-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
:P I think we know this. I'm just following the literalist train of thought. ;)Adullam said:
P
Paidion
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
"In the day that you eat from the tree you shall die."
The meaning is that in the day that you eat from the tree, death will be a future experience for you.The idea is that "in the day that you eat from the tree you shall be subject to death." or the death principle will begin to operate in you.
When Moses wrote that Cain "knew" his wife, he did not mean that Cain became acquainted with his wife. It means that he had sexual intercourse with her. You've heard of "carnal knowledge" haven't you? This use of "know" is found throughout the books of Moses.
The meaning is that in the day that you eat from the tree, death will be a future experience for you.The idea is that "in the day that you eat from the tree you shall be subject to death." or the death principle will begin to operate in you.
When Moses wrote that Cain "knew" his wife, he did not mean that Cain became acquainted with his wife. It means that he had sexual intercourse with her. You've heard of "carnal knowledge" haven't you? This use of "know" is found throughout the books of Moses.
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
follower of Christ said:
Read only the Old Testament accounts of the creation.
The NT writers did not do a full exposition on the creation of man. They wrote what they understood from what they had available at the time which was the OT. Their job was to setup the church, not expound on creation. Jesus himself only said one thing concerning the creation of man. He said, "male and female He created them." And that's it. Jesus is also called the second man, but, we know that's not possible for him to be the literal 2nd man. There were many others in-between. Adam was a type of Christ (Rom 5:14), and Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8). ;)
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Paidion said:
Padion, may I please have your thoughts to Reformed Baptists comment on this? He is a friend from another forum. Thanks and God Bless!
'knew' in the biblical sense, is to have a physical relationship with someone, however the emphasis is not upon the sex so much, as the intimacy of that physical union. It is a concept that is carried on into our relationship with God, God knows his people, and that means much more then meraly has a knowledge of, or that he knows us as we know our friends, it means he is intimately aquainted with us, in a way that is symbolised by the intimate aquantiance between a husabnd and wife!
Of course Cain knew his wife, she was after all a sister, (or neice perhaps)
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
John said:
Adam was the first son of God on earth, not the first human.
Which is why he lived so long and would have lived forever.
The only begotten Son had to come to undo what the first one messed up.
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
On what basis is there a belief that 'Cain's wife' was a sister or niece?
Question: Of what PURPOSE would it serve Cain to BUILD a city for THREE people?
The only information concerning brothers or sisters to Cain comes AFTER the death of Able. Do you NOT think that the ORDER which we were offered the decendants of Adam and Eve contains SIGNIFICANCE? Hmmmm..........
And IF Cain married a sister or neice, why wasn't this FACT mentioned? For we have the words that Adam and Eve HAD sons and daughters other than Cain and Abel. No, the ONLY information that we have of his wife is that WHEN, in the Land of Nod, Cain KNEW his wife. The INDICATION of this is that his wife MOST LIKELY came from the Land of Nod. For there was NO mention of Cain AND his wife being 'driven away'. NO INDICATION that BEFORE arival IN the Land of Nod that he HAD a wife. And WHERE do you BELIEVE that name 'NOD' CAME from? ALL places that I KNOW of were named by those that LIVED THERE.
His wife being a sister or niece is MERE speculation to conform to a story that is NOT actually written the WAY it has been interpreted. IF she HAD been a sister or niece, it would have MOST LIKELY have been WRITTEN. It wasn't. PERIOD. The NIECE thing is PURE speculation without ANY validification. For there is NO MENTION of Cain OR Abel EVER having children UNTIL Cain is IN the Land of Nod.
But, in the first chapter of Genesis it states PLAINLY that men and women WERE created BEFORE Adam. There are MANY direct instances of separation offered that shows that the first humans created were DIFFERENT than Adam and Eve.
One, they were created AT THE SAME TIME; men AND women and NO MENTION of woman being created FROM MAN. They were told to 'be fruitful and multiply'. They were given EVERY TREE on the face of ALL THE EARTH to be for food, (Adam and Ever were PLAINLY warned NOT to eat from A PARTICULAR TREE), The first creation had NO NEED for 'farming or shepparding', (most likely nomadic gatherers). Yet we KNOW that Adam, for his disobedience, was sentenced to BE a 'toiler of the soil'. In Adam was breathed the 'breath of life' and HE BECAME a 'living soul', (an indication that perhaps the first creation was NOT given a 'living soul' but one more closely resembling that of an ANIMAL, and perhaps for THIS CAUSE, came about; 'men's hearts becoming EVIL continually'. An ABANDONMENT of God for the sake of 'other gods' created by the first creation. For, as the bloodline of Adam and Eve became more and more diluted, the MEMORY of God would have become MORE AND MORE distant).
Secondly, the beginning of the second chapter of Genesis PLAINLY states that the heavens and Earth were FINISHED and ALL the hosts of them. It's really THAT SIMPLE. The first creation took place and was FINISHED BEFORE the creation of Adam. Men and women were created, told to be fruitful and multifply, BEFORE the creation of Adam. Read it for yourself.
Some say that the second chapter is just a detailed account of the FIRST. This is NOT so. READ it for yourself. There is NOTHING to indicate that this is SO except in the limited understanding of those that 'CREATED' the story that still exists today in traditional churches. It even goes so far as to actually IDENTIFY the 'second creation' in that it says that 'there was NOT a 'man to till the earth'. It does NOT say that 'there was NOT a man', but specifically states 'to till the earth'. So God created Adam for a 'specific PURPOSE': To tend to 'the garden'. Yet there is NO INDICATION that the first creation were created for ANY purpose but to 'MULTIPLY and REPLINISH the Earth'.
It is also likely that the REASON that God created Adam was that the first creation chose 'other gods of their OWN to worship'. Meant to know the ONE true God, but taking a 'different direction'. So He created children that He DID reveal Himself to and MEANT for them to remain SEPARATE from the first creation. Once again, we have the indication of this in the statement that Noah was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS. That Noah may well have been the LAST MAN on the planet that still contained an uncontaminated bloodline directly to Adam and Eve; The REASON that HE was CHOSEN to 'begin again'. For LIFE is IN THE BLOOD.
And then we see that at one point, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men..........". Some say that these 'sons of God' were ANGELS. That is UTTERLY rediculous mythology. The sons of God WERE the prodgeny of Adam and Eve. The daughters of men were the FIRST creation. The first creation did NOT KNOW GOD. They had the inherent NEED to KNOW God, but did NOT KNOW HIM. So they created their 'own gods'. Water gods, sky gods, sun gods, etc....... And the REASON that it was a BAD thing when the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men was the SAME reason that the Jews were commanded NOT to go OUTSIDE their bloodlines, for, When a man marries a woman who worships DIFFERENT gods, JUST LIKE EVE, they are LIKELY to sway their HUSBANDS in THEIR direction of worship. We can PLAINLY see this in regards to Solomon.
Read on from the point of 'man's heart becoming wicked continually' and the next thing we find is NOAH, described as 'a just man and PERFECT in his 'GENERATIONS'. What do you SUPPOSE this means; GENERATIONS? We have, before this offering, the geneology of Adam and Eve and their decendants ALL THE WAY TO NOAH. Now, what is the significance of offering these generations?
And then we have the offering, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men........." NEVER are the angels refered to AS 'sons of God'. NOT ONCE. The indication is that Satan, AN ANGEL, was JEALOUS of the 'sons of God', (Adam), and this was the REASON that he brought about their 'fall' into sin. We are told that one day WE, (the sons of God), will JUDGE the angels. So, where this 'fairy tale' of angels visiting earth and mating came from is BEYOND me. The sons of God are the descendants of Adam and Eve. Those that had COMMUNION WITH GOD. Those that KNEW God.
Cain's wife was one of the fIrst creation. Just ANOTHER sign of his rebelion against righteousness. For we can see that Cain was a bit 'twisted' PREVIOUS to his brother's murder. Whether it was brought about by temptation offered up by Satan is speculation but most LIKELY the case. Jealousy or Envy are NOT 'signs of love' and WHERE do you reacon such 'sins' originated?
Think people, we are also given the lineage of Cain. Do you believe that ALL the decendants of Cain CAME FROM HIS OWN SEED? That all RELATED to Cain were DIRECT decendants of CAIN and HIS children ONLY?
This 'traditionalists' interpretion of the story of creation was 'created' when man was almost TOTALLY ignorant of palentology. Totally ignorant of ALMOST all actual KNOWLEDGE other than the simple words offered up in the first TWO chapters of Genesis.
The significance of the 'story' of creation was NOT to TELL US EVERYTHING, but to simply point out that God IS the 'Creator'. And if you simply READ it without the 'Sunday school' pre-conceived notions of mythology, it is apparent that the 'story' that you were told in Sunday school is NOT what is actually written. READ it. Read up to the story of the flood and it becomes apparent that Adam and Eve were NOT the first HUMANS created. That there WAS INDEED a 'first creation' and a 'second'.
Blessings,
MEC
Question: Of what PURPOSE would it serve Cain to BUILD a city for THREE people?
The only information concerning brothers or sisters to Cain comes AFTER the death of Able. Do you NOT think that the ORDER which we were offered the decendants of Adam and Eve contains SIGNIFICANCE? Hmmmm..........
And IF Cain married a sister or neice, why wasn't this FACT mentioned? For we have the words that Adam and Eve HAD sons and daughters other than Cain and Abel. No, the ONLY information that we have of his wife is that WHEN, in the Land of Nod, Cain KNEW his wife. The INDICATION of this is that his wife MOST LIKELY came from the Land of Nod. For there was NO mention of Cain AND his wife being 'driven away'. NO INDICATION that BEFORE arival IN the Land of Nod that he HAD a wife. And WHERE do you BELIEVE that name 'NOD' CAME from? ALL places that I KNOW of were named by those that LIVED THERE.
His wife being a sister or niece is MERE speculation to conform to a story that is NOT actually written the WAY it has been interpreted. IF she HAD been a sister or niece, it would have MOST LIKELY have been WRITTEN. It wasn't. PERIOD. The NIECE thing is PURE speculation without ANY validification. For there is NO MENTION of Cain OR Abel EVER having children UNTIL Cain is IN the Land of Nod.
But, in the first chapter of Genesis it states PLAINLY that men and women WERE created BEFORE Adam. There are MANY direct instances of separation offered that shows that the first humans created were DIFFERENT than Adam and Eve.
One, they were created AT THE SAME TIME; men AND women and NO MENTION of woman being created FROM MAN. They were told to 'be fruitful and multiply'. They were given EVERY TREE on the face of ALL THE EARTH to be for food, (Adam and Ever were PLAINLY warned NOT to eat from A PARTICULAR TREE), The first creation had NO NEED for 'farming or shepparding', (most likely nomadic gatherers). Yet we KNOW that Adam, for his disobedience, was sentenced to BE a 'toiler of the soil'. In Adam was breathed the 'breath of life' and HE BECAME a 'living soul', (an indication that perhaps the first creation was NOT given a 'living soul' but one more closely resembling that of an ANIMAL, and perhaps for THIS CAUSE, came about; 'men's hearts becoming EVIL continually'. An ABANDONMENT of God for the sake of 'other gods' created by the first creation. For, as the bloodline of Adam and Eve became more and more diluted, the MEMORY of God would have become MORE AND MORE distant).
Secondly, the beginning of the second chapter of Genesis PLAINLY states that the heavens and Earth were FINISHED and ALL the hosts of them. It's really THAT SIMPLE. The first creation took place and was FINISHED BEFORE the creation of Adam. Men and women were created, told to be fruitful and multifply, BEFORE the creation of Adam. Read it for yourself.
Some say that the second chapter is just a detailed account of the FIRST. This is NOT so. READ it for yourself. There is NOTHING to indicate that this is SO except in the limited understanding of those that 'CREATED' the story that still exists today in traditional churches. It even goes so far as to actually IDENTIFY the 'second creation' in that it says that 'there was NOT a 'man to till the earth'. It does NOT say that 'there was NOT a man', but specifically states 'to till the earth'. So God created Adam for a 'specific PURPOSE': To tend to 'the garden'. Yet there is NO INDICATION that the first creation were created for ANY purpose but to 'MULTIPLY and REPLINISH the Earth'.
It is also likely that the REASON that God created Adam was that the first creation chose 'other gods of their OWN to worship'. Meant to know the ONE true God, but taking a 'different direction'. So He created children that He DID reveal Himself to and MEANT for them to remain SEPARATE from the first creation. Once again, we have the indication of this in the statement that Noah was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS. That Noah may well have been the LAST MAN on the planet that still contained an uncontaminated bloodline directly to Adam and Eve; The REASON that HE was CHOSEN to 'begin again'. For LIFE is IN THE BLOOD.
And then we see that at one point, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men..........". Some say that these 'sons of God' were ANGELS. That is UTTERLY rediculous mythology. The sons of God WERE the prodgeny of Adam and Eve. The daughters of men were the FIRST creation. The first creation did NOT KNOW GOD. They had the inherent NEED to KNOW God, but did NOT KNOW HIM. So they created their 'own gods'. Water gods, sky gods, sun gods, etc....... And the REASON that it was a BAD thing when the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men was the SAME reason that the Jews were commanded NOT to go OUTSIDE their bloodlines, for, When a man marries a woman who worships DIFFERENT gods, JUST LIKE EVE, they are LIKELY to sway their HUSBANDS in THEIR direction of worship. We can PLAINLY see this in regards to Solomon.
Read on from the point of 'man's heart becoming wicked continually' and the next thing we find is NOAH, described as 'a just man and PERFECT in his 'GENERATIONS'. What do you SUPPOSE this means; GENERATIONS? We have, before this offering, the geneology of Adam and Eve and their decendants ALL THE WAY TO NOAH. Now, what is the significance of offering these generations?
And then we have the offering, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men........." NEVER are the angels refered to AS 'sons of God'. NOT ONCE. The indication is that Satan, AN ANGEL, was JEALOUS of the 'sons of God', (Adam), and this was the REASON that he brought about their 'fall' into sin. We are told that one day WE, (the sons of God), will JUDGE the angels. So, where this 'fairy tale' of angels visiting earth and mating came from is BEYOND me. The sons of God are the descendants of Adam and Eve. Those that had COMMUNION WITH GOD. Those that KNEW God.
Cain's wife was one of the fIrst creation. Just ANOTHER sign of his rebelion against righteousness. For we can see that Cain was a bit 'twisted' PREVIOUS to his brother's murder. Whether it was brought about by temptation offered up by Satan is speculation but most LIKELY the case. Jealousy or Envy are NOT 'signs of love' and WHERE do you reacon such 'sins' originated?
Think people, we are also given the lineage of Cain. Do you believe that ALL the decendants of Cain CAME FROM HIS OWN SEED? That all RELATED to Cain were DIRECT decendants of CAIN and HIS children ONLY?
This 'traditionalists' interpretion of the story of creation was 'created' when man was almost TOTALLY ignorant of palentology. Totally ignorant of ALMOST all actual KNOWLEDGE other than the simple words offered up in the first TWO chapters of Genesis.
The significance of the 'story' of creation was NOT to TELL US EVERYTHING, but to simply point out that God IS the 'Creator'. And if you simply READ it without the 'Sunday school' pre-conceived notions of mythology, it is apparent that the 'story' that you were told in Sunday school is NOT what is actually written. READ it. Read up to the story of the flood and it becomes apparent that Adam and Eve were NOT the first HUMANS created. That there WAS INDEED a 'first creation' and a 'second'.
Blessings,
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Oh, and to PLAINLY show how LITTLE is actually offered up in UNDERSTANDING of the 'creation account': What do you reacon 'replenish' MEANS? As far as we know there were TEN creations BEFORE Adam. To replenish means to DO IT AGAIN. This could be a simple reference to that which had been DESTROYED previous to 'mankinds' creation, (perhaps a reference to refill the world with life. Maybe a reference to that which wiped out life here PREVIOUS to the introduction of humans. Sure, mere speculation, but there MUST be significance in the word: 'replenish').
Blessings,
MEC
Blessings,
MEC
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
I got this from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... of-meaning
Genesis 1:28, KJV
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.
According to some, this verse in the King James Version indicates that Adam and Eve were to refill the planet, implying that that they weren’t the first humans God created but were part of a “second creation.†Many who accept the gap theory believe this. However, take a look at the same verse in the New King James Version.
Genesis 1:28, NKJV
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.â€Â
The word replenish in the King James Version was used in the seventeenth century (when the King James Version was translated) to simply mean “fill.†It expressed such ideas as to stock, fill, supply, or inhabit. Replenish is related to the word replete; being replete with happiness is being full with happiness. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word replenish to mean “to fill again†occurred in 1612, one year after the King James Version was published. Furthermore, it was used in a poetic sense, and Genesis 1:28 is not poetry. The English word has changed meaning over the centuries so that the word replenish today generally means “refill.â€Â
The original Hebrew word for replenish in Genesis 1:28 is male. This word simply means “fill†and is translated that way in the King James elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 1:22). So neither the Hebrew word nor the English word chosen by the King James Version translators meant, at that time, “refill.†The translators’ choice of replenish may have been meant to convey something akin to “fill up†(i.e., to “make replete [full]â€Â), but they were certainly not trying to convey anything about another filling of the earth.
The New King James Version (and some other versions) correctly translates the word in today’s parlance as ââ‚fill.†This apparent “contradiction†is simply a translational issueâ€â€not an error in the original manuscripts.
Genesis 1:28, KJV
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.
According to some, this verse in the King James Version indicates that Adam and Eve were to refill the planet, implying that that they weren’t the first humans God created but were part of a “second creation.†Many who accept the gap theory believe this. However, take a look at the same verse in the New King James Version.
Genesis 1:28, NKJV
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.â€Â
The word replenish in the King James Version was used in the seventeenth century (when the King James Version was translated) to simply mean “fill.†It expressed such ideas as to stock, fill, supply, or inhabit. Replenish is related to the word replete; being replete with happiness is being full with happiness. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word replenish to mean “to fill again†occurred in 1612, one year after the King James Version was published. Furthermore, it was used in a poetic sense, and Genesis 1:28 is not poetry. The English word has changed meaning over the centuries so that the word replenish today generally means “refill.â€Â
The original Hebrew word for replenish in Genesis 1:28 is male. This word simply means “fill†and is translated that way in the King James elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 1:22). So neither the Hebrew word nor the English word chosen by the King James Version translators meant, at that time, “refill.†The translators’ choice of replenish may have been meant to convey something akin to “fill up†(i.e., to “make replete [full]â€Â), but they were certainly not trying to convey anything about another filling of the earth.
The New King James Version (and some other versions) correctly translates the word in today’s parlance as ââ‚fill.†This apparent “contradiction†is simply a translational issueâ€â€not an error in the original manuscripts.
I
Imagican
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
Interesting post. I have never heard this explanation before.
But, even so, Adam and Eve were never given such a 'command'.
The indication from the words written is that the 'first creation' was brought about for this particular purpose.
Now, IF Adam and Eve were commissioned to 'fill the world', WHY did God decide to DESTROY their decendants BEFORE the world was FULL? According to those that believe that Adam was the FIRST human, and those same that believe in a 'world wide flood', God destroyed ALL HUMANS except for ONE family. And I believe that even those that believe such would agree that IF Adam was the first human, the small amount of TIME involved, from the creation of Adam to the flood, would NOT have been ENOUGH time for mankind to COVER the planet. There were actually only a FEW GENERATIONS. Even with people living for hundreds of years, this would NOT have been ENOUGH TIME for man to 'FILL the Earth'.
But, if what I offer is TRUTH, then we can see that there may well have been people ALL over the planet when Adam was formed. There could well have been communities already established by the time of Adam.
We know that there was a 'time' before man KNEW how to USE metal. There was a time BEFORE man knew how to 'grow plants'. There was a time BEFORE animals were tamed for the use of their meat, milk or skins. There was a time before fire.
Yet, we see Cain's decendants BEING those that learned the art of using metal. We see that Adam WAS a 'tender' of God's garden. We see that Abel WAS a sheppard.
To deny these things is to proverbally 'place one's head in the ground' and refuse to accept what has been offered up as proof by those that have devoted their lives to such science.
I propose that there is LITTLE conflict necessary between such science and The Word. That it is ONLY the misinterpretation of the Bible that has led to such a controversial gap between science and religion.
An attempt to TAKE the words of Genesis LITERAL and in a manner NOT offered has led MANY to refuse to accept MUCH that science has offered in favor of 'fairy tales' and mythology.
I believe that the Word BACKS UP the science that has plainly shown man to have been on this planet for HUNDREDS of Thousands of years, (MAYBE EVEN LONGER). But ONLY so long as one is able to READ IT and not simply accept what 'others' TELL US it says.
Man and Tyronsaurus Rex did NOT co-exist. And there were other animals that pre-dated T-Rex, by MILLIONS of years. This does NOT offer contradiction to the Word. ONLY if one takes the 'story' LITERALLY. And I do NOT believe that it was MEANT to be taken in such a manner. The 'seven days' were simply SEVEN TIME PERIODS or 'events' if you will.
Look guys, JUST about EVERY miracle God ever performed for our benefit, (or HIs), was done through the use of natural events. But to believe in this 'six day creation' account, it would take something UTTERLY outside of the natural realm to accomplish.
The universe is an intricate machine that, by essence of itself, MUST perform PERFECTLY for us to exist. Why may it NOT have taken BILLIONS of years for God to 'set it up' suitable for the 'creation of man'. Since He is IMORTAL and time has NO BEARING on HIm, what possible difference would it make? Only in the vanity of the human mind are WE so important that EVERYTHING must revolve AROUND US. God could well have created the universe to observe BEFORE He even THOUGHT of creating men or a planet for them to inhabit.
Perhaps He enjoyed watching dinosaurs romp upon the planet for hundreds of millions of years BEFORE it was TIME to create men. These are NOT answers that we were given for it has little bearing for God to share His will has NO bearing on US.
Question: Do you belive that God created ANYTHING that He did NOT Love?
Blessings,
MEC
But, even so, Adam and Eve were never given such a 'command'.
The indication from the words written is that the 'first creation' was brought about for this particular purpose.
Now, IF Adam and Eve were commissioned to 'fill the world', WHY did God decide to DESTROY their decendants BEFORE the world was FULL? According to those that believe that Adam was the FIRST human, and those same that believe in a 'world wide flood', God destroyed ALL HUMANS except for ONE family. And I believe that even those that believe such would agree that IF Adam was the first human, the small amount of TIME involved, from the creation of Adam to the flood, would NOT have been ENOUGH time for mankind to COVER the planet. There were actually only a FEW GENERATIONS. Even with people living for hundreds of years, this would NOT have been ENOUGH TIME for man to 'FILL the Earth'.
But, if what I offer is TRUTH, then we can see that there may well have been people ALL over the planet when Adam was formed. There could well have been communities already established by the time of Adam.
We know that there was a 'time' before man KNEW how to USE metal. There was a time BEFORE man knew how to 'grow plants'. There was a time BEFORE animals were tamed for the use of their meat, milk or skins. There was a time before fire.
Yet, we see Cain's decendants BEING those that learned the art of using metal. We see that Adam WAS a 'tender' of God's garden. We see that Abel WAS a sheppard.
To deny these things is to proverbally 'place one's head in the ground' and refuse to accept what has been offered up as proof by those that have devoted their lives to such science.
I propose that there is LITTLE conflict necessary between such science and The Word. That it is ONLY the misinterpretation of the Bible that has led to such a controversial gap between science and religion.
An attempt to TAKE the words of Genesis LITERAL and in a manner NOT offered has led MANY to refuse to accept MUCH that science has offered in favor of 'fairy tales' and mythology.
I believe that the Word BACKS UP the science that has plainly shown man to have been on this planet for HUNDREDS of Thousands of years, (MAYBE EVEN LONGER). But ONLY so long as one is able to READ IT and not simply accept what 'others' TELL US it says.
Man and Tyronsaurus Rex did NOT co-exist. And there were other animals that pre-dated T-Rex, by MILLIONS of years. This does NOT offer contradiction to the Word. ONLY if one takes the 'story' LITERALLY. And I do NOT believe that it was MEANT to be taken in such a manner. The 'seven days' were simply SEVEN TIME PERIODS or 'events' if you will.
Look guys, JUST about EVERY miracle God ever performed for our benefit, (or HIs), was done through the use of natural events. But to believe in this 'six day creation' account, it would take something UTTERLY outside of the natural realm to accomplish.
The universe is an intricate machine that, by essence of itself, MUST perform PERFECTLY for us to exist. Why may it NOT have taken BILLIONS of years for God to 'set it up' suitable for the 'creation of man'. Since He is IMORTAL and time has NO BEARING on HIm, what possible difference would it make? Only in the vanity of the human mind are WE so important that EVERYTHING must revolve AROUND US. God could well have created the universe to observe BEFORE He even THOUGHT of creating men or a planet for them to inhabit.
Perhaps He enjoyed watching dinosaurs romp upon the planet for hundreds of millions of years BEFORE it was TIME to create men. These are NOT answers that we were given for it has little bearing for God to share His will has NO bearing on US.
Question: Do you belive that God created ANYTHING that He did NOT Love?
Blessings,
MEC
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
Imagician, reading over your reponse, it appears that you believe somewhat in evolution. You say that man and T-rex did not co-exist. I beg to differ. I will have to get back with you later though.
God Bless
God Bless
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
Possible. If God has existed forever, then, from a standpoint of time, that would be more than hundreds of trillions of years. Which would beg the question, what was He doing all of that time?
Be careful though, remember what the Catholic Church did to those who suggested the world wasn't flat.
:o 
Organized religion is usually the last holdout when defending the un-defendable. Joh 8:23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
Came from somewhere else. :o
:D
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
I don't think the past things are supposed to be remembered, archaeology may give us a glimpse of those things though. Who knows.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Ecc 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. (If the earth does actually go on forever, it would be a re-formed outer shell God makes, not a totally new one)
Isa 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
researcher said:
Possible. If God has existed forever, then, from a standpoint of time, that would be more than hundreds of trillions of years. Which would beg the question, what was He doing all of that time?
Be careful though, remember what the Catholic Church did to those who suggested the world wasn't flat.
Joh 8:23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
Came from somewhere else. :o
I'd like to know where the Bible speaks of ten creations before Adam.
researcher
Member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 1,079
- 1
Dave Slayer said:researcher said:
Possible. If God has existed forever, then, from a standpoint of time, that would be more than hundreds of trillions of years. Which would beg the question, what was He doing all of that time?
Be careful though, remember what the Catholic Church did to those who suggested the world wasn't flat.
Joh 8:23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
Came from somewhere else. :o
I'd like to know where the Bible speaks of ten creations before Adam.
It surely can't, or else the below wouldn't be true -
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Remembrance
H2146
זכרון
zikrôn
zik-rone'
From H2142; a memento (or memorable thing, day or writing): - memorial, record.
We have cave writings, but that's about it. :D
If we're not supposed to remember things that happened before this, I guess we won't. :o
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
Imagican said:
have you read genesis ch. 5:4????? it says that adam begat sons and daughters.
K
kingdavid
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
Dave Slayer said:researcher said:
Possible. If God has existed forever, then, from a standpoint of time, that would be more than hundreds of trillions of years. Which would beg the question, what was He doing all of that time?
Be careful though, remember what the Catholic Church did to those who suggested the world wasn't flat.
Joh 8:23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
Came from somewhere else. :o
I'd like to know where the Bible speaks of ten creations before Adam.
have you read genesis ch. 5:4???? it says adam begat sons and daughters