Is the Creation account in Genesis Literal?

[wavy]

Further, Exodus 23:10-11 applies the sabbath principle to a time span of years.

And? It's an annual Sabbath and has nothing to do with the literal, seven-day Sabbath nor does it bear on the meaning of the'days' in the opening chapter of Genesis.

Right. The point is that the concept of Sabbath does not always mean a period of 1 in 7 days of 24hrs each. Therefore, it is not 'Sabbath' that would limit 'day' to, at most, 24hrs.

...

But it does mean that in Exodus xx.11 as any plain reading of the text will reveal. This verse isn't interpreted by the other verse you cited, and I never claimed that the fact that the Sabbath was mentioned meant that the days were literal.

Here is what you have to face:

If we have no real reason to interpret the 'days' in the opening chapter of Genesis as indeterminate or symbolic or whatever it is you believe, then we should take it literally. There are a number of additional, positive reasons why we should take it literally which I have already mentioned that reinforce the prima facie evidence:

1) Yom with accompanying numerical adjectives.

2) The division of the day into 'evening and morning'.

3) The plain reading of Exodus xx.11 which alludes to Genesis.

Until you give me a reason why this isn't the case without making a number of ad hoc assumptions or without making vague appeals to contextually unrelated passages, then it stands as the most natural and salient interpretation.

You've offered nothing, so consider yourself defeated.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

I find it hard to believe that 'day' in Gen 1 refers to 24-hr periods simply because the sun and moon weren't created until the 4th 'day'.

That's because we should infer here a misunderstanding of the correlation between a 'day' and the 'sun' on the part of the Hebrews. The sun merely 'ruled' the day (or is this not literal as well?)and the moon 'ruled' the night. This is explicit in the text itself.

Are you saying the Hebrews weren't good celestial mechanics? Good point though.

My point is that the Hebrews apparently didn't understand that a 'day' is determined by the sun as the earth rotates on its axis. The 'day' is not an entity 'ruled' or guided by another entity called the sun.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[John]

John,

Do you literally BELIEVE that 'plate techtonics', which we are able to judge NOW in millimeters a year, is REALLY possible to have SEPARATED the continents in ONE DAY?

Imagician,

I take it you believe in the the whole Pangaea thing?

Have you considered what impact the flood would have have upon the earth and the plates?

 

[Imagican]

John,

Have you ever LOOKED at Google Earth? All it takes is a very cursory glance at the oceans and continents to PLAINLY see that they ALL once FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY.

How much time it took for them to become separated by THOUSANDS of miles I do NOT KNOW. But that it must have taken an ENORMOUS amount is without question.

I don't 'buy into' ANYTHING simply for the sake of those that SAY IT. I attempt to 'do my homework' when it comes to ANY subject and don't offer my opinions without being able to base them on something other than what I FEEL or what I 'want to believe'.

I don't believe in Aliens. But if one steped up to me and shot me with his 'ray gun', at that point, no matter HOW MUCH I didn't WANT to believe, I think I could ACCEPT the truth. The same goes for ghosts, Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.

But we do not speak of such mythical or fantastic tales. We speak of that which there IS tangible evidence of.

I have YET to find that an 'ancient earth' in ANY way contradicts The Word. It may well contradict the teachings of a FIVE THOUSAND year old belief system. But it certainly doesn't contradict ANYTHING that I have EVER read in The Bible. Only in 'interpretation'.

God IS eternal. So the time that has been offered by those that STUDY such things has NO relevance to God. If God chose to spend a TRILLION YEARS watching the progression of one His creations, there is little doubt in my mind or heart that He is certainly CAPABLE of doing such without it having ANY bearing on US. As far as YOU or anyone else knows, WE may simply be an EXPERIMENT created by God much like a scientist does NOW with a beaker and test tube. We simply DO NOT know why God created us except that it was for HIS pleasure.

Understanding that WE were created in HIS image is paramont to a BEGINNING of understanding so far as HIS knowledge is concerned. For WE were given the SAME capacity to be AS HIM. Otherwise we are NOT created in His IMAGE.

This being the case, is there ANY doubt that He designed us through the means that we are beginning to understand so far as genetics and chemistry? Funny how so many that believe in this 'young earth' concept accept ALL the 'other things' that science has to offer but deny this ONE subject due to their BELIEFS based on NOTHING other than a few 'written words' contained within a book created by MEN.

The Word offers that a day to God can be as thousands of years and a thousand years can be as ONE DAY. This in itself is ENOUGH PROOF to clearly see that time is irrelevant to God. His existence is most likely determined by chains of events rather than in the measured time it takes for these events to 'take place'. If this is true, then He has already offered that the use of days was most likely symbolically offered for the sake of understanding. For, at the time this information was offered, mankind would have a very difficult time with the concept of numbers that hadn't even been created yet, (do you believe that Moses would have understood the term; BILLIONS?).

So, we have PLENTY of evidence that the Earth is MANY MANY MANY times the number of years in age than that taught and accepted by the 'traditionalists' beliefs. This in NO WAY interferes with MY understanding however, and perhaps even ENHANCES it. For the OLDER the earth is, the more we can see the magnificent power and glory of God Himself.

Question, IF the Earth is ONLY a few thousand years old, then WHAT was God doing for the PREVIOUS Million years or so? How about the previous BILLION?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I've got an even better one to 'flip the wigs of traditionalists'. Ready for this one?

Adam and Eve were NOT the 'first man and woman'. NO. Not MY words. It is perfectly clearly STATED in the first two chapters of Genesis and even further illustrated in a number of others.

But no matter how much PROOF of this FACT is offered, the traditional understanding has been so instilled in 'religion' that there are few even able to accept what they are ABLE to read. The information is there CLEARLY for all that are willing to ACCEPT what is WRITTEN. Not a 'special interpretation', just ACCEPTANCE of 'what is offered' without the bias of a few thousand years getting in the way.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Adam and Eve were NOT the 'first man and woman'. NO. Not MY words. It is perfectly clearly STATED in the first two chapters of Genesis and even further illustrated in a number of others.

Well then. By all means. Please indulge us. (chapters and verses???)

 

[Imagican]

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Note here that men AND women were created AT THIS TIME. There is NO indication other than the ORDER that they were created at SEPARATE TIMES.

28And 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.

Here God tells them to 'be fruitful and multiply'. Later, upon the account of Adam and Eve, they were NOT told of the intricacies of conception until AFTER they had spent DAYS in the garden.

29And 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.

Here's one of the FIRST clinchers: You can PLAINLY SEE that the FIRST CREATION, (the FIRST humans created), were given EVERY HERB and EVERY TREE on the face of the ENTIRE PLANET to be used for food. This is UTTERLY significant when we later compare the FACT that Adam and Eve were placed in a PARTICULAR GARDEN and told that they could NOT eat from A particular tree. Is God able to contradict Himself? I think not. Therefore it would have been impossible for Him to offer that ALL trees were created to be used by people for food while there was a particular tree that was NOT created FOR THEM to be used as food. The significance is the separate creation of the FIRST creation and then the second.

Let's move on to the second chapter:

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

This is a pretty CLEAR statement. The creation of the heavens, the earth, and ALL the host of them were FINISHED. That means the original creation was COMPLETE.

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Here we have an offering that, even though all the hosts of the earth were FINISHED, there was still more that had NOT been 'specifically created'. Mainly herbs and plants of 'the field'. It is an OBVIOUS distinction between plants being created and placed upon the entire planet and this 'group of specific plants' refered to as 'plants of the field'. The word 'field' is the key to understanding the difference. For a 'field' is a PIECE of earth PREPARED for the growing of CULTIVATED plants. And here we have it. The first creation was GIVEN every herb and tree to be for meat, (food). NOW we have a SPECIFIC man NEEDED for CULTIVATION, (for there was NOT A MAN to TILL THE EARTH). We all certainly know what 'to till' means.

Now, watch this:

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

God goes BACKWARDS now and creates ANIMALS? Hmmmm. It seems as though I remember Him creating the animals BEFORE men and women. But here, in this account, it offers that the animals had YET to BE created.

NO, specific animals were NOW created FOR man. Just as there were created the FIRST creation of men and THEN a SPECIFIC MAN, so too, we NOW see the creation of SPECIFIC animals for this SPECIFIC man. Many animals existed ALREADY but the defining factor here AGAIN is 'beast of THE FIELD'; those specifically used by men for food and sacrifice: a 'field' being a PREPARED piece of earth. Not created for the the UNCLEAN beasts, but those consider to be CLEAN in later practice. Let us 'go back' a couple of verses:

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

The significance here is that we have an offering that was NOT spoken of in the first creation: God 'breathed into ADAM; the 'breath of life', and 'he' BECAME A "LIVING SOUL". We are NOT offered this concerning the FIRST creation. This becomes MUCH more pertinent as we study further through the Genesis story. For this 'soul' IS the distinguishing factor between the FIRST creation and the second.

to be continued...........

 

[Imagican]

Let's skip ahead a little now. Adam and Eve, having been removed from the garden now have two children:

2And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

At this point, let us use what knowledge we have obtained over the past century concerning 'ancient man'. We KNOW that ancient men were NOMADIC GATHERERS. That means they simply collected food as they FOUND it until they depleted and area of that easily accessed and then they simply 'moved on' to a 'fresh area' to resume their routine.

But here, in verse two, we have NOT ONLY Cain as the 'farmer', (tiller of the ground), but Abel as the 'sheppard', (keeper of sheep).

Folks, this is clear indication that these people were NOT simply created and set LOOSE upon the earth to gather food and hunt animals. These people were GIVEN the skills NEEDED to 'till the ground' and 'keep sheep'.

So far as the FIRST creation, these skills may well have taken THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of years to develope. For invention is THROUGH necessity. Until groups of men exceeded the capacity of the earth to naturally produce that which they consumed, there would have been NO NEED to learn such skills. And even beyond this concept, learning that seeds produced plants would NOT have been 'born understanding'. It would have taken MUCH time for man to LEARN that a seed planted would grow into another plant. And even more time to learn WHERE such seeds NEEDED to be planted etc.............. Necessitating TIME.

Yet, here we have Cain and Abel as a 'farmer', (skilled grower), and a 'sheppard' (keeper of sheep).

It gets better, hang in there.

One brother rises up against the other and murders him. Then we have this:

11And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Now, let's see. Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are the ONLY recorded persons on the planet from a traditionalists point of view. Cain kills his brother and now there are ONLY three that we KNOW of. Some speculate that Adam and Eve had MORE children at this TIME. But the evidence does NOT support such a supposition.

IF there were ONLY three people on the planet, WHO was Cain refering to when he made the statement: "every one that findeth me shall slay me"?And then it goes on to say that 'the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. Hmmmmm.............. Important enough issue that God MARKED Cain so that ANY seeing him would KNOW not to kill him. WHO folks.

WHO could possibly exist that DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW what he had done? Do you reacon his family was UNAWARE of what he had done? Rediculous notion. So WHO were these that Cain feared? And God acknowledged the ligitimacy of his fear by placing a MARK upon him for protection.

I'm going to hold off here. This gets even deeper as we go along. The first creation being brought into the forefront of the discussion once again in later chapters. But for now, let's see what others have to offer concerning what I have written so far.

Oh, and let me add this: I have altered NOTHING. I have simply pointed out 'what the WORD SAYS' without a fairy tale Sunday school interpretation of it. The words are offered EXACTLY as taken from the King James version of the Bible. These words NOR the sentences themselves are NOT 'taken out of context' but offered IN the context wherewith they are offered IN The Word.
So, let's see what others have to interject into this one..........

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

I take it Imagician never heard of Dr. Brown.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... eory&hl=en

Just because the plates move today at mere millimeters does not mean they have always moved this slow. ;)

 

[wavy]

Imagican,

You aren't taking into consideration the possibility that there are two creation accounts. There are also two birth narratives for Jesus. However, it's absurd that Jesus was born twice.

Your position is refuted by the plain reading of the text. That there were two creations of man, one after the other conflicts with ii.1, 5, 9 & 19, just for a few examples.

Take verse 5, which says there was no man to cultivate. According to you that's false. Also, God cannot have created 'every' beast and tree a second time. There's hardly a way to reconcile these verses with your position. The ancients realized this. For example, Jospehus doesn't take the second account seriously, claiming Moses merely begins to 'speak philosophically' (Antiq. i.1.2).

The LXX translators, also, worked from a Vorlage which altered the text to eliminate some of the contradictions above. For example, instead of the blanket statement in verse 19 that God created every animal, the LXX reads:

And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky

If they realized these conflicts and took steps to remedy, why don't you realize these conflicts also?


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Imagican]

Wavy,

You offer one very weak arguement if that's all you have.

I tried to point out that the words offered are NOT mine own but those taken EXACTLY as offered.

The second chapter does NOT say, ''there was not A man'', but SPECIFICALLY offers that, "there was NOT a man to TILL the ground".

When we consider that man in the beginning WAS NOT a 'tiller of the ground', it is THEN that we are able to realize that there is a specific DIFFERENCE between Adam and the first creationl. For the FIRST creation was simply GIVEN food, the second was given the KNOWLEDGE and understanding of CULTIVATION. Either this, or the words make NO SENSE whatsoever.

And wavy, my offering is not even close to finished.

You debate a couple of statements but seem to ignore the rest. What say YOU concerning Cain and his 'MARK'? Of what significance could a mark be to a man who's ONLY other living companions ALREADY KNOW what he has done?

I left out a pretty important issue that preceeds these. When confronted by God, Adam is asked, "Who told you that you were naked''? That seems a ludicrous statement IF there had been NO possibility of ANYONE 'telling' Adam that he was naked. I mean, of what significance can these words serve EXCEPT to offer that there were OBVIOUSLY other HUMANS on the planet or there could NOT have been ANYONE to 'tell them'.

I'll await a reply to this and then I will proceed to show MUCH further proof that there were TWO creations instead of the ONE that is offered up by the churches.

And wavy, I find it amusing that one that professes NO FAITH would even be able to 'find the time' to debate such issues.

There ARE two forces that govern the behavior of those on this planet. One follows either one or the other. This is without controvery in the minds and hearts of those that recognize WHAT they DO and what they BELIEVE.

I wonder, which is it that guides YOU?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

If one will note: So far, the generations of Adam have been clearly ordered and documented. NOTE: The SONS of Adam. Yes, daughters were MENTIONED, but not a SINGLE ONE specifically. Just a general statement that 'sons and DAUGHTERS' were. Yet we have the SPECIFIC NAMES of the SONS of the generations of Adam. This is pertinent in an understanding of the what we now find written:

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

What we have offered above is where the lineage of Adam began to intermingle with the FIRST creation. Not ANGELS, not DEMONS, but simple the FIRST creation. The 'sons of God', (those that KNEW God; hence Adam and his descendants), saw the 'daughters of men', (members of the FIRST creation), and they took wives of all which they chose.
Now it gets DEEP:

8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Notice THIS: Noah was a JUST man and PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS. This, along with the first statement concerning Noah PLAINLY shows that Noah was ONE OF KIND. Now, in what WAY was Noah 'special'? It states it clearly: 1. Noah was a JUST man, (this indicates that Noah knew the LOVE of God and the love of God was IN HIM). 2. Noah was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS?
Now, of what significance is this offering? First, what ARE 'generations'? We have it clearly defined ALREADY. For we are offered, "These are the 'generations' of Adam...........

What we find here is that there had 'come a time' when ALL the descendants of Adam had gone 'outside' their bloodlines, (mated with the FIRST creation), and fouled it so that there was ONLY one MAN that was able to be used to 'start over' with a 'PURE BLOODLINE'. Direct descendant of Adam.

Most believe the lame teaching that humans and ANGELS were intermingling. Hmmmm............. We don't even have any PROOF that this is EVEN POSSIBLE. Of course, there ARE books written that offer such 'fairy tales'. But in that which was followed by the Hebrews and Jews, there ARE no such 'fairy tales'. The first five books of Moses contain NO SUCH fantasy. The words are as clear as need be to those that are able to 'step away' from traditional TEACHINGS and simply accept them for what they STATE.

Let's go outside of this 'beginning' for a moment.

What was one of the MAIN laws placed upon the Hebrews/Jews? They were commanded to maintain their BLOODLINE. They were told NOT to mingle their bloodlines with 'others'. This is a recuring theme throughout the OT. Each and EVERY time that the Jews started intermarriage, they ended up being PUNISHED for it. We even have Solomon, the wisest that ever existed, being 'brought down' by marriage to those of OTHER bloodlines.
The implications are clear. Noah was the ONLY ONE LEFT in whom God could USE to carry on a CLEAN AND CLEAR bloodline.

If this is NOT what is offered up in The Word, I will await someone who is able to explain what 'perfect in his generations' MEANS. I have YET to encounter ANYONE that is able to offer a reasonable explanation of this statement who believes in tradition as taught by the churches.
All that NEEDS to be done to understand what is offered is to simply READ WITHOUT the trappings and pre conceieved notions offered up by 'churches'. We have been fed this stuff since Sunday School and have never been ALLOWED to simply READ without the seed having ALREADY been planted. Therefore, when we read, we simply SEE what we have been TAUGHT.
Now, go back and read it AGAIN. And read it WITHOUT TRYING to find what you have been taught. Just READ it as it is WRITTEN.

Couple this with what we NOW know aobut prehistoric men and it begins to make PERFECT SENSE.

Personal Belief: God created men and women who He, at the time, had NO COMMUNICATION with. Time passes..... Then He decided to created a man TO communicate with. For we HAVE the words that; In the second chapter, when He formed Adam, that when He created him, "He breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE and man BECAME a 'living SOUL'. These words are NOT contained within the first chapter upon the creation of men and women.

To be continued...............

 

[wavy]

Wavy,

You offer one very weak arguement if that's all you have.

LOL

I tried to point out that the words offered are NOT mine own but those taken EXACTLY as offered.

I'm going to hold you to this, so be ready.

The second chapter does NOT say, ''there was not A man'', but SPECIFICALLY offers that, "there was NOT a man to TILL the ground".

Why not? Was the first man an idiot?

When we consider that man in the beginning WAS NOT a 'tiller of the ground', it is THEN that we are able to realize that there is a specific DIFFERENCE between Adam and the first creationl. For the FIRST creation was simply GIVEN food, the second was given the KNOWLEDGE and understanding of CULTIVATION. Either this, or the words make NO SENSE whatsoever.

You're slipping already by reading things into the text that aren't there. 'There wasn't a man to till the ground' makes perfect sense if no man existed to till the ground...as any casual reading of the text would show.

Also, it's surprising that the 'first creation' could rule the earth and everything in it if he didn't even have the basic understanding to grow food.

You debate a couple of statements but seem to ignore the rest.

Well, I didn't read anything you said outside of what I caught about you saying about two creations. But I don't need to read further to know how absurd your suggestion is.

What say YOU concerning Cain and his 'MARK'? Of what significance could a mark be to a man who's ONLY other living companions ALREADY KNOW what he has done?

Does the text say there were no other living companions besides his mother/father? No it doesn't, so apparently, it assumes there were.

I left out a pretty important issue that preceeds these. When confronted by God, Adam is asked, "Who told you that you were naked''? That seems a ludicrous statement IF there had been NO possibility of ANYONE 'telling' Adam that he was naked. I mean, of what significance can these words serve EXCEPT to offer that there were OBVIOUSLY other HUMANS on the planet or there could NOT have been ANYONE to 'tell them'.

Eve? The serpent?

Anyway, the rest of my objections stand.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

What we have offered above is where the lineage of Adam began to intermingle with the FIRST creation. Not ANGELS, not DEMONS, but simple the FIRST creation. The 'sons of God', (those that KNEW God; hence Adam and his descendants), saw the 'daughters of men', (members of the FIRST creation), and they took wives of all which they chose.
Now it gets DEEP:

I have addressed who the 'sons of God' were in this thread.

Briefly, they are literal gods, since that's what 'sons of God' meant in ANE theology. This can be demonstrated (and is in the thread above). I fail to see any connection between the 'sons of God' and this 'first creation' of yours.

What we find here is that there had 'come a time' when ALL the descendants of Adam had gone 'outside' their bloodlines, (mated with the FIRST creation), and fouled it so that there was ONLY one MAN that was able to be used to 'start over' with a 'PURE BLOODLINE'. Direct descendant of Adam.

You're still not staying faithful to your promise above. Noah was spared because, as the text says, he was righteous, not because his bloodline is pure.

Most believe the lame teaching that humans and ANGELS were intermingling. Hmmmm............. We don't even have any PROOF that this is EVEN POSSIBLE.

Uh...we don't have proof that angels even exist or that any of these stories are anything other than mythology! But in any case, the 'sons of God' are gods.

Of course, there ARE books written that offer such 'fairy tales'. But in that which was followed by the Hebrews and Jews, there ARE no such 'fairy tales'. The first five books of Moses contain NO SUCH fantasy. The words are as clear as need be to those that are able to 'step away' from traditional TEACHINGS and simply accept them for what they STATE.

No...just...no.

What was one of the MAIN laws placed upon the Hebrews/Jews? They were commanded to maintain their BLOODLINE. They were told NOT to mingle their bloodlines with 'others'. This is a recuring theme throughout the OT. Each and EVERY time that the Jews started intermarriage, they ended up being PUNISHED for it. We even have Solomon, the wisest that ever existed, being 'brought down' by marriage to those of OTHER bloodlines.
The implications are clear. Noah was the ONLY ONE LEFT in whom God could USE to carry on a CLEAN AND CLEAR bloodline.

I don't understand why you believe that's the 'main law'....but anyway, clearly it's false according to the Pentateuch since God clearly allowed intermingling (e.g., Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman, his command for the Israelites to kidnap and keep for themselves the virgins of conquered nations, etc....cf. also, Leviticus xxiv.10).

If this is NOT what is offered up in The Word, I will await someone who is able to explain what 'perfect in his generations' MEANS.

Even if we assume it refers to some 'pure bloodline', this doesn't say anything about your position. The bloodline could have been corrupt simply because gods intermingled with human women, according to Genesis vi.4. A 'first creation' doesn't follow from this.

All that NEEDS to be done to understand what is offered is to simply READ WITHOUT the trappings and pre conceieved notions offered up by 'churches'.

All I see is you substituting one set of traditional assumptions for your own.

You have no case.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Imagican]

No Wavy, there is a BIG difference between IDIOT and ignorant. The first men were most definitely ignorant compared to our understanding of the world we live in NOW.

We KNOW that there were men that were making stone weapons and tools. To deny this is to deny REALITY. We KNOW that even up until RECENT times there were those that were 'nomadic gatherers' with NO NEED to 'cultivate ANYTHING'. Simply picking and digging that which they needed for food.

Adam and Eve were BOTH naked and had no NEED to 'tell each other'. We do NOT know that God would have refered to 'the serpent' as a 'who' but rather a 'what'. So, it still stands, WHO did God refer to when He asked them 'who told you........'.

Wavy, I would think that someone such as yourself, (without ANY belief in the Bible as TRUTH), would be even quicker to 'pick up' on what is being offered here.

We KNOW that the study of ancient man has brough much to light so far as their technology, (or lack of it), and their impliments that they formed. Knowing these things leads us to a further understanding so far as their 'lifestyles'.

When we further dwell into deeper questions so far as 'spirituality' and such, we can find an even DEEPER understanding when we consider that there may well have been a 'first creation', explaining the 'time' difference offered up by traditionalists verses those that offer a MUCH 'older' earth and people dating back to tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.

And we haven't even gone beyond this study to be able to open up the next. The next being NO NEED for a 'universal flood' but one contained within the boundaries of the existence of those that God CHOSE to destroy.

If what I have offered is truth, then we will begin to see clearly WHY God chose to destroy mankind and which PART of mankind He held accountable and WHY. These things are quite important IF we are to have any kind of understanding of the God which we worship.

Oh, and we haven't even gone beyond the next phase of Cain's life yet either.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[wavy]

Imagican,


I have totally lost interest.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[John]

I know there is a lot on the plate fellas but its very interesting i find, both Imagian and yourself seem to have a decent amount knowledge on the subject, i personally would like to see the discussion continued (civilly)

 

[Imagican]

Well then, let us proceed to the next 'shocker':

If what I have offered so far is true, that men were created FIRST, men and women and told to be fruitful and REPLENISH the earth.

Then, God decided to develope a relationship with 'man' and created Adam for this purpose and did so, (developed a PERSONAL relationship with man through Adam). Look at the answers contained within this one simple precept:

The reason for the flood. The 'fall of mankind'. Those that are lost and those that are ABLE to see. The reasons for separation of the Hebrews/Jews from 'other races'. Different gods. All this can be answered by simply understanding what has been offered so far. But let us move on to the 'flood'.

We have already read that 'man's heart had become evil continually'. ALL except Noah.

Now, IF what I have outlined up to this point is true. How FAR do you believe mankind could have possibly migrated from Adam up until Noah. Likely no more than a FEW hundred mile circumferance. No need to have migrated much farther than this. So, for God to destroy the 'people' that had mixed their 'bloodlines' would NOT require a 'worldwide flood', but simply one in a specific location in order to cleanse a particular 'area'.

Would Adam and Eve's decendants have migrated as far as Australia? North America? South America? Not likely. So these areas would NEED NO FLOOD to ensure that those to be destroyed were indeed 'wiped off the face of the earth'.

Now, let us explore a little bit of science, (the study of ancient man and civilization).

We KNOW that the Babylonians had a relatively advanced civilization well BEFORE the Egyptians. And the Egyptians had a pretty well established civilization FIVE thousand years ago. According to the 'flood story', this is barely even possible, but most certainly not likely.

Let's skip to a 'different' part of the world. Science offers that there were MEN on the continent of North America as much as twenty thousand years ago.

Of course, according to the traditional beliefs, this is IMPOSSIBLE. For the earth is ONLY about 9,000 years old. But we have evidence that suggests that the Wooly Mamouth and mankind existed together up UNTIL about 16,000 years ago.

If this IS true, then WHO were these men? They certainly couldn't have been decendants of Adam if Adam was ONLY created 9,000 years ago. These would have BEEN mankind created in the First creation. The one's to whom God gave EVERY herb and EVERY tree on the face of ALL the Earth to.

Why would such words be offered to Adam when he was created to tend a particular GARDEN in A particular place. If this were so, then God had ALREADY foreseen or predicted the 'fall' of Adam and Eve in the garden. Not likely to be offered in such general terms as is in the First Chapter of Genesis.

No, more likely is that there was a MASSIVE time difference in the First Creation and that of Adam. Enough time for mankind to have done EXACTLY as commanded: they HAD 'replenished the Earth' LONG before the creation of Adam.

The Maori of Australia claim an oral history of about ten thousand years. What if they are even CLOSE? If so, there is one more piece of evidence that points to men existing BEFORE the creation of Adam.

The Bible offers but a very vague history of the beginning of man. There was little need to go into direct detail for this has little bearing on our purpose which is the gist of MOST of what we have been offered in word.

So little, in fact, that it would be unwise to create such a 'story' as that which has been offered to children for about five thousand years now.

But we also know that Moses would have had little understanding of intimate details even if offered such. These people were still in the infant stages of understanding so far as the world around them. They knew little if anything about 'reproduction', 'life', 'death', 'biology', etc...... Very little as compared to what we know now. Even the 'lights in the sky' were a mystery to those of his time.

Now HOW would God explain such things as 'time' other than in that which could be seen and understood by those to which He communicated with? Terms such a 'millions' and billions' could have only been offered in a way that could be understood by those to which the information was offered. 'Like the grains of sand on the shore'. Which brings up another good point concerning the 'flood'.

The flood was spoken of as 'water that covered the 'face of the Earth'. To someone writting of a 'flood', this description could well mean; 'as far as the eye can SEE'. For it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have direct knowlege, (having SEEN a 'worldwide flood' by ANY man. HOW could they POSSIBLY know that the ENTIRE world was covered with water? They COULDN'T. But they could certainly know that as far as they could SEE, the earth was covered with water.

An example to PROVE what I offer is this:

When Moses was in Egypt and locusts were sent to plague the Egyptians, the description of the locusts was that they; 'covered the face of the Earth'. Likely? NOT. More likely that this description was used to show that they covered the ENTIRE face of the Earth IN EGYPT. For who witnessing this event, would be ABLE to see beyond that which they were LITERALLY ABLE TO SEE? Get it?

The point behind this is that there was NO NEED for a LITERAL 'worldwide flood'. Only a flood so big as to encompass the PART of the world that existed in the lives of those to which it pertained.

So, while you have the 'traditionalists' making every possible effort to prove something that CANNOT be proven, how much EASIER is it to take a look at what is offered rather than try to make their BELIEFS fit the 'story'. Simply accept the story as offered and it becomes apparent that WE HAVE REACHED a DIFFERENT POINT OF UNDERSTANDING.

Just as the book of Revelation was NOT written for the understanding of those that existed at the time that it was writtten, (but for those of the TIME in which they are fulfilled), so too may the story of Genesis been written without the ability of those that first penned it to understand it. Yet we are still trying to 'hold on' to this same understanding of those with less knowledge at the time than the averave FIRST grader TODAY.

More to come:

MEC

 

[John]

The whole "local flood" thing is very weak and i'll explain why.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19–20).

Many Christians today claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood. These people generally believe in a local flood because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interprets fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

Scientists once understood the fossils, which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand, to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept millions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the global Flood. Hence, many compromising Christians insist on a local flood.

Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood. As someone once quipped, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.â€Â

Those who accept the evolutionary time frame, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as “very good.â€Â

If the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Most importantly, if the Flood were local, people not living in the vicinity of the Flood would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.

A local Flood?

In addition, Jesus believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark. What else could Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of “all†men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)?

In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 m) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level; it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Even what is now Mt. Everest was once covered with water and uplifted afterward. If we even out the ocean basins and flatten out the mountains, there is enough water to cover the entire earth by about 1.7 miles (2.7 km). Also important to note is that, with the leveling out of the oceans and mountains, the Ark would not have been riding at the height of the current Mt. Everest, thus no need for such things as oxygen masks either.

There’s more. If the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event. There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land.

Sorry but the flood described in the Bible was global in nature, Imagician.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Note here that men AND women were created AT THIS TIME. There is NO indication other than the ORDER that they were created at SEPARATE TIMES.

28And 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.

Here God tells them to 'be fruitful and multiply'. Later, upon the account of Adam and Eve, they were NOT told of the intricacies of conception until AFTER they had spent DAYS in the garden.

29And 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.

Here's one of the FIRST clinchers: You can PLAINLY SEE that the FIRST CREATION, (the FIRST humans created), were given EVERY HERB and EVERY TREE on the face of the ENTIRE PLANET to be used for food. This is UTTERLY significant when we later compare the FACT that Adam and Eve were placed in a PARTICULAR GARDEN and told that they could NOT eat from A particular tree. Is God able to contradict Himself? I think not. Therefore it would have been impossible for Him to offer that ALL trees were created to be used by people for food while there was a particular tree that was NOT created FOR THEM to be used as food. The significance is the separate creation of the FIRST creation and then the second.

Let's move on to the second chapter:

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

This is a pretty CLEAR statement. The creation of the heavens, the earth, and ALL the host of them were FINISHED. That means the original creation was COMPLETE.

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Here we have an offering that, even though all the hosts of the earth were FINISHED, there was still more that had NOT been 'specifically created'. Mainly herbs and plants of 'the field'. It is an OBVIOUS distinction between plants being created and placed upon the entire planet and this 'group of specific plants' refered to as 'plants of the field'. The word 'field' is the key to understanding the difference. For a 'field' is a PIECE of earth PREPARED for the growing of CULTIVATED plants. And here we have it. The first creation was GIVEN every herb and tree to be for meat, (food). NOW we have a SPECIFIC man NEEDED for CULTIVATION, (for there was NOT A MAN to TILL THE EARTH). We all certainly know what 'to till' means.

Now, watch this:

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

God goes BACKWARDS now and creates ANIMALS? Hmmmm. It seems as though I remember Him creating the animals BEFORE men and women. But here, in this account, it offers that the animals had YET to BE created.

NO, specific animals were NOW created FOR man. Just as there were created the FIRST creation of men and THEN a SPECIFIC MAN, so too, we NOW see the creation of SPECIFIC animals for this SPECIFIC man. Many animals existed ALREADY but the defining factor here AGAIN is 'beast of THE FIELD'; those specifically used by men for food and sacrifice: a 'field' being a PREPARED piece of earth. Not created for the the UNCLEAN beasts, but those consider to be CLEAN in later practice. Let us 'go back' a couple of verses:

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

The significance here is that we have an offering that was NOT spoken of in the first creation: God 'breathed into ADAM; the 'breath of life', and 'he' BECAME A "LIVING SOUL". We are NOT offered this concerning the FIRST creation. This becomes MUCH more pertinent as we study further through the Genesis story. For this 'soul' IS the distinguishing factor between the FIRST creation and the second.

to be continued...........

Genesis chapter 1 is a general account of creation. Genesis chapter 2 contains more specific details of the accounts that took place in chapter 1. Any good theology student who is grounded in the Word understands this.