Is the Creation account in Genesis Literal?

[disciple_of_truth]

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.

Except you forgot to include some very key verses such as:
Genesis 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse is important in understanding that the following verses are details of the previous general account of creation. You fail also to mention Genesis 5:1-2 which also adds details of understanding to the first two chapters of the account of creation.

Genesis 5:1-2: This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

This verse shows that Genesis 1:27-28 is, in fact, refering to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. Put the three passages together and you have a clear understanding.

You say you've taken nothing out of context but I see otherwise. Many of your own statements have clearly shown the train of thought in your theology. I suggest you start with a basic course in Biblical interpretation. Above all, please take heed in the instructions that Paul gave to Timothy regarding the handling of Gods Word.

2 Timothy 2:15: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

 

[Sinthesis]

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

A real reason to interpret 'days' as symbolic exists in the area of modern scientific observation. Further, language is by definition symbolic. We are but considering the definitions of the component symbols of the creation message. Whether one symbol definition can be considered correct or not depends on the message maintaining a meaning in harmony with the rest of our knowledge.

You have already offered that the ancient Hebrews had a faulty understanding of the physical world. An absurdly literal interpretation of the creation story could satisfy their simple curiosity and even mesh with their own limited observations, though I doubt they used an English translation understood through Western minds.

Given today's knowledge base, a wooden literal interpretation of the creation account is something other than natural, it's supernatural. If part of the justification for your non-belief is the modern day absurdity of a literal interpretation of the creation account, that's a pity. But the fact is, if you want to find a reason to not believe, you will.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

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.

Sir, I am sorry but I have finished reading most of what you have written in this thread and I must say that I find very little of what you have offered true at all. I personally cannot take you seriously. I suppose you've heard this before from others. For you to assume and suppose the ideas that you do seem to indicate that you deny what the Word says. Thus I fear for you friend as if this is true, then do you not also deny Christ? The Bible seems to teach us that He (Jesus) is the Word and the Truth.

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Additionally, I cringe at the thought that you may be leading a fellow brother astray or causing one to stumble by conveying your personal theology.

 

[wavy]

A real reason to interpret 'days' as symbolic exists in the area of modern scientific observation.

So you are openly admitting that you are committing anachronism?

That's all you had to say.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Sinthesis]

A real reason to interpret 'days' as symbolic exists in the area of modern scientific observation.

So you are openly admitting that you are committing anachronism?

That would depend on the breadth of the context.

 

[wavy]

A real reason to interpret 'days' as symbolic exists in the area of modern scientific observation.

So you are openly admitting that you are committing anachronism?

That would depend on the breadth of the context.

Ancient cosmology =/= modern, so there's no need to read modern cosmology in the text. And even if I lost my wits and agreed with you about the days, the account would still be false.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Imagican]

Perhaps every 'good' Christian does indeed believe the second chapter to be a more detailed account of the first. But it's simply NOT so.

There are many verses that contradict this even being close.

NO, the verse offered is offered AFTER the one prceeding STATES that the heavens and earth were COMPLETE and EVERYTHING in them. Can't have it BOTH ways. Either everything was complete as offered or it was NOT.

The story of Adam is of a Specific man and NOT mankind in GENERAL. And we NEVER have the offering that 'these are the generations of MAN'. We are offered that 'these are the generations of ADAM. Get it?

Local flood. A very simple reason that Noah built and ark. So that HE and HIS family and the animals needed to start over didn't DIE in the flood. For when the waters subsided, Noah was most likely somewhere OTHER than on the EDGE of the flood. Therefore, in order to KEEP from having to travel hundreds of miles for food and such, they TOOK WITH THEM the animals that they needed to begin a NEW ecosystem WHERE THEY THEN FOUND THEMSELVES.

You can't seriously tell me that you believe that Noah carried upon the ark: duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, Kodiak bears, polar bears, unicorns? he he he, couldn't help it. Firstly, these animals NEVER existed in the area where Noah landed in the ark. Secondly, if he DIDN'T carry them on the ark, WHERE did they COME from?

I'll return when I can spend more time on this one. But the contradictions so far are the same that I would offer if I didn't understand and therefore SO FAR each is an EASY answer that makes MUCH more sense than what has been taught by the churches for the past couple of thousand years or more.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

Imagian, did you just skim over my post without reading it in whole?

Local flood
. A very simple reason that Noah built and ark. So that HE and HIS family and the animals needed to start over didn't DIE in the flood. For when the waters subsided, Noah was most likely somewhere OTHER than on the EDGE of the flood. Therefore, in order to KEEP from having to travel hundreds of miles for food and such, they TOOK WITH THEM the animals that they needed to begin a NEW ecosystem WHERE THEY THEN FOUND THEMSELVES.

No matter what reasoning you suggest it fails because like i said:

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.

How long would it take for Noah and his family to build a boat as big as the Bible describes?

It would be stupid, just walk, even if it took you a year to get away you could do it.

There was so much more in my last thread perhaps you could re-read it.

To add to it:

2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth’s history. See Creation Seminar tape 2 for more information.

* Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
* Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts, and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark needed neither of those and therefore had far less torsion related stress.
* Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.
* The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)
* The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
* It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
* The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
* The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
* The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.
* Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.
* God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach, "Kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)
* Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").
* Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
* Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
* All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
* The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer life spans, Adam’s direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
* The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.
* The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).
* There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
* Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark . Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
* The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then. See Seminar Part 6 for more information.
* The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
* Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
* Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
* Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
* People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

and there is more but i'll wait ;)

 

[Imagican]

firstly:

John, I do NOT belive that the Word is ABLE to contradict itself. This understanding is crucial in our ability to reconcile it's offerings.

If this is truth, then the traditionalists interpretation of the story of 'the beginning' is wrong. For it is frought with contradiction. Here is the first:

In the first chapter, it states that God gave EVERY herb and EVERY tree on the face of ALL the Earth to be used for food BY man.

In the second chapter, Adam was told that there was ONE tree of which he could NOT use for food.

Now, which is it. The man in the first chapter WAS Adam and he was told to eat of EVERY TREE ON THE PLANET or was this first man 'someone else' who had NO access to the garden mentioned in the second chapter.

If we believe that Adam was this first man, then here we find an UTTER contradiction. Since I don't believe that the Word is ABLE to contradict itself, that leads to some 'other understanding'. It's really that simple.

Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth. We NEVER find these words being offered to Adam and Eve, but to those created FIRST.

Funny, but IF the second chapter just 'goes back' and offers detail of the first, then what does the 'entire earth' have to do with Adam and Eve placed in A particular place? In other words, why would the words have been offered that every herb and every tree "On the face of the ENTIRE EARTH" be offered to ONE MAN PLACED IN ONE PARTICULAR PLACE? And then WHY would the words "be fruitful and multiply and replinish the Earth" be offered to ONE MAN of a world full of peoples of NUMEROUS DIFFERENT appearances and cultures? And such different appearances and cultures created in a mere FIVE THOUSAND YEARS?

Through a study of anthropology, we have found that there were people's in NUMEROUS different areas of the world AT THE SAME TIME, (we won't even go into the ages of such discoveries, but for now, just deal with the FACT that remains HAVE been found in Africa, Asia, Australia, and even North America that go back to a time LONG ago). as the Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabs, etc....... Now, how could this be if Everyone came from a 'new beginning' through the lineage of Noah? WHY would such a small group of people spread at such a rapid pace if they were ALL of the 'same family'?

Chew on these for a while and I'll go back and read what has been offered and reply as soon as I have the 'time' to offer a substantial reply.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

Sorry for the delay.

If this is truth, then the traditionalists interpretation of the story of 'the beginning' is wrong. For it is frought with contradiction. Here is the first:
In the first chapter, it states that God gave EVERY herb and EVERY tree on the face of ALL the Earth to be used for food BY man.

In the second chapter, Adam was told that there was ONE tree of which he could NOT use for food.

No. The fundamental or traditional interpretation is brought on through a process of logical deduction. The above example is not a contradiction. Its like me saying "you can go everywhere except there" its just worded it differently in Genesis.

Now, which is it. The man in the first chapter WAS Adam and he was told to eat of EVERY TREE ON THE PLANET or was this first man 'someone else' who had NO access to the garden mentioned in the second chapter.

There is only a second man or men if you impose them. It was Adam all along the scripture.

If we believe that Adam was this first man, then here we find an UTTER contradiction. Since I don't believe that the Word is ABLE to contradict itself, that leads to some 'other understanding'. It's really that simple.

It is very simple

The answer is that the Scripture makes this fact very clear and it is stated in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Genesis is the book of beginnings. It is the place where we find the truth of the beginning of man and that man is Adam. The word "Adam" comes from a Hebrew word that means red or ruddy. The word “Adam†is translated as; first man, mankind, man or human. God made Adam from the "dust of the ground", which is the Hebrew word "adamah" and therefore Adam's name comes from the ground from which God created him.

The Genesis record of God's creation of the first man is found in Genesis 1:28 and it is reiterated in Genesis 2:7. This record, as compiled by Moses, was part of the Pentateuch or the first five books of the law and therefore it is the basis for all future doctrine. The fact that Adam was the first man is not an issue of question in God's Word and we find that holds through all of Scripture, including the New Testament.

It is interesting to note that lineage of the foster father of Jesus begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph (Matthew chapter 1) while the lineage of His mother begins with Joseph and ends with Adam. However, the lineage of Mary does not come from her husband. There is a phrase "as was supposed" found in Luke 3:23 that needs explanation. It was a common custom in that time to reckon a woman's linage from her husband because a woman could not inherit under normal circumstances. However, the lineage listed in Luke chapter three is not Joseph's linage at all but Mary's as the carrier of the "Seed" that was promised in Genesis 3:15. The phrase "as was supposed" accommodates that fact. So the first mention of Adam in the New Testament is listed the line of Jesus through His mother. All of the other generations of our LORD are listed as the "son of a human father." However, only Adam is listed as the "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and that is because he had no human father. He was created first.

The Apostle Paul presents the doctrine of the "headship" of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 state “So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, Adam, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man, Christ. Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life."

1 Corinthians15:45-49 state, “The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’ But the last Adam -- that is, Christ -- is a life-giving Spirit. What came first was the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam's, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ's. Just as we are now like Adam, the man of the earth, so we will someday be like Christ, the man from heaven.â€Â

This doctrine is that all men are born in the first Adam and they all die, not only physically but they are separated from God and therefore spiritually dead as well. However, the second and last Adam is Christ and through Him we can be obtained a spiritual "new life." Man will still die physically, but when we believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, we are given His resurrection life, which is eternal, and we are then reconciled with God spiritually.

In answer to the question, "Was Adam the first man," the answer is yes. There is ample proof in Scripture that answers the question.

Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth. We NEVER find these words being offered to Adam and Eve, but to those created FIRST.

That statement is an instruction, i believe God created the spirit before the body. That would also explain why Adam was made with the knowledge on how to replenish the earth before he was in physical form. The dude came preprogrammed form God, i bet he was one smart cookie ;)

Funny, but IF the second chapter just 'goes back' and offers detail of the first, then what does the 'entire earth' have to do with Adam and Eve placed in A particular place? In other words, why would the words have been offered that every herb and every tree "On the face of the ENTIRE EARTH" be offered to ONE MAN PLACED IN ONE PARTICULAR PLACE? And then WHY would the words "be fruitful and multiply and replinish the Earth" be offered to ONE MAN of a world full of peoples of NUMEROUS DIFFERENT appearances and cultures? And such different appearances and cultures created in a mere FIVE THOUSAND YEARS?

Replenish - fill something that had previously been emptied; "refill my glass, please"
replenishment - The act of replenishing; A new supply of something.

The Earth was empty fill her up Adam (and Eve)

I fail to see any contradiction

When it comes to eating every herb and such on the earth that was again another instruction. God is not limited by time, he knew that Adam and Eve would disobey, he knew they would be out of the garden however they knew that they could eat anywhere on earth. A helpful hint perhaps

Through a study of anthropology, we have found that there were people's in NUMEROUS different areas of the world AT THE SAME TIME, (we won't even go into the ages of such discoveries, but for now, just deal with the FACT that remains HAVE been found in Africa, Asia, Australia, and even North America that go back to a time LONG ago). as the Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabs, etc....... Now, how could this be if Everyone came from a 'new beginning' through the lineage of Noah? WHY would such a small group of people spread at such a rapid pace if they were ALL of the 'same family'?

We find remains of flood victims yes, i would imagine they would be rare since they would only have a small chance of being preserved. We find the victims of the great flood remains and then we label them as cave men or something equally stupid. The only cave man i can think of is Osama bin laden :rolling

Chew on these for a while and I'll go back and read what has been offered and reply as soon as I have the 'time' to offer a substantial reply.

How about forgetting about my last defense of a global flood and take a crack at these instead, they are more to the point.

Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of ‘billions of years’ of Earth history.

But look at the problems this concept involves:

*

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
*

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
*

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
*

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
*

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
*

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.
*

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.

I took long enough to respond..your turn :P

 

[Imagican]

NO John, the traditionalists interpretation has LITTLE backing other than TIME. For it is TIME that has brought about such an inability to SEE anything DIFFERENT than what has ALWAYS been offered in interpretation.

We KNOW more about the world around us now than ever. Noah didn't even have the conceptual knowledge that water was composed of separate SOLID elements. Didn't understand that infections are brought about by individual life forms. Or even the MOST rudimentary knowledge of 'conception'.

And it was he that supposedly penned the information offered up in Genesis.

Look, it's really simple. For those that ONLY KNOW of a limited amount of physical space, (where they live and where they have heard others have visited), THAT is their WORLD. ALL OF IT. For one CANNOT know of anything other than what has been revealed.

So, in this respect, if ALL that one knew of so far as LAND is concerned were FLOODED, then that would certainly encompass their ENTIRE WORLD. To think any different is to be UNABLE to emphasize with that outside of THEIR OWN conception.

At the time of Moses those that looked into the heavens DIDN'T even KNOW that the lights that they witnessed were 'other SUNS'. They didn't know ANYTHING about gravity other than objects DROPPED. Nothing about history that predated that which was written or held in oral tradition. They did NOT KNOW that there once roamed Dinosaurs on this planet or that MOST of the species that had EVER existed were ALREADY extinct. They knew practically NOTHING compared to the knowledge that we have gained since.

I offer this information to PLAINLY point out that those that created this 'Adam as first man PERIOD' did so out of a VERY limited capability to discern such.

We have learned since that there were MEN on this planet well beyond the 6-9,000 year time-frame offered up by the traditional understanding as passed on from Moses to the present churches. While YOU and others may well DENY this, that doesn't make it 'go away' nor does it make it 'un-true'.

I'm sure the Catholic Church went through the EXACT same thing when confronted with the 'belief destroying' Galileo when PROOF was offered that the Earth was NOT the 'center of the universe'. Denial was their first response UNTIL they could NO LONGER deny.

The ONLY way in which one is able NOW to deny an 'ancient earth' is to 'stick one's head in the ground' and simply REFUSE to accept what is PLAINLY offered AS TRUTH.

And John, the saddest part of this entire scenario is NOT that the PROOF contradicts THE WORD. But rather, it simply refutes the UNDERSTANDING Of man FIVE thousand years ago that has been passed on from generation to generation by those that had NO PHYSICAL evidence to 'back up' such belief. The Bible does NOT state that the Earth was created 9,000 years ago. This is an arbitrary number arrived at by those tha have used NOTHING other than the geneology of a 'man mentioned' in The Bible plus six other days.

ALL one NEED do is simply look around at the Earth and it's features to PLAINLY SEE that much that has evolved did so in a time frame that goes SO FAR beyond that offerd up by MEN'S teachings. It would take a very simple man indeed to believe that the continents shifted in a mere 9,000 years. If there were no other evidence that existed than that it happened, then it would be understandable that the amount of time that it took to happen could well have been measured in hundreds or mere thousands of years. But we have the evidence BEFORE us that the amount that the continents are moving is measurable in MILIMETERS a YEAR; hence BILLIONS of milimeters, billions of years. Doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to deal with evidence such as this.

Now, John, I ask this one question: What does 'perfect in his generations' MEAN as it relates to Noah? Please give us YOUR take on the REASON that these exact words were offered and WHAT they ACTUALLY MEAN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[wavy]

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)

If you call the nonsense in Imagican's posts (with due respect to Imagican, but it is still nonsense) a 'decent amount of knowledge' then I have no desire to perpetuate the opportunities for Imagican to post his 'knowledge' by continuing to reply to him...for your sake.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[John]

Fair enough.

 

[Imagican]

So, Wavy,

YOU are the 'bright boy' and all the rest of us are just ignorant bafoons. Funny, but you rarely have anything to offer other than snide remarks and words YOU seem to think 'make you APPEAR' to be 'bright'.

I find it amuzing that someone who has so little to offer would have so MUCH to say about what others offer.

So, why don't YOU enlighten us. Who or WHAT is responsible for OUR existence. And with that answer, offer also your opinion as to whether or not there were indeed 'six time periods' involved with creation.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Cornelius]

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

There were no men before Adam.
Since death entered only through sin, there was no death before Adam. That in itself should tell Christians the truth.

"But what about the plants Cornelius, they died when Adam ate them?"

Yea, but the Bible does not see plants as living in the Biblical manner.

Plants wither......people die.

Job 8:11 Can the rush grow up without mire? Can the flag grow without water?
Job 8:12 Whilst it is yet in its greenness, and not cut down, It withereth before any other herb.

 

[Cornelius]

There is more evidence for a creation and the flood, because there is no evidence for evolution at all. They have a theory, which they push as evidence, but when you look closer, you will only find a theory.

 

[Imagican]

At this point I have offered nothing concerning evolution. I have offered CREATION. I have simply offered the Word as presented instead of as interpreted by men for the past five thousand years.

The BEGINNING of the second chapter STARTS with the words:

Genesis 2

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

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

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

This is a pretty valid piece of information in that, AT THIS POINT; ALL that was 'created' WAS FINISHED. The BEGINNINGS of Creation were COMPLETE and 'it was good'. Plants had ALREADY been created. Animals had ALREADY been created. MAN had ALREADY been created and then God rested.

Many would contend that THEN the story 'goes BACK' and explains the details of creation. This is simply NOT SO. For we have the creation and relationship with Adam yet NO MENTION of this 'seventh day of rest' being offered. We have Adam being created WITHOUT 'woman' in the beginning. We have Adam meeting and naming the animals in search for a companion. Then we have Eve created FROM Adam.

These were NEVER offered up in relation to the creation of men and women from the first Chapter. It simply states in the first chapter that God created MEN AND WOMEN and TOLD them to be fruitful and multiply. And further evidence is that He gave them EVERY herb and EVERY tree on the FACE of the Earth to BE for food. Yet we kNOW that in the second chapter that He placed ADAM in a PARTICULAR garden and forbid him from eating from A PARTICULAR TREE.

If Adam was the first man EVER created, then we here have a contradiction. For to tell one that they may FREELY eat of EVERY 'tree on the Earth' and they GO BACK and say; of this tree you may NOT eat, would certainly BE a 'contradiction'.

And we also know that there is NO reason to believe that Adam and Eve knew ANYTHING of conception until AFTER they had sinned. Thus, 'be fruitful and multiply and replinish the Earth' was NOT Offered to them in the BEGINNING of 'creation'. This command was offered to 'someone else'.

And we haven't even dwelt on the FACTS surround the event of Cain.

And NO ONE has offered up an answer to this ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: "Perfect in his generations" as in relation to Noah. I find it AWFULLY amusing that NO ONE is willing to tackle this one.

It is OBVIOUS when taken in context, what it means. To BE perfect in one's 'generations' is to be PURE, without going OUTSIDE of one's race or bloodline. Generations is obvious. It's the perfect part that needs addressing.

I have NEVER done a study on it, but I certainly don't recall the angels EVER being refered to as ''sons of God''. NOT ONCE. Yet there are those that believe that angels, this ONCE, were refered to as such. WE ARE the sons of God; men. Those in whom were breathed 'the breath of life' and ARE 'living souls'. But there is NO MENTION of such in the first chapter. Neither 'sons of God' nor 'breath of life' nor 'living souls'.

And then we have Cain. Ah, Cain. One who through envy and jealousy, murdered his brother and was 'sent away'. i have already discussed the issue of the mark. How there would BE NO NEED for such if the ONLY persons on the planet WERE INDEED; his OWN family. But let's dwell a bit deeper;

How does a PLACE get it's name? All places that WE are aware of are named by those that discover them. God created a man and NAMED him Adam. If we dwelve into this concept a bit deeper, we can deduce that once man was created, then it was HE who began naming PLACES on the Earth.

Cain went to the 'land of Nod'. WHO do you reacon NAMED THAT LAND: Nod? God? For what purpose would it have served GOD to name a place inhabited by MEN? MEN named the land. And men DWELT in the land of Nod when Cain went there. THAT is where he found his wife. That is where he built a CITY. City, that's another good one. For WHO would build a 'city' for himself, his wife, and their CHILD?

Come one guys, NOTHING that I have offered refutes a SINGLE word of the Bible. What I offer EXPLAINS the Bible in ways that most are simply unable to accept for the sake of teaching that's roots go back over FIVE THOUSAND YEARS.

The evidence we have uncovered points to an Earth that is MUCH older than has been TAUGHT for thousands of years. But the idea of a 9,000 year old earth was NEVER offered in Word. This was simply a deduction that those with limited understanding came to simply adding the years together of Adam's decendants, (not a very likely PROOF of ANYTHING).

Now we have uncovered evidence that PLAINLY points to an Earth that is millions if not BILLIONS of years old. Does this refute a SINGLE WORD of the Bible? Not that I have seen. For it doesn't only NOT refute, but offers a deeper understanding.

The ONLY words that I have offered of my OWN is 'explanation'. Science and religion have been separate for the WRONG reasons. The church SUPPORTED science UNTIL science began to refute what which the churches TAUGHT. And NOT what the Word offered, but what CHURCHES taught. For there was MUCH that the churches had GUESSED AT and then accepted that was NOT fact and was NOT offered up in Word. Then, when science, (knowledge), came along and refuted what they offered, they refused to accept it for fear that those that they LORDED OVER would find that they WEREN'T 'all knowing'. And if this happened, then WHAT ELSE might they be WRONG about.

We KNOW that men have existed on this continent for THOUSANDS of years, (the estimate is between 12 and 20,000 years). We KNOW that there were once Wooley Mamouths on this continent coexisting with men. For men made TOOLS of their bones and such.

We have evidence that the Mamouth became extinct about 16,000 years ago. It is believed that over-hunting such a LARGE animal, (easy to find and difficult to hide), led to it's extinction.

Do you honestly think that ALL this that science has offered is simply 'imagination'? And for WHAT purpose? This type evidence does NOT alter MY FAITH. It actually strengthens it. For, the more that we are able to understand, the CLOSER to that image in which we were created we BECOME. For we were NOT given the ability to learn and understand WITHOUT a 'reason'. That some abuse and confuse it does not invalidate it.

IF, as has been stated, the continents 'drifted' AFTER man was created, how would we have possibly survived such catastrophic events? For we can PLAINLY witness the massive events that take place with the ocean floor simply moves a matter of feet. For the continents to have drifted THOUSANDS of MILES would mean that they were moving at MASIVE distances a year. What kind of global distruction would this have entailed.

No, there is NO reason to believe that the separation of land masses DIDN'T take millions of billions of years. The ONLY reason that many Christians refuse to accept it is that the churches are STILL teaching that the Earth is ONLY a few thousand years old. And this due to an inacurate veiw of a 'literal' six day creation.

Since we have the words offered that a 'day to God is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day', we can clearly see that the PURPOSE of the 'day' being used is to SHOW a distinction in TIME PERIODS. Men, at the time this information was offered, understood a day to be, ' a beginning of a time period and an END to that time period'. Simple enough for even a child to understand. But when we start speaking of MILLIONS of years, this is simply inconcievable to children, or even men with a limited understanding of eternity.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[wavy]

There is more evidence for a creation and the flood, because there is no evidence for evolution at all. They have a theory, which they push as evidence, but when you look closer, you will only find a theory.

You have no idea what a theory is. And evolution is a theory as well as a fact. You've got it backwards. We have no evidence whatsoever for either creation or a global flood. None. It simply doesn't exist.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[John]

There is more evidence for a creation and the flood, because there is no evidence for evolution at all. They have a theory, which they push as evidence, but when you look closer, you will only find a theory.

You have no idea what a theory is. And evolution is a theory as well as a fact. You've got it backwards. We have no evidence whatsoever for either creation or a global flood. None. It simply doesn't exist.

Thanks,
Eric

Allow me to clear the water.

Evolution happens. It happens everyday, however its just variations within a species. The theory part of evolution is the whole microbe to man AKA Darwin's tree of life. There is no evidence at all supporting the tree unless we impose it.

I must disagree with you heavily wavy, for there is ample evidence supporting creation and a global flood. 1. i can look out my window right no and see creation. 2. i can take a drive to joggins Nova Scotia and see tree going though layers that are supposedly millions of years old and other rock layers proving that there was a great flood..you can see these layers all over the world.

But that is better left to the science forum.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

The BEGINNING of the second chapter STARTS with the words:

Genesis 2

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

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

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

This is a pretty valid piece of information in that, AT THIS POINT; ALL that was 'created' WAS FINISHED. The BEGINNINGS of Creation were COMPLETE and 'it was good'. Plants had ALREADY been created. Animals had ALREADY been created. MAN had ALREADY been created and then God rested.

Imagican, you continue to ignore the next verse in Genesis Capter 2 (that is verse 4). How does your translation read verse 4?

Come one guys, NOTHING that I have offered refutes a SINGLE word of the Bible. What I offer EXPLAINS the Bible in ways that most are simply unable to accept for the sake of teaching that's roots go back over FIVE THOUSAND YEARS.

On the contrary, most of what you offer has no support from scripture. You continue to twist and distort scripture in order to support your outrageous claims. If you start out by tampering with the literal text of Genesis, what's to keep you from tampering with the very Truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ too?
Furthermore, as stated above, you continue to ignore many of the questions that other members here have posed to you in regards to your truth claims of scripture. You also have systematically ignored many of the responses by members who have made every effort to help you understand the Biblical account of the Creation. You seem to be so wrapped up in conveying your faulty theology to the world that you have failed to understand that what you are doing is divorcing scripture from reality. When that happens, you kill the God of the Bible.

Now we have uncovered evidence that PLAINLY points to an Earth that is millions if not BILLIONS of years old. Does this refute a SINGLE WORD of the Bible? Not that I have seen. For it doesn't only NOT refute, but offers a deeper understanding.

If there really was evidence to support an old earth then yes, that would be in conflict with what scripture teaches. But, there is no evidence of such and therefore, in truth there is no conflict. The whole concept of trying to teach from scripture that the earth is millions or even billions of years old is misleading, unsupported and dangerous. It leads some astray and causes others to stumble. It's your attempt to bring many seekers one step closer to believing in evolution.

The ONLY words that I have offered of my OWN is 'explanation'.

When you attempt to explain your interpretation of scripture your faulty theology is exposed. When one's theology fails to correspond to reality it cannot be taken as truth. There is but one correct interpretation of scripture. True, there may be many applications for the believer but, there is only one true interpretation. Most of your interpretations are simply an attempt to hijack the truth and take scripture out of context and use it as pretext to try and sell us some ideas that have no foundation of reality.

Please be careful as to what you are doing here. We are warned, in fact we are commanded to handle the truth of God's Word properly.

2 Ti 2:15 - Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

2 Cr 4:1,2 - Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

If you continue along these lines, such as you have, one must only question your motivations.