I'll start it off with eternal torture. How I ever thought that our God of Love could be sadistic, Psychotic and cruel, just shows to me, that if I once believed that while knowing God how easily I could be wrong about many other things.
The stupidest thing I ever believed was that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, God created Adam on the sixth day of creation: something like a bit before Eve. I read the passages and just didn't see the truth.
What evidence? ...and it's not stupid to believe the word of God
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 11:00:22 PM
What evidence? ...and it's not stupid to believe the word of God
Scripture says that man was created before there was bush and small plants: " When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature". (Genesis 2: 5-7 ESV)
We know that vegetation was created on the third day: " And God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day". (Genesis 1: 11-13 ESV)
By definition if Adam was created before there was vegetaion, he would have had to have been created before the end of the third day.
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 10:19:25 PM
I'll start it off with eternal torture. How I ever thought that our God of Love could be sadistic, Psychotic and cruel, just shows to me, that if I once believed that while knowing God how easily I could be wrong about many other things.
Me too, for me it was believing and accepting that God was a schizophrenic.
I would have to say, "free will". For me to think that I could ever do anything aside from God was just plain stupid. I at one time thought I could save myself by what I did or didn't do, now isn't that the stupidest thing you ever heard?
CHB
ok Vinebranch. IMO, chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in Chap 1 the same way there are several different accounts by the 4 apostles on what went down with Jesus.
Isn't it possible that on the third day the seed for the plants and fruits were put in the ground rather than God sticking numerous full grown trees in the ground. (I'm not saying that's how it happened. I'm just saying the first chapter tells the order of how things happened and the second chapter adds details not mentioned in the first. :Peace2: :Peace2:
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
ok Vinebranch. IMO, chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in Chap 1 the same way there are several different accounts by the 4 apostles on what went down with Jesus.
That's exactly what I believe. It is actually the way stories were told around that time. First the time frame, then the details (even some mediaeval narratives have this format). So in chapter one we see God's plan sketched out, and in chapter two the details are filled in.
When Adam was created would be a detail which chapter two provides. I see both our posts being the same.
Just because my obsessiveness demands it, Luke wasn't an apostle, he was a doctor who set out to verify the stories he'd heard.
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
Isn't it possible that on the third day the seed for the plants and fruits were put in the ground rather than God sticking numerous full grown trees in the ground. (I'm not saying that's how it happened. I'm just saying the first chapter tells the order of how things happened and the second chapter adds details not mentioned in the first. :Peace2: :Peace2:
Yes it is, but how would that gainsay the argument that Adam was created before that happened? Scripture says Adam was created before bush entered the land and before the plants had sprung up. I'm not sure I see the relevance of whether it was before the tree or before the seed.
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 03:46:59 AM
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
ok Vinebranch. IMO, chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in Chap 1 the same way there are several different accounts by the 4 apostles on what went down with Jesus.
That's exactly what I believe. It is actually the way stories were told around that time. First the time frame, then the details (even some mediaeval narratives have this format). So in chapter one we see God's plan sketched out, and in chapter two the details are filled in. When Adam was created would be a detail which chapter two provides. I see both our posts being the same.
This, IMO, is exactly right. Entire worlds and panoramas have been developed from the idea that these are two separate accounts. But I think this is exactly right.
Being an ex-atheist, ex-Randian, and ex-Libertarian, I used to believe some things that I now know were just STOOPID!!! I don't even want to think about it. :doh: :footmouth: :doh:
Quote from: Lazarus Short on January 20, 2013, 07:39:47 AM
Being an ex-atheist, ex-Randian, and ex-Libertarian, I used to believe some things that I now know were just STOOPID!!! I don't even want to think about it. :doh: :footmouth: :doh:
I used to think about being stupid, but then I thought I could see further if I stood upright. :drummer:
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: Lazarus Short on January 20, 2013, 07:39:47 AM
Being an ex-atheist, ex-Randian, and ex-Libertarian, I used to believe some things that I now know were just STOOPID!!! I don't even want to think about it. :doh: :footmouth: :doh:
I used to think about being stupid, but then I thought I could see further if I stood upright. :drummer:
What an elder can see sitting down, a youth can't see standing up. -old Yoruba proverb
Quote from: Lazarus Short on January 20, 2013, 07:53:57 PM
What an elder can see sitting down, a youth can't see standing up. -old Yoruba proverb
Thanks Laz, I ain't that elderly yet. I always knew it, now I gots the proof.
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 03:46:59 AM
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
ok Vinebranch. IMO, chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in Chap 1 the same way there are several different accounts by the 4 apostles on what went down with Jesus.
That's exactly what I believe. It is actually the way stories were told around that time. First the time frame, then the details (even some mediaeval narratives have this format). So in chapter one we see God's plan sketched out, and in chapter two the details are filled in. When Adam was created would be a detail which chapter two provides. I see both our posts being the same.
Just because my obsessiveness demands it, Luke wasn't an apostle, he was a doctor who set out to verify the stories he'd heard.
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
Isn't it possible that on the third day the seed for the plants and fruits were put in the ground rather than God sticking numerous full grown trees in the ground. (I'm not saying that's how it happened. I'm just saying the first chapter tells the order of how things happened and the second chapter adds details not mentioned in the first. :Peace2: :Peace2:
Yes it is, but how would that gainsay the argument that Adam was created before that happened? Scripture says Adam was created before bush entered the land and before the plants had sprung up. I'm not sure I see the relevance of whether it was before the tree or before the seed.
Quote from: eaglesway on January 20, 2013, 04:20:10 AM
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 03:46:59 AM
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 20, 2013, 01:21:18 AM
ok Vinebranch. IMO, chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in Chap 1 the same way there are several different accounts by the 4 apostles on what went down with Jesus.
That's exactly what I believe. It is actually the way stories were told around that time. First the time frame, then the details (even some mediaeval narratives have this format). So in chapter one we see God's plan sketched out, and in chapter two the details are filled in. When Adam was created would be a detail which chapter two provides. I see both our posts being the same.
This, IMO, is exactly right. Entire worlds and panoramas have been developed from the idea that these are two separate accounts. But I think this is exactly right.
I disagree w/
eaglesway and
VineBranch here.
The Hebrew words that
"made" and
"formed" are translated from are two different words with two different definitions. The term
"made" is translated from Hebrew word
#6212, which essentially means
"to prepare," and the word
"formed" is translated from Hebrew word
#3335, which means
"to form, fashion, frame." IMO, God
"prepared" every living thing in Genesis 1, but did not actually bring it into physical form until Genesis 2; similar to what
dedtodaworld was hinting to.
IMO,
"made" and
"formed" are two separate and distinct
events:
Isaiah 44:2, "Thus saith the LORD that
MADE thee, and
FORMED thee from the womb..."
Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith the LORD that
CREATED the heavens; God himself that
FORMED the earth and made it."
I believe all men
(male and female) were
"made" inclusive on the
6th Day of creation. Just like all grass and all trees were made on the 3rd Day, and all animals were made on the 5th and 6th days.
The Septuagint says, concerning the end of the 6th day,
"And the heavens and earth were finished, and the whole order of them" [Let there be...(Genesis 1:3, 6, 14), Let the...(Genesis 1:9, 11, 20, 24), Let them...(Genesis 1:15), Let us...(Genesis 1:26)]. In other words, God set everything in order in the first 6 days of creation.
But God had not
"formed" any living thing until Genesis 2:7, wherein the text reads that he
"formed the man" (Adam) and
"the man" became a living soul. Notice that Genesis 1:26 does not read
"Let us make the man..." (singular, as it is used in Genesis 2:7 when God formed Adam), it reads
"Let us make man..." (plural).
Scripture shows us that things can be
'MADE' without being
'FORMED.' Notice this distinction:
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God
MADE the heaven and the earth."
And then, in the very next verse, it states,
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was
WITHOUT FORM"
This demonstrates that something can be
MADE without being
FORMED yet.
Before the forming of Adam at Genesis 2:7, we have this verse:
Genesis 2:4-5, "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, and every plant of the field
BEFORE it was in the earth [before it was formed], and every herb of the field
BEFORE it grew [before it was formed], for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
Why was there not a man to till the ground? IMO, because no man was yet
FORMED.
During the 6 day creation, God
"MADE" the plants and herbs, but he had not yet
"FORMED" them. He had
"MADE" the seeds of them (Genesis 1:11-12) but they were not yet
"FORMED" on the earth. He had
"MADE" man, male and female (Genesis 1:26-27), but
"the FIRST MAN" (Adam) was not yet
"FORMED," and had not yet received the
breath of life from God
("not a man to till the ground"). That occurs at Genesis 2:6.
During the account of the 6 day creation, all of the animals were
"MADE" (Genesis 1:20-25), before man
(male and female) was
"MADE" (Genesis 1:26-27). But when we come to the
"FORMING" of them, we see that, at Genesis 2:7, Adam was
"FORMED" before the animals, then, at Genesis 2:19, the animals were
"FORMED." Then, at Genesis 2:20, Adam named the animals. And lastly, at Genesis 1:22, Eve was
"FORMED" from Adam.
The sequence of
"MAKING" the animals and man
(male and female) does not follow the sequence of the
"FORMING" of them, and therefore
"MAKING" and
"FORMING" were not the same.
This also aligns with the
"spiritual" lesson we derive from the fact that God decreed that
"6" is the symbol of mankind, who was created on
Day 6 along with all the other
beasts of the earth.
Revelation 13:18 "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count
the number of the beast: for it is
the number of MAN; and his number is
six hundred and sixty-six."
Ecclesiastes 3:18 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that
they themselves are beasts."
Just my :2c:
I think thats a lot of semantics.
I consider it an excellent offering! :dsunny: :HeartThrob:
And for me anyway, the word "semantics" becomes boring when semantics is the only combatant for disagreement. At least that is my opinion. Sorry EW but you use it a lot, no offence intended. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 04:21:40 AM
I think thats a lot of semantics.
Not at all! Every word, every letter in the Biblical text was put there with infinite care. What is said is important, the order in which it is said is important, and even what is NOT said is important.
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 04:21:40 AM
I think thats a lot of semantics.
IMO, it is semantics when, even though the Scriptures clearly say....
Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
.... we still insist on using our own reasoning
(and semantics) to say that man was
not created as the Scriptures say he was
(on the 6th day), but instead was created on the
3rd day instead. :Whistle:
Why don't we just say that the day God rested from His work, paralleled in Old Covenant by the
7th Day Sabbath, was actually the 4th day, rather than the 7th? :laughing7:
Notice also,
Genesis 2:1-3, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and the whole order of them. And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because in it he ceased from all his works
which God BEGAN to do.
God only ceased from his works that he
"made." The passage above says God ceased from his works that He
"began to do."It should also be noted that in Genesis 2:9, it says
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree..." However, the Hebrew word for
"made" does not appear in this verse, because
"made" here was added by the translators. The phrase
"made the LORD" is actually translated from Hebrew word
#3068, which is translated
"LORD" in the Scriptures. The words
"made the" were inserted before the word
"LORD", but Hebrew word
#6213,
"made," does not exist in this verse. No biggie, but something worth noting.
The trees and plants were literally
formed at this point. This is verified in the previous verse, where it says:
Genesis 2:8, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."If God did not form a garden, it would not be possible to place Adam, who was
formed at this point, in a non-existent garden. It wouldn't make any sense, and it doesn't........ IMO :winkgrin:
Thats a fancy dance around the fact that God spoke to Adam and Eve on the sixth day, "
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(Gen 1:28-31)
He was speaking to an idea of Adam in His mind about an idea of creation He had been thinking about but hadn t yet done I guess :laughing7:
"He was speaking to an idea of Adam in His mind about an idea of creation He had been thinking about but hadn t yet done I guess "
That don't even sound grabable. (Don't know if that's a word but it means get a holt of.) I did not get a holt of it.
I was indulging in ludicrosity
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 05:35:02 AM
Thats a fancy dance around the fact that God spoke to Adam and Eve on the sixth day, "
The
SIXTH DAY. Exactly! Not the
third day. :doh:
You didn't actually "read" my post, did you EW? :Chinscratch:
yup, I did. If you followd mine you would know have been saying the sixth day all along.
Chapter two just gives the details of chaptr one for clarification. It is not a separate account.
Isnt that what you were saying VB?
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 05:52:45 AM
yup, I did. If you followd mine you would know have been saying the sixth day all along.
Chapter two just gives the details of chaptr one for clarification. It is not a separate account.
Isnt that what you were saying VB?
I'm sorry EW. Forgive me. I thought you agreed with VineBranch with regard to man being created before the end of the
3rd day. That was careless on my part, and I apologize. That was the whole point of the
spiritual parallel I mentioned at the end of my post:
i.e. -
Revelation 13:18: "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is
the number of a MAN, and his number is 666."
THE BEAST is MAN.
Ecclesiastes 3:18 "I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons
of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves
ARE BEASTS."
It is the number of a
MAN, and the number that represents
MAN in the Scriptures is the
number 6.
- Man was created on the 6th day
6 days for MAN to labor
MAN could sow the land 6 years, but the seventh belonged to the Lord
Goliath; who defied the Lord's army, was 6 cubits tall. His spearhead weighed 600 shekels of iron.
Nebuchadnezzar's great image, set up in the plain of Dura, was 60 by 6 cubits.
Man is buried 6 feet under (just kidding) :laughing7:
The dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar's great image was
10 times the height of Goliath; and with the passage of time, the dimensions
"increase" another
ten times when we get to Revelation 13:18 because:
2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil
MEN and seducers shall
wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Well, anyway. Sorry about that EW.
While it might be fun to debate minutia, it really serves no purpose.
Sometimes it is fun, and helps us to get to know one another, and learn to communicate and who knows, even forbear one another a bit and all that. :o)
I'm personally not fully convinced that Genesis 2 is just a recap of Genesis 1. If it is, I still think there are multiple things to consider.
I'm not a scientist, or any kind of expert on the subject. I just have some thoughts about it, and find it interesting. I just did a little looking on the topic, and ran across an article by a brother that I expected to be much more "closed" on the topic. I was very pleasantly surprised. However one believes on it, I think this still raises some interesting questions and gives good food for thought;
---------
"There are two major views with regard to the time involved in Creation: the old-earth view and the young-earth view. The latter believes the universe is no more than approximately 15,000 years old, while the former holds that it is probably about 13.7 billion years old.
Young-earthers take the "days" of Creation to be six successive, literal, solar days of twenty-four hours each, totaling 144 hours of Creation. They also reject any significant time gaps between the accounts in Genesis 1 or within the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.
The Six Twenty-Four-Hour-Day View of Creation
Not all scholars who take the days of Genesis to be twenty-four hour days are young-earthers (some hold a gap theory); however, all who hold to a young earth hold to the twenty-four-hour-day view.
There are many biblical arguments presented in favor of the twenty-four-hour-day position. We will list several of those arguments below.
In spite of the fact that many find these arguments convincing proof of six successive twenty-four-hour days of Creation, the case is less than definitive for several reasons.
Following each argument for the twenty-four-hour-day position, we will present a response from those who reject the six-successive-solar-day view.
Arguments Offered for the Twenty-Four-Hour-Day View with a Response
I. The Normal Meaning of the Word Day (Yom)
Argument: It is contended that the usual meaning of the Hebrew word yom ("day") is twenty-four hours unless the context indicates otherwise. The context does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1; hence, the days should be taken as solar days.
Response: It is true that most often the Hebrew word yom (day) means "twenty-four hours." However, this is not definitive for its meaning in Genesis 1 for several reasons. First, the meaning of the term is not determined by a majority vote but by the context in which it is used. It is not important how many times it is used elsewhere but how it is used here. Second, even in the Creation story in Genesis 1-2, "day" (yom) is used of more than a twenty-four hour period. Speaking of the whole six days of Creation Genesis 2:4 refers to it as "the day" (yom) when all things were created. Third, and finally, yom is elsewhere used of long periods of time as in Psalm 90:4, which is cited in 2 Peter 3:8: "A day is like a thousand years."
II. The Use of Numbered Series
Argument: Further, it is noted that when numbers are used in a series (1, 2, 3...) in connection with the word day (yom) in the Old Testament, it always refers to twenty-four-hour days. The absence of any exception to this in the Old Testament is given as evidence of the fact that Genesis 1 is referring to twenty-four-hour days.
Response: Critics of the twenty-four-hour-day view point out that there is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Further, even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that "day" in Genesis 1 does not refer to more than a twenty-four-hour period of time: Genesis 1 may be the exception! Finally, contrary to the solar-day view, there is another example in the Old Testament of a numbered series of days that are not twenty-four-hour days. Hosea 6:1-2 reads: "Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." It is clear that the prophet is not speaking of twenty-four-hour "days," but of longer periods of time in the future. Even so, he uses numbered days in a series.
III. The Use of "Evening and Morning"
Argument: Another line of evidence is the use of the phrase "evening and morning" in connection with each day in Genesis 1. Since the literal twenty-four-hour day on the Jewish calendar began in the "evening" (by sunset) and ended in the "morning" (before sunset) the next day, it is concluded that these are literal twenty-four-hour days.
Response: First, the fact that the phrase "evening and morning" is often used in connection with twenty-four-hour days does not mean it must always be used in this way. Second, if one is going to take everything in Genesis 1 in a strictly literal way, then the phrase "evening and morning" does not encompass all of a twenty-four-hour day, but only the late afternoon of one day and the early morning of another. This is considerably less than twenty-four-hours. Third, technically, the text does not say the "day" was composed of "evening and morning" (thus allegedly making a twenty-four-hour Jewish day); rather, it simply says, "And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day" (Gen. 1:5). Further, the phrase may be a figure of speech indicating a beginning and end to a definite period of time, just as we see in phrases like "the dawn of world history" or the "sunset years of one's life." Fourth, if every day in this series of seven is to be taken as twenty-four hours, why is the phrase "evening and morning" not used with one of the days (the seventh)? In fact, as we shall see (below), the seventh day is not twenty-four hours, and thus there is no necessity to take the other days as twenty-four hours either, since all of them alike use the same word (yom) and have a series of numbers with them. Fifth, and finally, in Daniel 8:14 "evenings and mornings" refer to a period of 2,300 days. Indeed, often in the Old Testament the phrase is used as a figure of speech meaning "continually" (cf. Ex. 18:13; 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Job 4:20).
IV. The Comparison with a Six-Day Workweek
Argument: According to the Law of Moses (Ex. 20:11), the Jewish workweek (Sunday through Friday) was to be followed by a day of rest on Saturday, just as God had done on His "six-day week" of creation. The Jewish workweek refers to six successive twenty-four-hour days. This being the case, it seems that the creation week, like the workweek, was only 144 hours long.
Response: It is true that the creation week is compared with a workweek (Ex. 20:11); however, it is not uncommon in the Old Testament to make unit-to-unit comparisons rather than minute-for-minute ones. For example, God appointed forty years of wandering for forty days of disobedience (Num. 14:34). And, in Daniel 9, 490 days equals 490 years (cf. 9:24-27). What is more, we know the seventh day is more than twenty-four hours, since according to Hebrews 4 the seventh day is still going on. Genesis says that "on the seventh day [God] rested" (Gen. 2:2), but Hebrews informs us that God is still in that Sabbath rest unto which He entered after He created: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (Heb. 4:10).
V. Life Cannot Exist for Thousands of Years without Light
Argument: Young-earthers claim that according to Genesis 1, light was not made until the fourth day (1:14), but there was life on the third day (1:11-13). However, life on earth cannot exist for millions (or even thousands) of years without light; thus, the "days" must not have been long periods of time.
Response: Light was not created on the fourth day, as defenders of the solar day argue; rather, it was made on the very first day when God said, "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3). As to why there was light on the first day when the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there are various possibilities. Some scholars have noted a parallelism between the first three days (light, water, and land – all empty) and the second three days (light, water, and land – all filled with bodies). This may indicate a parallelism in which the first and fourth days cover the same period, in which case the sun existed from the beginning. Others have pointed out that while the sun was created on the first day, it did not appear until the fourth day. Perhaps this was due to a vapor cloud that allowed light through, but not the distinct shape of the heavenly bodies from which the light emanated.
VI. Plants Cannot Live without Animals
Argument: Plants were created on the third day (1:11-13), and animals were not created until later (1:20-23). There is a symbiotic relation between plants and animals, one depending on the other for its life. For example, plants give off oxygen and take in carbon dioxide, and animals do the reverse. Therefore, plants and animals must have been created closely together, not separated by long periods of time.
Response: Some plants and animals are interdependent, but not all. Genesis does not mention all the plants and animals, but only some. If the "days" are six successive periods, then those forms of plant and animal life that need each other could have been created together. In fact, the basic order of events is the order of dependence. For instance, many plants and animals can exist without humans (and they were created first), but humans (who were created on the sixth day) cannot exist without certain plants and animals. In addition, if the "days" are parallel, then the problem does not exist, since plants and animals would exist at the same time. In any event, the argument from the symbiotic relation of plants and animals does not prove that the six "days" of Genesis 1 must be only 144 hours in duration.
VII. The Old-Earth View Is an Accommodation to Evolution
Argument: It is well known that the theory of evolution (or common ancestry) depends on very long periods of time for life to develop from a one-celled animal to human beings. Without these long periods of time, evolution would not be possible. Thus, it is argued by young-earthers, that granting long periods of time is an accommodation to evolution.
Response: In response to this charge, it must be observed that allowing for long periods of time for the development of life came long before the idea of evolution. Augustine (354-430), for one, held to long periods of time for the development of life (City of God, 11.6). Also, even in modern times, scientists had concluded that long periods of time were involved before Darwin wrote in 1859. Furthermore, long periods of time do not help evolution, since without intelligent intervention, more time does not produce the specified complexity involved in life. Natural laws randomize, not specify. For example, dropping red, white, and blue bags of confetti from a plane at 1,000 feet in the air will never produce an American flag on the ground. Giving it more time to fall by dropping it at 10,000 feet will diffuse it even more.
VIII. Mark 10:6 Affirms That Adam and Eve Were Created at the Beginning
Argument: According to this text, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" If God created humankind at the beginning of Creation, then they were not created at the end of millions of years, as the old-earth view contends.
Response: First, Adam was not created at the beginning but at the end of the creation period (on the sixth day), no matter how long or short the days were. Second, the Greek word for "create" (ktisis) can and sometimes does mean "institution" or "ordinance" (cf. 1 Peter 2:13). Since Jesus is speaking of the institution of marriage in Mark 10:6, it could mean "from the beginning of the institution of marriage." Third, and finally, even if Mark 10:6 is speaking of the original creation events, it does not mean there could not have been a long period of time involved in those creative events.
IX. The Old-Earth View Implies Death before Adam
Argument: According to the old-earth position, there was death before Adam. Nevertheless, the Bible declares that death came only after Adam as a result of his sin: "Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12; cf. 8:20-22).
Response: There are several problems with this argument. First, Romans 5:12 does not say all animals die because of Adam's sin, but only that "all men" die as a consequence. Second, Romans 8 does not say that animal death results from Adam's sin, but only that the "creation was subjected to frustration" as a result of it (v. 20). Third, if Adam ate anything – and he had to eat in order to live – then at least plants had to die before he sinned. Fourth, and finally, the fossil evidence indicates animal death before human death, since people are found only on the top (later) strata, while animals are found in lower (earlier) strata." - John Ankerberg
Thank you John Ankerberg for a very interesting, thought-provoking article.
(if we keep wandering, we can figure out a place to split these posts off and send 'em somewhere more appropriate. We have a good science topic somewhere that can be found)
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 05:52:45 AM
yup, I did. If you followd mine you would know have been saying the sixth day all along.
Chapter two just gives the details of chaptr one for clarification. It is not a separate account.
Isnt that what you were saying VB?
I was saying that yes. It's a literary format used throughout the Middle East. If you read the first epic poems in English through the Anglo-Saxon, you find it there as well. Sometimes (Beowulf is notorious for this) the narration speaks of things which will come, after things that haven't been mentioned in the present yet. I love this form of narrative. It is engaging without being pedantic.
Quote from: Illuin on January 23, 2013, 04:07:14 AM
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God MADE the heaven and the earth."
I've checked my scriptures and everyone of them says created. I checked the Dutch translations and they say the Dutch word for created. I checked the French Jerusalem bible, and the English and both say the same thing: created. Could you please provide the translation or version you use when you cite a source. (Note the absence of a question mark: it's rhetorical not semantic.)
Thanks.
Quote from: Illuin on January 23, 2013, 05:25:46 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 04:21:40 AMGenesis 2:8, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
If God did not form a garden, it would not be possible to place Adam, who was formed at this point, in a non-existent garden. It wouldn't make any sense, and it doesn't........ IMO :winkgrin:
So, in your world planted and formed mean the same thing?
Adam must have been planted from the dust then, right?
You accuse Eagle of not reading your posts: do you read your posts?
Jab, did you get a chance to check out Ken Ham's responses to the old-earth? When I saw Ankerberg interview him and jason lisle I was totally repulsed by his constant interruption of Ham's submission. I sense he may not have been as sure of himself as he said.
Thanks for itemizing the young earth stance.
No I didn't see that. Did I miss it in a post, i.e., has this already been referenced, or was that interview elsewhere?
Quote from: shawn on January 23, 2013, 07:05:03 AM
While it might be fun to debate minutia, it really serves no purpose.
Good grief. No minutia; no sense of humor; no semantics..... Those who disagree with anything said are on a high horse and have no love in their hearts. What next?
Elements within this forum reek of self-righteousness:
Luke 18:11 "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,
God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are..."
Relax folks and have a little fun. Geez. :dontknow:
Quote from: jabcat on January 23, 2013, 08:30:37 AM
No I didn't see that. Did I miss it in a post, i.e., has this already been referenced, or was that interview elsewhere?
I found it on Youtube. There may be a reference on Answers in Genesis.
OK, thanks VB. I didn't know J.Ankerberg had a real set view, as much as presenting possible other ways to look at things. As I said, I didn't expect him to be that open. :thumbsup:
*Admin Note - It's not that things are really out of hand, but there's just something wrong. I'm not sure what the "edge" is about between some of the posts the last few days, and most of it just seems unecessary to me. There are little personal digs going on, some feel of declaring as "I'm right, this is the way it is", and honestly, some accusations being made that it seems the person(s) making are doing the exact same things themselves. There's just an unpleasant atmosphere that I'd really like to ask everyone involved to just step back, examine our own approach and motives, and take into account a few things;
we expect no personal attacks or insults;
we expect posting in the spirit and attitude of "as I understand", "IMO", "I believe";
this isn't a personal teaching blog, it's a discussion forum, where communication is conversational, treating each other with respect, "in honor preferring one another".
Let's redirect things to where this will be the last this will need to be mentioned for a good while. :thumbsup: Thanks.
Quote from: VineBranch on January 23, 2013, 08:13:57 AM
Quote from: Illuin on January 23, 2013, 05:25:46 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on January 23, 2013, 04:21:40 AMGenesis 2:8, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
If God did not form a garden, it would not be possible to place Adam, who was formed at this point, in a non-existent garden. It wouldn't make any sense, and it doesn't........ IMO :winkgrin:
So, in your world planted and formed mean the same thing?
Adam must have been planted from the dust then, right?
You accuse Eagle of not reading your posts: do you read your posts?
I don't know what happened but the quote in this quote is mistakenly attributed to me. I did not say it.
ded started this thread, and he decided to lock it, seeing it as non-productive.
AH, Sorry Ded :o)