Question 3

[MikeBigg]

I believe there could have been a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There IS strong evidence for this in the original Hebrew text. If your interested I will write a much longer post when I have time. This would account for the earth appearing to be much older than 6,000 years.

I tend to agree with the gap. Actually, my understanding of the Genesis 1 Hebrew is that it doesn't describe ex nihilo creation at all.

Agreed about the "age" of the trees at creation. I muse on how old Adam was - I reckon about 23. But there are times I think he may have been younger, maybe 17. What would he have been like physically? Toned? Muscular? Tanned? Long hair? Bearded?

As for Eve, I bet she was a real babe! lol

I'll stop before I'm ex-communicated.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ianb321red]

Why would you hold to a literal Adam and Eve but not hold to a literal 24 hour day?

I'll answer this when I get home, but actually Danny - you know the Greek/ Hebrew/ Aramaic side of the bible text. I'd be interested in the wording use for "day" or "days" in the context of:

-number of days Jonah spent in the belly of the whale
-number days after which Jesus rose from the grave

Is it consistent with the word used for day(s) in Genesis?

I also fully understand that the word "Yom" has multiple meanings...

 

[Danny777]

I'll answer this when I get home, but actually Danny - you know the Greek/ Hebrew/ Aramaic side of the bible text. I'd be interested in the wording use for "day" or "days" in the context of:

-number of days Jonah spent in the belly of the whale
-number days after which Jesus rose from the grave

Is it consistent with the word used for day(s) in Genesis?

I also fully understand that the word "Yom" has multiple meanings...

The wording in both the Hebrew and Greek is pretty similar to English. The respective words can mean literal 24 hour days, or longer periods of time depending on context.

The words for day in Jonah passage is same one as used in Genesis. With the Jesus account it is Greek but same equivalent word is used. The accounts in Jonah and with Jesus raising from dead are written in very simple narrative form. The same simple narrative form appears in Genesis 1 except here we are given the extra context of "then there was evening and morning" just in case there was any doubt!

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Danny777: I've heard about Christians who believe science is right and Genesis is just the way it was discribed in olden times, what is your view on that stance?

 

[Danny777]

Danny777: I've heard about Christians who believe science is right and Genesis is just the way it was discribed in olden times, what is your view on that stance?

Hi...

For me, its a simple case of believing the text means what it says. There are many parts of the Bible that are poetic and others that contain allegory and other figurative language. The account of creation does not appear to fall into this category in my opinion. It appears to have been written as a straight forward account of the creation of heaven and earth over a literal six-day period. It appears to me that the writer of the account of creation intended readers to believe creation was carried out over a literal six-day period of time.

Its has nothing to do with being a traditionalist - I am not a traditionalist and I try not to follow church tradition...I simply submit to the text of the Bible...

Many Christians have a problem with this. It does not cause me a problem and I see no conflict with science either.

If you start picking and choosing what passages of the Bible WE want to accept as literal, then where does this stop? People are not normally born through a virgin birth, or resurrected from the dead - shall we make these an example of figurative language as well just because science cannot explain these passages?!

If other Christians prefer to allegorise parts of Genesis, that is up to them...for me personally, I accept that it means what it appears to clearly say - we will all find out one day!

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Hi...

For me, its a simple case of believing the text means what it says. There are many parts of the Bible that are poetic and others that contain allegory and other figurative language. The account of creation does not appear to fall into this category in my opinion. It appears to have been written as a straight forward account of the creation of heaven and earth over a literal six-day period. It appears to me that the writer of the account of creation intended readers to believe creation was carried out over a literal six-day period of time.

As you say that is your opinion which you are entitled to hold

Its has nothing to do with being a traditionalist - I am not a traditionalist and I try not to follow church tradition...I simply submit to the text of the Bible...

Many Christians have a problem with this. It does not cause me a problem and I see no conflict with science either.

You define this as a problem? Why is it a problem if others don't believe as you do?

You say you see no conflict with science and yet science would say the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved over a long period of time - do you agree with this then?

If you start picking and choosing what passages of the Bible WE want to accept as literal, then where does this stop? People are not normally born through a virgin birth, or resurrected from the dead - shall we make these an example of figurative language as well just because science cannot explain these passages?!

But aren't you doing just that, after all you have said some parts are poetic and allogeric, you just believe different parts to be allogeric, so you are picking and choosing too, are you not?

If other Christians prefer to allegorise parts of Genesis, that is up to them...for me personally, I accept that it means what it appears to clearly say - we will all find out one day!

What about the bits you take as allogeric?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hi...

For me, its a simple case of believing the text means what it says.

But the text isn't that simple.

Its has nothing to do with being a traditionalist - I am not a traditionalist and I try not to follow church tradition...I simply submit to the text of the Bible...

It has everything to do with tradition. If the original translation had said "age" instead of "day" you would argue against a 24 hour interpretation for the simple reason that that's the traditional translation.

 

[ImperialJohn]

Do all Christians believe the world started as described in Genesis?

I believe Genesis describes the "re-creation" of the Earth when it was made habitable for man to live on after it had become a dark void, and gives a brief overview of the whole of creation from the very beginning.

The details in Genesis are very condensed and only give a brief account of what took place. This is revealed divine scripture from God to man. We don't know everything that happened we just have this brief account as we were not there and what we did know before the flood was completely wiped out and lost.

Genesis is not the first book of the Bible in time order, only chronologically as it was written. To go back further than Genesis to the very beginning you have to read John 1 which details what happened before the Heavens (Universe) and Earth were created as well as their creation.

 

[Danny777]

But the text isn't that simple.

It has everything to do with tradition. If the original translation had said "age" instead of "day" you would argue against a 24 hour interpretation for the simple reason that that's the traditional translation.

Some texts of the Bible are not simple, but these particular passage seems quite straight forward to me...

You are right - if the original text said something different that implied it should read "age", then I would argue that it should be an age. This is not the case though. It says the word "day" and then qualifies this by saying, "then there was evening and morning...." Therefore I conclude it refers to a 24 hour day...

I am not making this up - we can all read the same text and go back to the original Hebrew. I'm sure that most people that come across this text would agree that if read in a straight forward manner the most plain meaning is of a 24-hour day. It certainly is not something I am just creating out of nothing!

As I have said many times, in Ex 20:11, God states verbally that the Jews were to keep the Sabbath BECAUSE the heaven and the earth were created in 6 days. There is no hint here that it is an outrageous conclusion to assume that the writer of Genesis intended readers to believe he meant literal days.

If you prefer to believe it means something different, that's fine - but the clearest meaning of the text is surely of a literal day...

 

[Danny777]

As you say that is your opinion which you are entitled to hold

You define this as a problem? Why is it a problem if others don't believe as you do?

You say you see no conflict with science and yet science would say the earth is millions of years old and that we evolved over a long period of time - do you agree with this then?

But aren't you doing just that, after all you have said some parts are poetic and allogeric, you just believe different parts to be allogeric, so you are picking and choosing too, are you not?

What about the bits you take as allogeric?

It didn't mean it quite like that - I mean't the some Christians cannot accept that the days are literal 24 hour days...we all have a choice to take the text as we wish...

The Hebrew text implies there was a long period of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. This is a possibility and if true would explain why the "earth" appears to be much older than 6,000 years old. The creation of the world as described from day one to six I believe to be around 6000 years ago. I am not aware of any science that proves this to be impossible... I don't believe that humans evolved from apes etc. God COULD have created the world this way, but it seems clear to me from the account in Genesis that there is no hint of this. It would seem strange to me, that many thousands/millions of generations of ape-man creatures were needed to evolve and die and then suddenly Adam appears and God to describe Adam and being made in His image and being "very good"! God COULD have done this, but I believe He is capable of creating Adam just as described in Genesis and so I accept that account...

You are right that we all have to decide which parts of the Bible of poetic, figurative etc. I do not think this is rocket science and that the vast majority of the time, this is obvious from the text. For example, when reading John 10:7, Jesus says He is the "door". I don't believe Jesus is saying that He is a big wooden structure that hangs on hinges! It is figurative language to describe Himself as the means of salvation. I think common sense would leads most people to agree.
With the creation account, I don't see evidence from the text that it is figurative language. I believe God is capable of creating the world in literal days, the text implies they were literal days, therefore I believe they were literal days.

If others disagree, this is fine...

 

[ianb321red]

Are you saying you could disprove the existence of God?

Yes, I am. Obviously not ME personally, but I could tell you how it is possible for people in general to disprove the existence of the Christian God.

I'm not saying the reason you believe is because it can't be disproven. However I think God gets pushed into the areas that can't be disproven. However as science advances these areas get smaller.

Only if you think God can be disproven scientifically.
Don't forget there are good reasons outside the scope of science to believe in God.
I sincerely hope you don't think that science can account for everything...?

I think we've discussed a literal Adam and Eve before and why this can't possibly be true with reference to genetics, archaeological evidence and human skulls dated pre 6000 years ago.

The bible doesn't give us any clear information on the age of Adam/ Eve, the universe and so on.
However, it DOES give us clear information that Adam & Eve were literal people - I've mentioned circa 15 biblically justified reasons why this is the correct way to understand this.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I am. Obviously not ME personally, but I could tell you how it is possible for people in general to disprove the existence of the Christian God.

The only way to prove a negative is to prove an alternative, contradictory positive. So other than proving a different god is true what are you suggesting?

I sincerely hope you don't think that science can account for everything...?

Because that would leave no room for God? I'm not convinced we'll ever be able to explain everything scientifically, but I am sure we will learn a lot more than we currently know. Will that be enough to push God into the history books? Possibly.

However, it DOES give us clear information that Adam & Eve were literal people - I've mentioned circa 15 biblically justified reasons why this is the correct way to understand this.

And those reasons are wrong. We are not descended from a single male and female.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

And those reasons are wrong. We are not descended from a single male and female.

It appears Eve was somewhere between 234,000 BP and 152,000 BP and Adam a bit later between 142,000 BP and 60,000 BP. They could have been the ancestors of all mankind if Adam had cryogenically preserved his seed and had a time machine; a small time machine would have been adequate.

If I understand the situation, having a number of males around at the time of Eve and a number of females around at the time of Adam would have kept the genetic bottleneck from getting too small.


Bible to the rescue:

Noah's father and sons were all of the same male lineage (so Noah is the genetic 'Adam') whereas the wives were different, and the actual Eve was further back, so this discovery proves the Bible is correct, verifies that Jesus did exist, and that Christianity is the one true faith and there is a firmament over the Earth QED

.

 

[ianb321red]

The only way to prove a negative is to prove an alternative, contradictory positive. So other than proving a different god is true what are you suggesting?

No - try again.
Think about from this perspective: who was God The Son?

Because that would leave no room for God? I'm not convinced we'll ever be able to explain everything scientifically, but I am sure we will learn a lot more than we currently know. Will that be enough to push God into the history books? Possibly.

Only if you are a deist....
Remember, there are good number things that we know about that have to come to us outside of scientific discovery.

The trends amongst academics appear to show that a theistic belief is on the increase. This is definitely the case with philosophy, and the evidence seems to suggest that this could well be the case within the scientific disciplines.

I have a few books sitting right next to me (on my book shelf) called "Real Scientists Real Faith", "Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose" and "Dawkins God" by A. McGrath. I also frequently visit the Faraday Institute website The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion and read various articles posted on here.

Anyone who says that science and religion are incompatible, or that science will replace God/religion or that nothing theistically or biblically speaking is supported by science is quite frankly about as believable as Lance Armstrong.

Despite what PZ Myers and such like say, the research being in many academic disciplines is actually INCREASING a theistic belief amongst university academics - it's just the YouTube and internet forum pseudo academics that think differently.....

And those reasons are wrong. We are not descended from a single male and female.

If you ignore the biblical evidence you can believe anything if you like.
The point I was making is that are a large number of reasons to believe in a literal Adam and Eve - none of which are my personal opinion. The biblical evidence is strong, so the reasons aren't wrong - unless you'd care to go through each of the 15 examples I mentioned and explain to me why?

 

[tonybeer]

Yes, I am. Obviously not ME personally, but I could tell you how it is possible for people in general to disprove the existence of the Christian God.



Only if you think God can be disproven scientifically.
Don't forget there are good reasons outside the scope of science to believe in God.
I sincerely hope you don't think that science can account for everything...?


The bible doesn't give us any clear information on the age of Adam/ Eve, the universe and so on.
However, it DOES give us clear information that Adam & Eve were literal people - I've mentioned circa 15 biblically justified reasons why this is the correct way to understand this.

How would you disprove a Christian God?

Just so I don't end up misrepresenting your beliefs. What do you believe to be the origins of man? I.e. God started universe and rest is down to science/ God guided evolution so man would appear/ God created Adam and Eve and we didn't evolove / anything else you might believe.

Science is not complete, but there is no reason to think it could not discover everything. I'm not saying it will do, but it has the potential to. You don't get to just invent a supernatural realm, say it exists without any evidence, then say this shows the limitations of science. If you wanted to show a supernatural realm existed, the only way to do it would be scientifically.

There is no way there could have been just 2 humans on the planet and they then produced the genetic diversity we see today.

Also why would you believe what the bible says? Even if parts of it were shown to be historically true, it wouldn't mean everything else in it is true.

 

[ianb321red]

How would you disprove a Christian God?

Well you'd have work back and retrospectively deal with the claimed evidence. So as I'd said to Bungle Bear, firstly who was God the Son?

Just so I don't end up misrepresenting your beliefs. What do you believe to be the origins of man? I.e. God started universe and rest is down to science/ God guided evolution so man would appear/ God created Adam and Eve and we didn't evolove / anything else you might believe.

To be honest, my view on this is limited to a belief in the source and purpose of creation. Outside of God created the universe, every living thing and human beings (in His image) I don't think it possible to biblically conclude anything more than this.

Even amongst Christians we cannot agree on the timing of creation; we can only really agree on the fact of creation.

The exact method of creation is still a moot question since increasingly scientific evidence supports a supernatural creation (see The Mystery Of Life's Origin and Test of FAITH )

My view would be summarised as a belief in:

-a theistic God
-the universe being created ex nihilo
-every living thing created by God
-Adam and Eve were a direct creation by God
-the genesis account was historical, not mythological

Science is not complete, but there is no reason to think it could not discover everything. I'm not saying it will do, but it has the potential to. You don't get to just invent a supernatural realm, say it exists without any evidence, then say this shows the limitations of science. If you wanted to show a supernatural realm existed, the only way to do it would be scientifically.

Did you watch that Chomsky clip I posted a few days ago?

There is no way there could have been just 2 humans on the planet and they then produced the genetic diversity we see today.

Why's that? (I'm not challenging what your saying, just asking for more info.)

Also why would you believe what the bible says? Even if parts of it were shown to be historically true, it wouldn't mean everything else in it is true.

That would be correct approach to take to begin with, but so far no one in 2000 has ever demonstrated that the bible isn't true or that there are errors of any kind in the original text.

The bible has probably been THE most investigated and analysed text in human history - there is so much at stake to "prove" it is not what it claims to be.

So far it has withstood everything thrown at it....

 

[MorkandMindy]

That would be correct approach to take to begin with, but so far no one in 2000 has ever demonstrated that the bible isn't true or that there are errors of any kind in the original text.

Which is the original text?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well you'd have work back and retrospectively deal with the claimed evidence. So as I'd said to Bungle Bear, firstly who was God the Son?

Sorry, but how would that disprove God? It might disprove the accuracy of the bible, but it wouldn't disprove the existence of God.

That would be correct approach to take to begin with, but so far no one in 2000 has ever demonstrated that the bible isn't true or that there are errors of any kind in the original text.

Except for the bits that have been shown to be wrong.....

The bible has probably been THE most investigated and analysed text in human history - there is so much at stake to "prove" it is not what it claims to be.

So far it has withstood everything thrown at it....

No, Christians have chosen not to accept the evidence. That is not the same as the bible withstanding scrutiny.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Remember, there are good number things that we know about that have to come to us outside of scientific discovery.

So? That doesn't mean science cannot support or explain them.

The trends amongst academics appear to show that a theistic belief is on the increase. This is definitely the case with philosophy, and the evidence seems to suggest that this could well be the case within the scientific disciplines.

That's odd because most studies say atheism is on the increase with theism on the decrease. Your source for this claim?

Anyone who says that science and religion are incompatible, or that science will replace God/religion or that nothing theistically or biblically speaking is supported by science is quite frankly about as believable as Lance Armstrong.

Irrelevant as nobody here has made that claim. Nice strawman, though.

The biblical evidence is strong, so the reasons aren't wrong - unless you'd care to go through each of the 15 examples I mentioned and explain to me why?

It's been done elsewhere several times but if you want to list them I'll happily do so.

 

[ianb321red]

Sorry, but how would that disprove God? It might disprove the accuracy of the bible, but it wouldn't disprove the existence of God.

I don't see why you separate the 2 things - the bible is The Word of God for Christians.

In my bible it says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Jesus claimed to be God, and He demonstrated this in a number of ways. If he was NOT God then he was JUST a man the same as everyone else.

The bible being The Word of God tells us everything we know about God; supremely that God The Son walked on this planet as a human being. The way to disprove the existence of God for Christians would be to shown that what we know about Christ's divinity in the bible is wrong.

Any other other arguments using philosophical, logical, scientific reasoning are all well and good but the primary evidence for God comes from what we are told about Christ in the bible.

Except for the bits that have been shown to be wrong

Shown to wrong by who exactly - Richard Dawkins ??

No, Christians have chosen not to accept the evidence. That is not the same as the bible withstanding scrutiny.

That's a very grandiose statement, but again you've merely thrown out your opinion without backing it up.

Do you have any examples that are unanimously rejected by Christians??

And of course i expect you realise that unless you apply special pleading then the same accusation could be leveled at non_Christians who chose NOT to accept the evidence for Christianity?