Author Topic: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED  (Read 43950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8431
  • Gender: Female
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #225 on: September 11, 2010, 06:46:30 AM »
 :cloud9:  I've shared this before, but for what it's worth, I asked Him in the beginning of my walk about the dino thing. What He gave me at the time out of studying Genesis was that the natural creation was 13,000, going into 14,000 of years old.

I asked Him how I could teach this, with no witness, and a week later my uncle came by and said how he had seen this program on TV where some scientists had discovered that the carbon dating rate of deterioration they use to measure things by, was not at a constant rate as they thought, but after so many thousands of years it changed the speed. So by their renewed calculations, the earth was 13-14 thousand years old. There was my witness, for me anyway.....I praised Him for a swift reply and went on to the next 100 questions  :winkgrin: :laughing7:
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8431
  • Gender: Female
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #226 on: September 11, 2010, 06:51:33 AM »
 :cloud9: I also want to say that the peace of this board will be maintained if it requires the locking of a thread, ect., until all parties have calmed down and counted to 10, or to 100, or to 1000, or to...... :winkgrin:

So please maintain respect for the owner of this board and his wishes for no food fights, no personal attacks, ect. Please refer to board rules if you are unsure of anything, or PM a mod. And lastly, please maintain respect for each other even if you differ on styles of writing, opinions, ect. Thank you.....Card  :girlheart:
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #227 on: September 11, 2010, 06:51:38 AM »
Ok, after all the hoopla about out of africa, various hominids  and how we have 96 percent of our dna in common with chimpanzees [as if that means anything at all], we finally find that we are once again face to face with Adam, a man unlike any other creature on the earth--a man who does sophisticated art, metal work, writing, society, building of cities, --he seems to spring out of nowhere functioning at the same high level that the man at the mall functions today.

Whoa--even they admit--Adam is different.  They even give him a birth date called 'Human Era.'  Meet Homo sapiens sapiens, very wise man--the one who ate from the wrong tree.



Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era.

About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt's Nile Valley and the Indus Valleys. Military forces were formed for protection, and government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in West Asia, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens


I think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago.  It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates.  With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period.  If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong.  You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates.  For me the dates don't even remotely matter.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9080
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #228 on: September 11, 2010, 06:53:34 AM »
There is evidence that maybe you should post your posts,of great information I am sure, some place else.
I, me, personally dont give a wit about the scientific and evolutional theorys of men, the earth, its age, and the world population, IF it came about as you suggest.
I believe there is a thread Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc. that may enjoy your information freely.
I believe in God and have faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour, and ALL things were made by and in Him.
Col 1:16  because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
Col 1:17  and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.
Thats were I am at. ***Also consider the first post. Peace and Love Through Jesus.


Is this directed at me?  Because this is a science and faith post.  Some people do wanted to be able to give an educated response to the attacks of our faith by some of the atheistic science community.  If you are not concerned then don't read the post.  It really is that simple.

I can't imagine how anyone could be confused.  This thread is only parts of 3 threads disected, autopsied, and sewn together into 1.   :laughing7:

This post from micah was toward the end of the Genesis thread he'd started.  There were too many  :offtopic:.  Posts were then split to here.   :wacko2:

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #229 on: September 11, 2010, 06:54:23 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I thought I addressed those points earlier.  Yes, scientists have clues to the cognitive abilities of man by their anatomy and the tools, art, writings, vessels, clothing, etc that surround them in archeological digs.  It is believed that the man that walks the mall, looks like us etc was first seen 50,000 years ago.  Would I "bet the farm on it"?  No, because I'm not an archeologist.  I really can't dissect the science as well as someone with that kind of training.  Is it possible they are wrong?  Sure.

Ok, so you think Adam, as we know him in the Bible and at the mall, actually existed 50,000 years ago but we just can't tell?

You think he was like the man at the mall but not as smart? [that's a pretty low standard we're working with--100 IQ].

Or what?

Can you prove it?

I'm not sure I understand your point.  Not as smart?  Who knows...certainly less educated for obvious reasons.  What we do know is that he had tools, vessels that showed intelligence.  We know his anatomy is essentially the same.  The only way I could "prove" it would be to build a time machine and take you with me.

I mentioned not as smart because you made a comment about that earlier.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that humans are getting smarter with the passage of time.  So I would expect that, on the average, Adam and I would be the same intelligence.   But, I sure wouldn't put up with him using stone age tools for 40,000 years.

You say he had tools 50,000 years--so did Neanderthal, and so do birds.

But the man at the mall has a black and decker and Adam's sons built the pyramids.

So this 50,000 year old--are you willing to grant that you do not know what he is except to admit he's not Adam?  We don't even know if he had language.  As far as anatomy is concerned--if I saw him at the mall, I would probably cross the street--right?  He doesn't look exactly like us.

I will have to call you on that.  Our knowledge has certainly increased.  And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing.  Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline?  What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith, Literal/Symbolic, etc.
« Reply #230 on: September 11, 2010, 06:59:13 AM »
I agree Tony.
My  :HeartThrob: leaps with joy  :laughing7:

Quote
I also agree with something TT said in the Genesis thread - that [macro] evolution is likely not scriptural.
OED does not by definition mean a belief in macro evolution. Micro evolution exists. That's a fact. Just look at the many breeds of dogs. Let them mix and they become (almost) one breed again.
Quote
I personally believe in the "gap theory", and though I believe there's obviously many sorts of micro evolution, I believe God created things, not set up conditions for them to "just evolve" (I am not saying anyone has said otherwise, I'm stating my beliefs.)
I've not decided on the gap theory. I wonder if that desolate and void refers to the comet impact (some say a chunk of wormwood) that wiped out the dinos. The dustcloud would cause a nuclear winter and the sunlight will be blocked out.
Quote
but then, I believe we start with Adam and Eve.
Darwin teaches gradual change. That would mean zillion of (deformed) intermediate lifeforms.
Number found: 0
Evidence points more to sudden appearance of complete lifeforms.
Quote
So I have caution, and encourage much caution about swallowing just anything science or self-professed learned men declare about things - when they may be being used as a tool to confuse, confound, and hinder faith.   :2c:
I would say study. But imo science agrees with the Biblical timeline of the last 10000 years. I think also the time before that; but that harder to see because it about translation of words and gaps.
YECs are partly right imo. Earth starting from Adam is 6,000-10,000 years old. Or civilasations started at that point. But the opion on civilisation varies a bit. Some say it starts with argiculture. Other say art. Yet others with writing.


I'm ok with accepting covenant civilization starting 6-10,000 years ago.  I have zero issue with that.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 5955
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #231 on: September 11, 2010, 07:01:13 AM »
Ok thanks, I will cease.
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #232 on: September 11, 2010, 07:01:26 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago.  It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates.  With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period.  If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong.  You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates.  For me the dates don't even remotely matter.

Ok, so now we can say with Kepler that Adam was created 6000 years ago.  Or with a margin of error, and with science, as much as 10,000 years ago.  That's a nice narrow window when you are looking at 15 billion years total, right?

And, before that--we just don't know from a scientific standpoint, or from the Bible.  All we know is that before that,  there is no evidence of the man at the mall existing as we know him today.

Let's look at something else, then.

Was the man of Genesis 1, within the integrity of that chapter, also a covenant man?

What is the covenant with the Genesis 1 man?

Do you think he was Adam of Genesis 2?  Do they have the same covenant?  Or is it possible he was created before Adam?  Or what?

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #233 on: September 11, 2010, 07:04:27 AM »

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #234 on: September 11, 2010, 07:06:00 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I think it's entirely possible that man that you see in the mall started with Adam a new species (covenant man) about 10,000 years ago.  It's not like archeologists have never been wrong on dates.  With that said, there were certainly creations that looked and acted alot like men long before this time period.  If your argument is that the man that we see today started 10,000 years ago and this is covenant man...the first man who knew right and wrong...I couldn't prove you wrong.  You and I have the same line of thinking I am just not so caught up on the dates.  For me the dates don't even remotely matter.

Ok, so now we can say with Kepler that Adam was created 6000 years ago.  Or with a margin of error, and with science, as much as 10,000 years ago.  That's a nice narrow window when you are looking at 15 billion years total, right?

And, before that--we just don't know from a scientific standpoint, or from the Bible.  All we know is that before that,  there is no evidence of the man at the mall existing as we know him today.

Let's look at something else, then.

Was the man of Genesis 1, within the integrity of that chapter, also a covenant man?

What is the covenant with the Genesis 1 man?

Do you think he was Adam of Genesis 2?  Do they have the same covenant?  Or is it possible he was created before Adam?  Or what?

Not sure...would like to hear your views on it.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #235 on: September 11, 2010, 07:10:39 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I will have to call you on that.  Our knowledge has certainly increased.  And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing.  Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline?  What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?

When I first started looking at this, I saw where Adam was dated [by two scientists in the 17th century] to 6000 years ago using the Bible.

When I saw that this corresponded with the birth of civilization in the same part of the world, it blew my socks off.

Before scientists start lying their heads off to get grants, the great scientists spent most of their time studying the Bible--90 percent of the writings of Isaac Newton were on the Bible.

There is no reason why science and the Bible should disagree--unless the scientists are lying.

They are very desperate to keep their evolution thing going and very glib about the facts.   Unless and until I am shown a 50000 year old city with all the trappings, I will never believe that modern man is that old.

The first man in the Bible to build a city is Cain, the second man from Adam.  Education has nothing to do with it.  Who taught Cain to build cities?  Where did he get his degree in architecture?  But, science would agree, yep, there are those cities being built right around the same time.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9080
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #236 on: September 11, 2010, 07:13:38 AM »
Quick note - I've done quite a bit of IQ testing through the years.  I truly wonder if man has actually gotten smarter, i.e., increased intelligence capabilities, or has he just obtained more knowledge with the intelligence quotient he's always had (was created with)...IMO, they can be 2 different things.    :scratchhead:

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #237 on: September 11, 2010, 07:18:59 AM »
Quick note - I've done quite a bit of IQ testing through the years.  I truly wonder if man has actually gotten smarter, i.e., increased intelligence capabilities, or has he just obtained more knowledge with the intelligence quotient he's always had (was created with)...IMO, they can be 2 different things.    :scratchhead:
IQ is supposed to measure capacity [doesn't mean it does] but we are talking here about capacity not knowledge.  And, I maintain that Adam had the same intelligence as the man in the mall.

Neanderthal, for instance, did not.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9080
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #238 on: September 11, 2010, 07:35:24 AM »
Yes, capacity is a more accurate word than capability.  Sometimes the perfect word, uh, can't be found.   :laughhand:

Anyway, that's what I was getting at too.  I suspect the IQ (capacity) was the same - actually, if in a pinch, I'd probably say higher - than now.  We only use what, less than 10% of our brain?  What's the other 90% for?  Where did the pyramids come from?  What was Adam capable of that we are not?  IMO, he was no dummy.  He may have had to learn some things, and his off-spring through time, but I believe the capacity was already there - and then some.  It was part of creation.  :2c:  

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #239 on: September 11, 2010, 07:43:22 AM »
Genesis 1 man at work-- :coffee2:


Gobekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?
Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization

By Andrew Curry
Photographs by Berthold Steinhilber
Smithsonian magazine, November 2008

Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html?c=y

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13052
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Split, Creation - Science, Faith Part Deux :)
« Reply #240 on: September 11, 2010, 09:44:27 AM »
I got this gem recently from a yec site...

In other words: 6,000 years ago God created material that normally takes billions of years to form. This explains both of the evidence for an old  and young earth. But the young will always be denied, because to admit to it is to admit to God.
Of course God has skills to do such things.
The questions is such a thing can be called twisting/manipularting the truth and if that is against Fathers nature.


Quote
Also this one...
Thou shalt not make any engraved images... Replacing God's word with science puts science "before" God. Which in turn makes science better than God which also makes it replace God. And because it would make people turn away from God, science itself becomes God. Notice how science is put before God in OEC belief.
Nature laws are made by God. Scientists are just trying to figure out Gods laws of nature....

Maybe Jesus never existed because earth is only 50 years old. God just created history along with the earth..... :sigh:
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline shawn

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #241 on: September 11, 2010, 10:22:24 AM »
Quote from: Shawn
I will have to call you on that.  Our knowledge has certainly increased.  And I don't believe they had IQ tests or ways of measuring intelligence 3000 years ago to see if we are progressing.  Can I ask why you are so caught up in the timeline?  What is the difference in 50,000 and 10,000 years?

When I first started looking at this, I saw where Adam was dated [by two scientists in the 17th century] to 6000 years ago using the Bible.

When I saw that this corresponded with the birth of civilization in the same part of the world, it blew my socks off.

Before scientists start lying their heads off to get grants, the great scientists spent most of their time studying the Bible--90 percent of the writings of Isaac Newton were on the Bible.

There is no reason why science and the Bible should disagree--unless the scientists are lying.

They are very desperate to keep their evolution thing going and very glib about the facts.   Unless and until I am shown a 50000 year old city with all the trappings, I will never believe that modern man is that old.

The first man in the Bible to build a city is Cain, the second man from Adam.  Education has nothing to do with it.  Who taught Cain to build cities?  Where did he get his degree in architecture?  But, science would agree, yep, there are those cities being built right around the same time.

I can buy that and understand your view.

With that said, there is indeed a fine line when looking at these things.  The Bible is the inerrant word of God.  That is my foundation.  Science is flawed inherently because we start from a perspective of ignorance and it observed by flawed creatures.  Interpretation of the Bible is often flawed as well because again flawed creatures are looking at scripture.  With that said, we can look around us and know that scientists do know some things.  We certainly have the basics down.  I don't think it takes a great scientific mind to look at the evidence and realize that the earth is older than 10,000 years.  But, it gets much trickier about Adam.  I can entirely buy your take.  But, with this take it still flies in the face of traditional views of original sin.  What is your take on that portion?  What about death before Adam?

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9080
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #242 on: September 11, 2010, 10:50:01 AM »
Molly, anything to do with different 'systems'?  That's where my thoughts gravitate to...I too will be interested in your thoughts on it.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #243 on: September 11, 2010, 01:07:32 PM »
Quote from: Shawn
What about death before Adam?

I've never thought about that question before you brought it up.  But I have long thought that Genesis 1 man was different than our Adam of Genesis 2, not in any qualitative sense, but in his relationship to God.  Along with that is the thought that Genesis 1 man happened earlier in time than Adam who we meet in Genesis 2.  But, of course, I understand that is not a particularly popular notion so I don't bring it up much.

Psalm 8:4
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

H582
אנושׁ
'ĕnôsh
en-oshe'
From H605; properly a mortal (and thus differeing from the more dignified H120); hence a man in general (singly or collectively). It is often unexpressed in the English Version, especially when used in apposition with another word: - another, X [blood-] thirsty, certain, chap [-man], divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the Engl. version, especially when used in apposition with another word. Compare H376.


H605
אנשׁ
'ânash
aw-nash'
A primitive root; to be frail, feeble, or (figuratively) melancholy: - desperate (-ly wicked), incurable, sick, woeful.



and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

son of man=bên  'âdâm


I can't say why the psalmist uses two different words for man there, but he says God is mindful of one and visiting with the other [which denotes a closer relationship].  And, of course, we see God visiting with the sons of Adam all through the Old Testament.

To make a long story short and open the discussion, what if a catastrophe has happened between Gen 1.1 and Gen 1.2 [gap] and God now begins putting things back together in Gen 1 of our book.   He does all his handiwork in Gen 1, but never once is death mentioned.  The Gen 1 man is a vegetarian, so he doesn't kill to eat.  Why would that be unless there is no death?  Neither are the animals killing to eat.  They are all vegetarians.  There also doesn't seem to be any law given, unless you consider 'have babies, be happy' a law.

There are other ways to look at this, of course, but this is one.  There could also be a gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 because of the strange transition that occurs there.

Let me say that it is my opinion that God unopposed would not create anything imperfect unless that was part of the plan.  This is my way of avoiding the free will discussion, for one.  And, also, acknowledging that I consider death, on the face of it, an imperfection.

But, what if we are not being shown everything, but just the aions that begin with modern man?  What if Adam had stayed in the garden and done what he was told?  This is just a thought exercise.  If there are already men outside the garden, they might live forever in sin that was not imputed because there was no law--that is, in anarchy. Likewise, if Adam really is the first man, it starts and ends with him.  There are no babies until they leave the garden.   I think God's plan and Satan's plan were different in this regard--but Satan wanted Adam dead, among other things, of that I have no doubt.  God, on the other hand, is creating immortal beings that are like him--his righteous family.

There are some who are not going to like any of this--that's ok, I'm just asking the questions.  You can show me the inconsistencies.  But, our Adam of Gen 2 did hold the power of life and death for all men, however briefly.  And, the fact that he chose death kicks the whole thing up to the next level culminating in the Lord Jesus.  God is showing us our inherent and potential power as man, which needs to be respected, even in this current feeble body.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.





« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 01:32:13 PM by Molly »

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4432
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #244 on: September 11, 2010, 05:15:26 PM »
Seems to me, all of the scriptures reveal a direct creation of God. In the beginning there was chaos- tohu and bohu, formless and void. Whatever became what Adam represents(if you do not believe He was an individual historic man), it happened because 1)God spoke, 2) because God breathed.

By faith we know that the worlds(aions) were created by the rhema/word of God(Heb 11:3). The Word(Jesus) was the firstborn of all creation, before all things(John 1;Col. 1), He is the radiance of the Father's glory and exact representation of the Fathers image, through whom He(Father) created the ages(aions)(Heb 1:1-3).
Nothing that came into being came into being without Him, so if "formless and void" represents the murky paleolithic ages that were the processes of God up until Adam, those ages were also created through Him. The question remains, WHY?

If Adam was not an individual historic man, why record lineage to Messiah (Son of man-uihos anthropos), why Paul's direct references to Adam as "one"(ex. through the offence of one sin abounded to many). If the apostle treats Adam as a historic man, perhaps we should be instructed by his words.......
 
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man (אדם 'ādām ), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
(Num 23:19)

We are chaos(without the form/image of Christ and void of His Spirit) until God, who is by the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep(the spirit of man), 1)speaks (let there be light....faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God), and 2)breathes into us the breath of life (if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of His). The first man Adam became a living soul the second man Christ became life giving spirit.

When Paul says this first man(Adam) was a figure of "the one to come"(Jesus), he wasn't denying Adams historic existence. God has used historic persons and nations and cities as figures from the very beginning.

All these things happen by the speaking and breathing of God.

Jesus is the Word (expressed thought, speech) of God.
He is the breath of God(life-giving spirit). "My words are spirit and my words are life".

The oracles of God(scriptures) are the speech of God, but only when the breath is breathed into them. Without the breath they are tohu and bohu, formless and void (not revealing God or edifying man)- the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. No one can be educated into the consciousness God(not to say we should not be educated- we defintely should). Only by grace through faith- which is a gift that comes by "hearing the word" (Today if you hear His Voice), that word being the sword of the Spirit-quickened and active.....

Only living words can separate light from dark, divide the heavens above from the heavens below, and reveal solid ground for fruit-bearing of every kind.- Let there be Light.

And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome/comprehend/encompass it. The natural man does not receive the things of God because it is foolishness to him. Thats why the body is without form and void(unrevealed). Its just too carnal.

BY THIS shall the world know you are my disciples(Body revealed)- by your love for one another.

And all those who had gathered together were as one soul and the word of the Lord grew and multiplied and great grace was upon them all and they shared everything so that no one among them had any need and the Lord added to the church daily such as were appointed to deliverance... They weren't formless and void, the image of Christ was MANIFEST in them. IF I BE LIFTED UP I WILL DRAW ALL  MEN UNTO ME.

Scientists sometimes merge theory and hypothesis with fact and evidence that can be interpreted several ways. Their absolutes are few and they are changing all the time. I believe the Word has no beef with science.... but the Word is true, absolutely true....and all the probabilities and possibilities have arisen out of His speaking.

 Peace, over and out.   :hijacked:





« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 05:26:35 PM by eaglesway »
The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8431
  • Gender: Female
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #245 on: September 11, 2010, 06:51:56 PM »
 :cloud9: Can't remember which Kingdom minister it is right now, but at least one of them says Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 man are different, so it's not a foreign concept to all out there......

And for my two cents, I think we're given the same capacity or else God would be a respector of persons, obviously.

Also, who taught Cain to build cities, IMO, was Satan. This sounds strange to modern city-dwelling man, but think about it for a second. Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority, whereas the other pattern it could be argued, requires only God's authority over them, as in His covenant with the one man/head of family, as a priest, which WAS the pattern when there was no temple, also.

Restoring His Kingdom in us, is in a very real sense, bringing "anarchy" to the "other" kingdom, if only by our non-compliance with their values or lack thereof. Blessings....
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #246 on: September 11, 2010, 07:29:37 PM »
Wow TT...I can't debate with someone too stubborn to look at the evidence.


That I can respect.  I do not expect everyone to be a science expert.  I will say this however.  If you are not well versed in the sciences it's best to stay out of debate that will involve science.  If you believe the earth is 6000 years old then you should know why you believe it and be able to defend it...if you decide to debate oecs.

I think I have excercised good wisdom so far, so I will continue to speak if you don't mind, especially as it pertains to the scriptures, as you have yet to show how evolution can be compatible with the scriptures.



  6000 year old earth  grin  When Chinese civilization is 7,500-8000 years old as acknowledged by their own cultural website?  No, sorry I can't imagine ever accepting the pseudoscience that backs YEC claims.

I can accept the earth is older than 6000 years old, for dates and times are not entirely accurate. But there's a big jump between a 8000 year old earth and a 6 million year old earth.

Cool.  But, I thought when you trace back Bible lineage it comes out to 6000 years right?  How can you compromise on what you believe to be Biblical truth?

It can come to 12 too 13 thousand years old as I explained on another thread. If one day is as a thousand years and God creates for 6 days, then each day would be equivalent to 1000 years, so 6000 years of creating and then 1000 years of rest 7000 years. Then we have the beginning of human history and Adam living in the garden of eden, and his sons which is roughly 6000 years ago. So 7 + 6 = 13 thousand years. Which means the earth and the universe can be  roughly 13 thousand years old. A star that shines billions of miles away takes a million light years to get to us, even though it might have been created only 13 thousand years ago.




Then I wish you well in your pursuit of truth. Do you wish me well too?

Absolutely.

thank you
 


I think that there are many Christ lovers in academia...yes.  But, I graduated from a Christian college and had Christian science teachers.  These men no doubt loved the Lord as I do.  But, asking us to accept your interpretation of scripture in the face of clear evidence that tells us that its wrong is the definition of insanity.

Not sure of the point here.  You have to ignore geological, carbon dating, fossil records etc to believe the earth is that young.  I'm just not willing to do so.  YECs haven't been able to show me how these are incorrect.  If they have a valid point I will certainly listen.  I read their websites.  Instead, often times they make up these scenerios that might have happened to get around the science.  I do believe you can interpret the Bible outside of young earth and it still be very much in line with scripture.  What we can agree on is the fact that there are MANY things the evolutionists are wrong about and things they say that are just anti-Biblical no matter how you slice it.

It is also insanity to blindly accept evolution as true, especially when scripture says otherwise, so don't be too angry at creationists who do not accept evolution as true, they have their reasons, just as you have. Also there are not many creation scientists in the world compared to evolutionists, so they would have less findings, also a lot of creationists come from christians colleges etc and are not flexible when it comes to scriptural interpretation, so they tend to start from their scriptural interpretation, then find the science to fit around that. I think that's feasible but if their interpretation is incorrect, then it means their science will be flawed.




« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 07:39:38 PM by thinktank »

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11305
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #247 on: September 11, 2010, 08:04:36 PM »
:cloud9: Can't remember which Kingdom minister it is right now, but at least one of them says Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 man are different, so it's not a foreign concept to all out there......

And for my two cents, I think we're given the same capacity or else God would be a respector of persons, obviously.

Also, who taught Cain to build cities, IMO, was Satan. This sounds strange to modern city-dwelling man, but think about it for a second. Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority, whereas the other pattern it could be argued, requires only God's authority over them, as in His covenant with the one man/head of family, as a priest, which WAS the pattern when there was no temple, also.

Restoring His Kingdom in us, is in a very real sense, bringing "anarchy" to the "other" kingdom, if only by our non-compliance with their values or lack thereof. Blessings....

I agree with that.  God's people in the Old Testament were shepherds and farmers.

Should it surprise us that at the end of this evil age, it is the cities that are growing in size and number?

Urbanization: A Majority in Cities

The world is undergoing the largest wave of urban growth in history. In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world's population will be living in towns and cities. By 2030 this number will swell to almost 5 billion, with urban growth concentrated in Africa and Asia. While mega-cities have captured much public attention, most of the new growth will occur in smaller towns and cities, which have fewer resources to respond to the magnitude of the change.

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm

Offline thinktank

  • Silver
  • *
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #248 on: September 11, 2010, 08:10:48 PM »
Yuck I hate cities, they are not a good place for righteousness, darkness tends to dominate them, that's another reason why the world is getting darker, to many cities. Some people say population control is the answer, but I don't like that, it's a bit "global conspiracy". The answer would be for people to pray for more land and for God to water the deserts, as his promise is that if the inhabitants turn away from unrightoeusness then the lord will heal the land.

Offline micah7:9

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 5955
  • Gender: Male
  • Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine ene
Re: Creation - Science/Faith AND (part of) Genesis, MERGED
« Reply #249 on: September 11, 2010, 08:26:00 PM »
Aint nothing out of step or out of sync. The population in cities, towns, and countrys is just where its supposed to be.  my  :2c:
Also, who taught Cain to build cities? Its the nature of the BEAST.

But it is interesting aint no other building being done intil  Gen 6:14  `Make for thyself an ark  and Gen 8:20  And Noah buildeth an altar to Jehovah

 "Cities require, almost by design, govermental authority"
But didnt men of God build cities as well?
Mic 7:8  Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.