she is the daughter of his father and according to the Leviticus law, prohibited. But as we see, God blessed their union. Any geneticist will tell you that in the animal kingdom, for example, interbreeding is fine but when you go down too many generations and continue it, it can create genetic problems. The prohibition of incest was of necessity. in my view.

With your understanding of the flood, how do you reconcile that ALL nations, if nothing else, bottlenecked at that point and came through ONE family line; Noah's (a descendant of Adam)?


Studyin'2Show wrote:

You meant to say that Sarah was Abraham's half sister; not Moses, right?

Rick writes:

Yes, Thank you.



Studyin'2Show wrote:

The point is simply that she is the daughter of his father and according to the Leviticus law, prohibited. But as we see, God blessed their union.

Rick writes:

Following your logic, God would not bless a union based on the sin of the people. If that logic were true, then there would be no union He could bless. David committed adultry and murder yet God blessed his union with Bathsheba and gave us Solomon who built His temple.



Studyin'2Show wrote:

With your understanding of the flood, how do you reconcile that ALL nations, if nothing else, bottlenecked at that point and came through ONE family line; Noah's (a descendant of Adam)?

Rick writes:

If the races of Job's son's wives were onboard the ark, they are the seeds of the races in the gene pool. Otherwise, how can you explain the variety of distinguishable characteristics? The same explanation applies for each of our views, the gene pool for all race characteristics must be have been embodied in the survivors of the flood. It does, however, "appear" to me that pockets of people survived in various parts of the world and repopulated in closed cultures. This is another "curiousity" that makes me think of potential explanations as to why, something so obvious to our eyes, but is explained away by how we understand scripture. Others look a the same thing and say that there is nothing at all curious, and that's OK too.



Studyin'2Show wrote:

I read your response to jeffweeder, and yes, it's still the clincher for me. I usually use the NKJV or KJV whose translators used the Textus Receptus autograph for translation. These both use the word 'blood' as I mentioned previously and as kahtar mentioned. And BTW, that's NOT in italics.

Rick writes:

So, on this single, implied understanding of one verse, you are comfortable dismissing any possibility of there being any relevance to any other view? It is, for you, "clinched" and closed.

"Implied" understanding? Yes. Even the translators did not agree that the text was talking about Adam and wrote two different words to translate the meaning. "Implied", because it does not say "Adam", which is your understanding of the text and not the text saying, "Adam". Absolutely positively, if the text read that through "Adam" all the nations came into being, it would NOT be implied, and forever, and for everyone, the dicussion and understanding would be "clinched".

The full context of the writer, Paul, was talking exclusively about "God" and "He", Jesus, right through, with no mention of "Adam" and you have "clinched" your mind on it, and that's OK.

BTW, it is Italicized in the NAS.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 05:26 PM
Whoa! Where is there EVER a mention of age in scripture concerning this? Please, let's just stick to the facts of scripture. In your very graphic example am I to understand correctly that the problem is that the child is his daughter? If so, would it be then acceptable for it to be a child not his own? Of course not! There is NO union ANYWHERE in scripture that says or even vaguely implies that it is okay to have relations with a young child. Why not use the more proper example of Lot and his daughters if you want to discuss this issue? Going for shock value is unnecessary.

God Bless!


My ONLY point is to refute Kahtar's statement who wrote:

"There is no mention of incestial law prior to Moses, that I can recall, and no reason to think it was part of God's eternal law, which, by the way, are the ten commandments, and a few others, but not the laws of physics, which have nothing to do with incest or any of man's behaviors."

I am not splitting hairs about the relationships or legal dispositions. I am not looking for shock-value for the sake of shock-value. My point, and my ONLY point, is that when you apply his statement to a terrible (and yes graphic) sin, you can no longer sit comfortably in the theology that he put forth. God did not wait until Moses to hate sin and decide which sins were covered by His Eternal law. They were always sins. That is why the Lamb was slain at the foundation of the world.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 05:37 PM
The obvious answer to your pointless question is no.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, marrying one's sister in preflood times.
Do not assume or twist my words, or try to make me out to be saying that incest today is okay, or child molestation, or any of that, because I am NOT saying that, and you know it. This is nothing more than a distraction from the OP, so let it go. Get back to the topic.

I probably should not respond...but I will...

I have not assumed or twisted your words. I have not tried to make you out to be saying that incest is TODAY okay, or child molestation, or any of that. You KNOW that I am saying that you have put forth a statement that before Moses, if it wasn't specifically listed in the 10 commandments, it was not under the condemnation of God's ETERNAL law BEFORE Moses received the 10 Commandments.

The following are YOUR words not mine. They are not twisted by me, they are QUOTED.

"There is no mention of incestial law prior to Moses, that I can recall, and no reason to think it was part of God's eternal law, which, by the way, are the ten commandments, and a few others, but not the laws of physics, which have nothing to do with incest or any of man's behaviors."


From here, if we're not careful, we will grieve the Holy Spirit. I am sincerely sorry for having offended you with my objection to your premise. I will not bring it up again or respond to it if asked.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 06:03 PM
Rick writes:

Following your logic, God would not bless a union based on the sin of the people. If that logic were true, then there would be no union He could bless. David committed adultry and murder yet God blessed his union with Bathsheba and gave us Solomon who built His temple.

Rick writes:

If the races of Job's son's wives were onboard the ark, they are the seeds of the races in the gene pool.

Rick writes:

So, on this single, implied understanding of one verse, you are comfortable dismissing any possibility of there being any relevance to any other view? It is, for you, "clinched" and closed.No Rick, that would be following YOUR logic. I have no trouble with the marrying of sisters and brothers prior to the Law being given through Moses. You do! As you clearly point out with the example of David's, adultery, murder, and yet God used his line to bring forth Messiah. So, as I see it, whether incest regarding siblings that have come of age before the Law is sin or not, I see no problem with the scenario. Why do you? Is it because of perceived sin? :hmm:

I assume you meant Noah's sons on the ark; not Job's, right?

Rick, could it be possible that we simply see things differently? I have no trouble with the simple, literal, contextual reading of the Genesis account. If you do and feel you need to analogize certain things, then that's your prerogative. If you presented something that I felt was compelling, possibly something that I had not heard before, of course I would consider it. And like the Bereans I would search the scriptures to see if it bears up to them. The things you have presented thus far I have heard many times before. I HAVE studied the scripture and in my interpretation, they do not bear up to them. If that bothers you somehow, though I wish it didn't, I have to be true to what I see in God's word. Nothing personal.

God Bless!

Kahtar
Dec 12th 2007, 07:45 PM
From here, if we're not careful, we will grieve the Holy Spirit. I am sincerely sorry for having offended you with my objection to your premise. I will not bring it up again or respond to it if asked.I am not offended by your objection to my premise at all.

But I did not say this:
"So you are putting forth that any abhorrent behavior of man, that is now an abomination to a Holy unchanging God, was acceptible to Him before Moses..."
or this:
"So, fathers having sex with their daughters was not mentioned then, therefore it was OK with a Holy God..."
or this:
"And, fathers having sex with their five year old daughters was not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, so you conclude it was OK with a Holy unchanging God..."
or this:
"And, men having sex with animals (not one of the ten commandments) was OK with a Holy, unchanging God..."

nor did I imply them, and these are not quotes from anything I wrote.
I do understand where you are coming from, and you make a valid point. Your method of bringing that point is what I found objectionable.

So now let's put it behind us and carry on with the topic at hand.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 07:46 PM
So, as I see it, whether incest regarding siblings that have come of age before the Law is sin or not, I see no problem with the scenario. Why do you? Is it because of perceived sin? :hmm:

I assume you meant Noah's sons on the ark; not Job's, right?

Rick, could it be possible that we simply see things differently? I have no trouble with the simple, literal, contextual reading of the Genesis account. If you do and feel you need to analogize certain things, then that's your prerogative. If you presented something that I felt was compelling, possibly something that I had not heard before, of course I would consider it. And like the Bereans I would search the scriptures to see if it bears up to them. The things you have presented thus far I have heard many times before. I HAVE studied the scripture and in my interpretation, they do not bear up to them. If that bothers you somehow, though I wish it didn't, I have to be true to what I see in God's word. Nothing personal.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show wrote:

"So, as I see it, whether incest regarding siblings that have come of age before the Law is sin or not, I see no problem with the scenario. Why do you? Is it because of perceived sin?"

Rick writes:

I guess I don't look at a sin like incest with a young child as a "perceived" sin. I look at it as ABSOLUTELY sin and that God would ALWAYS, from the foundation of the world, hate it, even though it is correctly stated that God did not write it on tablets of stone before Moses. And, if I didn't "perceive" it as sin, would it be any less a sin in the eyes of a Holy God? We can disagree.

Studyin'2Show wrote:

I have no trouble with the simple, literal, contextual reading of the Genesis account. If you do and feel you need to analogize certain things, then that's your prerogative.

Rick writes:

I haven't analogized a single word. God absolutely and specifically did exactly what He said He did. And, back to the OP, you don't agree that any "curiousities" exist. Actually, the discussion is not for those who sincerely do NOT see them. They, like you, are at peace. There is no discussion possible since there is no question in your mind. Your only response can be, "I don't see what you think you see."

This discussion is for those who sincerely see "curiousities" with how the text reads as compared with modern day scientific discovery, knowledge of time lines and how long things take to develop for so large an archeological record, and other related curiousities that earlier church did not have, to bring a greater understanding to the Word of God. There are plausible explanations that fit perfectly with the scientific evidence that move those who consider what they see as curiousities, to be resolved.

This discussion should never have devolved into "I don't see what you say you see". It is intended for those who observe and agree that there are "curiousities" and would like to discuss the exciting possibilities.


Studyin'2Show wrote:

If you presented something that I felt was compelling, possibly something that I had not heard before, of course I would consider it. And like the Bereans I would search the scriptures to see if it bears up to them. The things you have presented thus far I have heard many times before. I HAVE studied the scripture and in my interpretation, they do not bear up to them. If that bothers you somehow, though I wish it didn't, I have to be true to what I see in God's word. Nothing personal.

Rick writes:

Like I said, you've studied it, you are convinced and you have concluded that the discussion was, and is, resolved for you. I have no quarrel with you or anyone else who is settled on their understanding. I am not "bothered", as you put it, by anyone's sincere belief and understanding. I understand and respect your position and recognize that it is the most widely accepted position on the matter.

My post is for those who, like myself, "see something" that kindles curiousity and asks questions of themselves and their understanding. In your view, you sincerely believe that there is nothing there to be "seen" that you have not already investigated and resolved to your satisfaction. Praise the Lord! I would like to discuss what others may think the plausible explainations for what we find curious about what we agree we "see".

I got off track debating with folks who don't "see" what I see. I am not implying that you are blind. There may be, as you believe, nothing TO see. I would simply like to discuss the POSSIBILITY that we don't already know everything and that in our modern world, there may be something gained by applying the sciences and methods of discovery to a very old and unchanged understanding of how, and when, God created all things.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 07:58 PM
I am not offended by your objection to my premise at all.

But I did not say this:
"So you are putting forth that any abhorrent behavior of man, that is now an abomination to a Holy unchanging God, was acceptible to Him before Moses..."
or this:
"So, fathers having sex with their daughters was not mentioned then, therefore it was OK with a Holy God..."
or this:
"And, fathers having sex with their five year old daughters was not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, so you conclude it was OK with a Holy unchanging God..."
or this:
"And, men having sex with animals (not one of the ten commandments) was OK with a Holy, unchanging God..."

nor did I imply them, and these are not quotes from anything I wrote.
I do understand where you are coming from, and you make a valid point. Your method of bringing that point is what I found objectionable.

So now let's put it behind us and carry on with the topic at hand.

I love when Christians can get "rubbed" and move forward in love. This is the evidence that Jesus is "Lord" in our lives. Let's go!

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 08:06 PM
I guess I don't look at a sin like incest with a young child as a "perceived" sin. WHERE do you see that somehow this has anything to do with YOUNG CHILDREN? :o I've asked you if that has ANYTHING to do with incest. Would it be acceptable if there were no sibling involvement and one of the parties (not siblings) was a young child? What is your answer to that? As I see it, that is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Now, I advise you to get back on topic and stop attempting to use shock value. It takes away from the actual issues of the discussion.

rhamlet
Dec 12th 2007, 08:26 PM
WHERE do you see that somehow this has anything to do with YOUNG CHILDREN? :o I've asked you if that has ANYTHING to do with incest. Would it be acceptable if there were no sibling involvement and one of the parties (not siblings) was a young child? What is your answer to that? As I see it, that is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Now, I advise you to get back on topic and stop attempting to use shock value. It takes away from the actual issues of the discussion.

You are missing the point.

The point was that if a sin now (ANY SIN), was not in the 10 Commandments, then it was not a sin before Moses was given the law by God.


My point is that God's law is Eternal and that regardless of when, in time, it was written and received by men, it was an Eternal law in the eyes of God. The reason why I chose the dispicable sin of child incest is to illustrate (however graphically) that God could not have overlooked this as sin, before He gave the law to Moses. It is easier to propose a theology that may suggest that God overlooked the sin of brothers and sisters having relations for some reasonable justification, than it is to apply the same logic to another of MANY possible horrible sins, not specified in the law, as also excused by God for that reason alone.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 08:51 PM
Like I said, you've studied it, you are convinced and you have concluded that the discussion was, and is, resolved for you. I have no quarrel with you or anyone else who is settled on their understanding. This is where I believe you are missing a key point. There is still MUCH to be understood! Since becoming an active member here there are several areas in which I have broadened my understanding based on something another member has shared. However, I see several areas where I don't believe your interpretation can be reconciled with scripture, and I have already shared some of those things with you. Here's another. In your understanding God made men and women (not Adam and Eve yet) on the 6th day. Then much time passes and at some point God creates Adam and the garden, sometime later making Eve, correct? If that's not your position please clarify it for me. Okay, so God created everything in 6 days including mankind, though not Adam. Then you say in post 33 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1461999&postcount=33) that dinosaurs did not roam the earth with man. Clearly if God created everything including mankind in 6 days, that, scripturally speaking, MUST include both dinosaurs and man which would have to have coexisted on the planet.


My point is that God's law is Eternal and that regardless of when, in time, it was written and received by men, it was an Eternal law in the eyes of God. The reason why I chose the dispicable sin of child incest is to illustrate (however graphically) that God could not have overlooked this as sin, before He gave the law to Moses. It is easier to propose a theology that may suggest that God overlooked the sin of brothers and sisters having relations for some reasonable justification, than it is to apply the same logic to another of MANY possible horrible sins, not specified in the law, as also excused by God for that reason alone.So, do you keep Sabbath? And for the absolute LAST time, how does Cain marrying his sister have ANYTHING to do with her age? Have you yet answered if it would have been okay if the two parties are not related but one is a young child?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 12th 2007, 09:13 PM
After mod review, this thread is being moved to the Controversial Issues Forum. Once you have been here for 30 days, with 40 post you will be able to access it. Since I know that the OP and at least one other poster will not be able to see the thread once I move it, I will give you a 30 minute grace before it is moved to post any comments you may have on the thread issues (not on the decision to move the thread). If you have any questions concerning the decision to move the thread, that can be discussed in the Chat to the Moderator's Forum.

God Bless!

Saved7
Dec 13th 2007, 02:51 AM
21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

· Here is a completely different phenomenon. This is NOT, “27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

· God performed a “fashioning” of a woman from the body of a man. This is not God “speaking” a thing into existence and therefore not consistent with the manner in which God performed in the six days of creation.

As a result of failing to see that the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "spoken into existense" creation, Christians have had to try and defend a 6,000 year old creation because we can estimate the length of time from Adam's lineage to Jesus to present. This is solely because we believe that Adam was created along with those who were created male and female "in the beginning".

Now I am no scholar, but I saw this and just have to put in my 2cents.
Have you ever "felt" God's love poured out on you? I mean in such a way that you would describe "like a mother's love"??? (The term "like a hen gather's HER chicks" comes to mind.);)
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I am suggesting that God is female, or even "male and female". I am NOT.
However, what I AM suggesting is this....Man was made in God's image....being male, with many of the same character qualities as a woman. Only, since women didn't exist at the time, those would actually be the qualities of God and man. Then when God created the woman, he didn't create NEW qualities, or else she would also be a new creation. But he took some of the man's created character qualities and GAVE them to the woman, and left him with certain qualities.
Those quality differences are what attract us to the opposite sex.

Now, back to the making woman thing, if he took something from Adam to make her, He must have taken some characteristics, as I suggested before. And if that is the case, and God KNEW He was going to "fashion" a woman from MAN...in all rights, He could say...In HIS image created He THEM, MALE AND FEMALE He created THEM.
He created THEM as one flesh in the beginning and then seperated them physically and seperated some of their characteristics. That is why when we are married we become ONE FLESH (again).:saint:

Well that's my take on it, and the best that I know how to describe it. Sorry if it seems to be difficult to follow, but I have never really had an opportunity to describe my understanding of it before and so I realize it needs some fine tuning.:D

Studyin'2Show
Dec 13th 2007, 03:06 AM
Now, back to the making woman thing, if he took something from Adam to make her, He must have taken some characteristics, as I suggested before. And if that is the case, and God KNEW He was going to "fashion" a woman from MAN...in all rights, He could say...In HIS image created He THEM, MALE AND FEMALE He created THEM.
He created THEM as one flesh in the beginning and then seperated them physically and seperated some of their characteristics. That is why when we are married we become ONE FLESH (again).:saint:That's an interesting thing to notice. Thanks for sharing it. The OP's direction for the thread is more on the progression of the creating, so to speak, but this is definitely an interesting nugget to throw in.

God Bless!

Saved7
Dec 13th 2007, 03:13 AM
That's an interesting thing to notice. Thanks for sharing it. The OP's direction for the thread is more on the progression of the creating, so to speak, but this is definitely an interesting nugget to throw in.

God Bless!


Thanks, I thought that if I threw this in there, the OP might reconsider the whole premise of his/her thread. I figure, if the OP see's it as I do, then the whole order of things might make more sense to him/her. I believe the bible backs up this theory, it says "woman was TAKEN OUT of man". ;)
I know I used to get all mixed up on the whole creation account...until one day I remembered my encounter with God, there in heaven, as He truely is, and I realized that He was male, but that we women had only "some" the gentle nurturing characteristics of His qualities, and that man had the "stronger more aggressive" nature, those qualities of a "Mighty God".:)

Joyfilled
Dec 13th 2007, 01:14 PM
The following study will open the subject of:



Adam Was Formed


Well After the Six Days of Creation





Genesis Chapter 1

…11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day…

…20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

· THEN God created man, male AND female…

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. …And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

· God created man, BOTH male and female, on the same day.



Genesis 2


1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

· At this point in time, God COMPLETED ALL that He said He created.

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

· The very next word in the text indicates a continuation of the historical “account” from that point forward to the “next” event from the previous event. The word is “NOW”, indicating that at the next subsequent point in time, God was continuing to do something.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.


(Note: "There was no man that could cultivate the earth". There were only the hunter/gatherers that were created in the beginning, both male and female. In this lies the reason for misunderstanding. Most believe that "No man to cultivate the ground" to mean that there were NO MEN)

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

· The next event is out of sequence with the description of events of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. It indicates that certain trees were not yet in the earth, yet in the first six days of creation, it clearly states that they were created BEFORE man was created. This indicates a confusion of the account of events or a different sequence of events is “Now” being related.

9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

· This is a “planting” and a “caused to grow” and not a “creation”.

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

· Why was man “alone” when God created them male and female on the same day?

19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

· Again, this is out of sequence from Genesis 1. In the first six days, God made the animals and then man. This cannot be the first six days or it contradicts the sequence of events. God was very specific about what He did, and the order of it, on specific days.


20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

· How long did the naming of animals take (considering there are many thousands of species) before Eve was fashioned (on the same day)?

21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

· Here is a completely different phenomenon. This is NOT, “27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

· God performed a “fashioning” of a woman from the body of a man. This is not God “speaking” a thing into existence and therefore not consistent with the manner in which God performed in the six days of creation.

As a result of failing to see that the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "spoken into existense" creation, Christians have had to try and defend a 6,000 year old creation because we can estimate the length of time from Adam's lineage to Jesus to present. This is solely because we believe that Adam was created along with those who were created male and female "in the beginning".

Amen. ;) Unfortunately, there are too many people who think they can change God's word and replace it with their own. Those people are in for a rude awakening when they die.:cry:

Studyin'2Show
Dec 13th 2007, 01:42 PM
Amen. ;) Unfortunately, there are too many people who think they can change God's word and replace it with their own. Those people are in for a rude awakening when they die.:cry:Can you share your interpretation of where the 'gap' falls in the Genesis account? The OP believes it comes AFTER the six literal days of creation, after God has made everything including mankind. Then, according to the OP, after an unspecified period of time He formed Adam differently than how He 'spoke' the earlier created man. Is that your view, as well?

chisel
Dec 14th 2007, 04:49 AM
I would like to mention that Noah's flood "might" not have been world wide. Here is a link http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html
I have read a book about this and I am NOT saying this is absolute just found it very interesting read. If in fact this was the case it opens the door for the migrations of other peoples. I hope this helps. I am enjoying this discussion and my hats off to Kahtar, Studyin'2show, Rhamlet and Brindel too ;) Thank you for your imput :saint:

Most Christian Identity Movement groups insist on a local flood, and the sole reason for this is so that the 'bad races' could survive. The so-called serpent seed as well as the so-called 'pre-adamites'.

For such groups a local flood is an absolute necessity, because it fits their dogma...

I would also like to point out that the word saxon was not derived from 'sons of isaac', but instead the Greeks referred to them as saksa, after the weapon they carried called a 'saka'... No relation whatsoever to 'B'nai Yitshaq'.