Man made on 3rd Day

[Assyrian]

...continued

It doesn't say the ground and water were outside the firmament.

Read closer. The firmament contained air since God called it "heaven" in Genesis 1:8 It was in the middle or midst of water and water was above and below it, indicating that it was Floating.

God took some water from below the firmament and put it into the firmament and it made a roaring noise, so God called the roaring "Seas", since the Hebrew word fo Seas is a roaring. Now, the firmament had water inside it and outside it. God added "dry ground" and called it Earth. It was the world of Adam. Peter tells us it was in the water and out of the water. ll Peter 3:5

It doesn't say the firmament was floating on the waters below. If the firmament refers to the heavens as Genesis shows us, then the firmament is probably much higher than you suggest, and Gen 1:6-8 may be describing a situation where you have the waters below, a gap contain what we refer to as air, then the firmament hold up the waters above. You still have the firmament in the midst or between the two waters and it fits the Hebrew understanding of firmament much better.

I wouldn't read too much into the Hebrew word for seas having the etymology 'roaring', Genesis doesn't mention the seas roaring, and besides it doesn't do anything to support you interpretation. It doesn't tell you God 'added' the dry land, or that the dry land was originally in the waters above the firmament. Peter doesn't say that either.

It simply means that God called both A & E, Adam, in the Day they were created. As you know it means mankind and I think that's the point. Eve was made in the Image of Jesus Spiritually.

Genesis never says being made in the image of God meant 'Spiritually', it could just as easily refer to our mind, our intelligence and emotions. After all you think human intelligence must have come from Adam. There are lots of intelligent humans, which according to your ideas means their intelligence in the image of God, who aren't born again.

If you are talking about Adam and Eve meaning mankind, can you clarify when you think the sixth day made in God's image refers to. Is it
(1) During the lifetime of Adam before he sinned?
or is it
(2) Thousands of years later when Jesus' death and resurrection brought spiritual birth to all of mankind who put their faith in him?

It's your time to explain WHY Adam was NOT made Spiritually on the 3rd Day, but was only made physically.

Assyrian:>>Not sure why you think I need to explain about how Adam was made on the third day, that is your idea. The human spirit is simply not mentioned in the Genesis creation accounts. The nearest you have is the reference in Genesis 2:7 the LORD God ...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

It reveals HOW Jesus gave temporary life to the creatures He made from the dust of the ground. He didn't make them alive Spiritually because ONLY the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can made a New Person in Christ. God said, Let US make man in OUR Image.

So nothing for me to have to explain here?

Assyrian:>>You said nothing about the reason there were no plants in Genesis 1.

All the plants were made AFTER the first Earth was made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12 and Genesis 2:8 shows that this was AFTER man was made.

You are still saying nothing about the reason there were no plants. Talking about what happened and when it happened is not the same as explain the reason why it hadn't happen before then. An explanation for the lack of plants is given in Genesis 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. You need to tell us how that explanation works on day three in Genesis 1, after dry land appeared, but before the plants were created. So far you have failed.

Assyrian:>>Sorry evolution say nothing about hominids hybridising with the occupants of an interplanetary Ark. Evolution shows us that modern humans evolved in Africa from earlier hominids, and that the ones who migrated out of Africa interbred with earlier migrants out of Africa like Neanderthals and Denisovans. Of course you don't need Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA to be intelligent.

I agree. The only way to become Human is to inherit the higher intelligence of Adam. Today's Evolution cannot tell us HOW Or WHEN we evolved from animal to human intelligence because it hasn't learned How to tell the difference between animal and human intelligence, today.

How is that agreeing with me? You aren't dealing with what science has shown us, the relationship between animals and human intelligence, and you are basing you argument on what science hasn't shown us, a supposed difference between human and animal intelligence that you believe could not have evolved. This is not science agreeing with your interpretation of the bible, this is you ignoring what science has shown us, and claiming your interpretation fits what science hasn't shown.

Any trait in human intelligence you will find precursors among animals. They have their own words, vervet monkeys have different cries that can mean snake, leopard or eagle, prairie dogs can make up with specific warning cries like here comes that human in the yellow shirt; animals can have a concept of fairness; a concept of number; they can have culture and can teach each other skills they have learned. You also need to understand how these traits can develop as mental capacity grows. Look at a toddler as they grow, when they start to learn to speak they less of a vocabulary than Koko the gorilla, They can manage dadda, mamma, cup and make very good use of 'no'. As their vocabulary develops they can start stringing words together in the right order and learn grammar and how to use metaphors.

The writer of Scripture is God. He knew what Day man was made BEFORE He began His Creation. If it didn't, He wouldn't be God. The problem with being the Supreme intelligence of Creation is to communicate this to mortal people.

And yet we find the idea of man being made on the sixth day in Genesis 1, something you dismiss as a silly notion. Is it a silly notion, or was it inspired by God? Perhaps it is you thinking it is a silly notion that is what's silly.

Not if the first world were much smaller than our's and was in the water and out of the water, floating in the waters of Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat.

I though you claimed the dry land that appeared on day three came from outside the firmament. Is that the dry land we see today including the mountains of Ararat, or is it the mini planet you have floating in Lake Van?

You seem to be basing your understanding of 2Peter 3:5 on the AV the earth standing out of the water and in the water. It is a bad translation to start with. You should check out Some modern translations.
ESV the earth was formed out of water and through water
NASB the earth was formedout of water and by water,
NIV the earth was formed out of water and by water,

Another problem is that you seem to be reading that as post flood rather than a description of the creation. In fact you just quoted it referring to day three in Genesis 1, how can it refer to the flood?

The increase in intelligence is obvious. The sons of God (Prehistoric man) was no dummy....BUT....neither was Adam. Adding the higher intelligence level of Adam to the descendants of Mitochondrial Eve produces today's humans. It's nothing new. It happened on the first Earth when Cain's descendants had smelting, musical instrument building, city building and high technology which ONLY humans have. Might I add, with little or No Evolution. Read Genesis 4 and try to make that fit with your ideas.

You are mistaking culture and technology for intelligence. There are tribes of modern humans around the world still living a stone age hunter gatherer existence. Are you saying they are not intelligent or that they need to interbreed with the more intelligent colonists before their children can take their place in modern human society? I presume you don't believe that, but if as you claim human intelligence automatically results in the development of cities and technology, why are intelligent modern humans still living in the stone age? And if it is possible for intelligent modern humans to still live as stone age hunter gatherers today, then there is no reason why there weren't intelligent modern humans on earth for thousands of years before the right conditions in the middle east led to the development of agriculture, cities, writing and a rapid increase in technology.

I'm the only person I know who shows that Scripture supports Evolution, which I prefer to call Adaptation. Genesis 6:4 shows that the sons of God (Prehistoric man) married and produced children, mighty men, men of reknown, and Giants intellectually. These offsrping were Humans. Only the descedants of Adam are human.

Try showing from scripture that the 'sons of God' refer to cavemen, try showing that nephilim were 'intellectual giants' rather than renowned warriors.

I accept Factual Science but I find problems with the false assumptions of some of today's scientists. My main problem with the TOE is that it falsely assumes we evolved our human intelligence over long periods of time.

Accepting science mean accepting what science considers science, not picking an choosing whatever bits fit you fantastical views.

I show that this false Theory is wrong by showing that since Lucy walked this Earth, that in less than 1% of that time have we grown our own food.
We began to farm just South of the mountains of Ararat, and there you will find the FIRST human cities on this Planet, shown in Scripture to be built by one of Noah's great grandchildren. His name is Nimrod and he is the FIRST generation of Humans to inhabit our world. He is the product of Noah's grandson, who had NO other human to marry, and a prehistoric woman, whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day.

That area of Turkey is also the first wild wheat was formed through natural hybridisation between grasses about 10,000 years before it was domesticated. Modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, but wheat wasn't. When the first wild wheat appeared, it was also the period of the ice age coming to an end then going into the refreeze of the Younger Dryas. Was the original hybrid even suitable for domestication, or did it need thousands of years of adaptation to changing climate before it was also suitable for agriculture? The advent of agriculture in Anatolia had to wait until there were plants suitable for domestication growing in an area where the climate was suitable for agriculture too.

Count it for yourself. Noah's grandson, like Cain, had NO other human to marry. He married a woman whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day. The offsping of that union was Noah's great grandson, Nimrod. He is the combination of the descendants of Adam AND the descendants of Mitochondrial Eve, on our Earth. The proof? Today, ALL Humans on this Planet are the same as Nimrod.

Sorry still nothing about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation.

I didn't do that. I read it for what it said, instead of listening to the obviously confused people who told me to just accept it by faith in their views. I knew it was God's Truth when it agreed with every other discovered Truth of mankind.

You mean every discovered truth you agree with because it agrees with your interpretation?

I've grown enough.

The bible is quite keen on us being teachable, no so much so being wise in our own eyes.

My problem now is to get people who are stuck in their own views to actually read it for themselves. Some are as confused as you seem to be, and cannot refute my views Scripturally, so they imply that it can't be the Truth. It couldn't be, because they haven't seen it before, they tell themselves.

You problem is people can see for themselves that scripture doesn't say all the thing you read into it.

 

[Aman777]

(QUOTE} Remember Aman, each quote from me should be wrapped in quote tags,

and

Instead of adding in 'Assyrian:>>' before each section you want to respond to, i.e.

Assyrian:>>It is great that you can...

Use quote tags instead:

It is great that you can...

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, Good point. My view was influenced by the Scriptural Fact that Scripture speaks of THREE Heavens.

The first Heaven was in the midst of water and later destroyed in a Flood.
The second Heaven is our world, which is scheduled to be burned.
The thrid Heaven is the object of the Creation, contains a single city with streets of gold and gates of pearl, and it will never die.

The first heaven was made the SECOND Day. Genesis 1:6-8
The second heaven was made the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4
The third heaven was made the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4

See why I see the Plural version of Shamayim in Genesis 2:4?

In Love,
Aman
​

{quote} Yes I know the passage about the third heaven. You are making a number of assumptions though. First you are assuming there are only three, but we won't get into that {/quote}

Not so. Genesis 1:6-8 tells us the 1st "heaven" was made the 2nd day.
Genesis 2:4 tells us of other heavens made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made. I have NEVER limited the number of heavens made. The least number that fits the text would be 3, IMHO. There could be a Million or more, but that's my unsupported opinion.

{quote} Then you are assuming that they are numbered chronologically rather than spatially. If the third heaven really is the 'highest heaven' the bible speaks about, then maybe it is called the third heaven because it is highest. {/quote}

It is the object of the Creation. When God is Finished with His Creation of the Third Heaven, and it is filled with ALL the host of it, God will CEASE creating, which is what rest means in Hebrew. That is FUTURE to our time, since we live today on the 6th Day.

{quote} Then there is the problem with your identification of first, second and third heavens with the heavens mentioned in Genesis 1&2 when Genesis doesn't number them. Why is the first heaven made on the second day, when we are told God created the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1?{/quote)

Genesis 1:1 is telling us of the creation of the basic elements which will be used by Jesus to build a perfect, PHYSICAL, heaven. So God created or brought into the physical world air and dust, but everything God had made apart from Himself was filled with darkness and death. God spoke, "Let there be Light" and Jesus came forth from within the Invisible Spirit of God, and took the air, dust , and water, which came from the air, to make everything which exists physically.

{quote} There is a reference to God making the firmament can calling it the heavens on day two, but no mention of creating a heaven or even two heavens on day three.{/quote}

Sure there is. Here it is:

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 speaking of the THIRD Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-10

{quote}There is no mention of the firmament, the heavens God created on day two, being destroyed in the flood. Psalm 19:1 A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handywork. Apparently the firmament was alive and well in David's day. I don't know where you get the idea that the second heaven is our world either. I suspect your reference to it being burned means you got it from 2Peter 3, but Peter doesn't say the second heaven is our world in fact when he talk of the heavens being burnt he distinguished between the heavens and the earth. {/quote}

Peter speaks of the world (kosmos) that "THEN WAS" as being totally and completely destroyed in the Flood. There are references to the 1st heaven being destroyed from Genesis 6:13 to Revelation 21:1. God even tells Noah that Never again will He destroy the earth in a flood. Genesis 9:11 KJV - And I will establish my covenant with - Bible Gateway


Originally Posted by Aman777

Gen 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,
​

As you should be able to see. The LORD God (Jesus) made the first Earth and the other HeavenS (Plural) on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Genesis 1:9-10 tells us the Earth and the plants were made.
​

(quote)Where does Genesis 1 say God made the heavens on the third day? Or have you added that into the text the same way you add in making Adam on the third day? {/quote}

It doesn't say that in Genesis 1, but adds that information about the 3rd Day AFTER God tells us the entire History of His Creation of the 3rd Heaven, the world where ALL Christians will living on the 7th Day. Genesis 2:1

{quote} Saying what happened in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, does not address my question about why there were no plants at the beginning of each passage. Genesis 2 tell us the reason there were no plants, and it simply does not fit day three in Genesis 1.
​

Aman:>>Sure it does. Genesis 2:4-8 specifically identifies the Day in which these events happened. It was the 3rd Day AFTER the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants grew.

Genesis 1 shows a world, a firmament, placed in the middle of water. Genesis 1:9 shows that God moves water from under the firmament into the firmament. Then He brings in dry land. The dry land was empty, void of life and separate from the water.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;

Genesis 1:10 shows that God calls the dry land, Earth, and the next item on the agenda is to bring forth Plants. Before the plants grow, Genesis 2:4-8 adds information to this time and shows that this is the time when man was formed of the dust of the ground.

Genesis 1:12 shows that the plants GREW on the 3rd Day.
​

{quote}I really don't know if this is a comprehension problem with you or not. You are still talking about what happened and when, but you are completely failing to address the issue of why or why not. Genesis 2 tells us why there were no plants in Gen 2:5. You haven't yet answered how this explanation fits the plant free world of Gen 1:10.{/quote}

It's obviously God's way of adding information as He goes along with His narrative. A little here, a little there, precept upon precept...

Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
​

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;
​

{quote}Sorry, there is nothing about land being added there.{/quote}

Here's the sequence. God made air, dust, and water, and Jesus came forth into the physical world on the first Day. We know Jesus was there because He prays to the Father, just before His Crucifixion, to return to Him the Glory which He had with the Father BEFORE the world was. The ONLY Day before the firmament of the first world was made is the 1st Day.

Jesus made that firmament which was the boundary of the first world. We are told in Genesis 1:6-8 that Jesus put that firmament in the midst or middle of the water. We know it was filled with air for God called it Heaven. We kinow it was in the water and out of the water which indicates it was floating. We also know it was "clean dissolved" in the waters of the Flood. Adam was never a part of our Cosmos.

{quote} The word used for appear is ra'ah to see, but it in the niphal, which is the Hebrew passive, in other words it means be seen or be visible. Most translates go with 'appear' which has that meaning too, but here are some other translations of the verse.
(BBE) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven come together in one place, and let the dry land be seen: and it was so.
(Great Bible 1539) And God sayde: let the waters vnder heauen be gathered together into one place, that the drye lande maye be sene. And so it came to passe.
(Leeser) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land be visible: and it was so.
(Youngs) And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.

To be continued...

The firmament was empty. I picture it as a giant plastic bubble. God twisted the water and it roared as He placed some of the water inside the firmament. Then He added dry ground, and called it Earth. If it doesn't sound much like our world, you would be correct. Genesis doesn't say what we have been told it says.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>It doesn't say the ground and water were outside the firmament.
​

Aman:>>Read closer. The firmament contained air since God called it "heaven" in Genesis 1:8 It was in the middle or midst of water and water was above and below it, indicating that it was Floating.

God took some water from below the firmament and put it into the firmament and it made a roaring noise, so God called the roaring "Seas", since the Hebrew word fo Seas is a roaring. Now, the firmament had water inside it and outside it. God added "dry ground" and called it Earth. It was the world of Adam. Peter tells us it was in the water and out of the water. ll Peter 3:5
​

Assyrian:>>It doesn't say the firmament was floating on the waters below. If the firmament refers to the heavens as Genesis shows us, then the firmament is probably much higher than you suggest, and Gen 1:6-8 may be describing a situation where you have the waters below, a gap contain what we refer to as air, then the firmament hold up the waters above. You still have the firmament in the midst or between the two waters and it fits the Hebrew understanding of firmament much better.

I picture the firmament as a large glasslike boundary which contains the first heaven inside it. It's filled with air, so it floats on the water, and the water is above it and below it, hint, hint. It's in the water and out of the water exactly as Peter tells us it was. Notice what else Peter tells us happened to that world, "THAT THEN WAS":

2 Peter 3:6
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed, totally.

*******

Assyrian:>>I wouldn't read too much into the Hebrew word for seas having the etymology 'roaring', Genesis doesn't mention the seas roaring, and besides it doesn't do anything to support you interpretation.

Thanks for your unsupported opinion. Here's mine:

Strong's H3220 - yam
יָם
Transliteration

yam

Pronunciation

yäm (Key)


Part of Speech

masculine noun


Root Word (Etymology)

From an unused root meaning to roar ​

TWOT Reference

871a​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) sea

As I posted. Seas is the Hebrew word which ONLY God could have known since it was BEFORE Adam was made. It comes from an unknown root word which means to ROAR. It's proof of God since there was NO man alive at the time to utter the word.

Assyrian:>>It doesn't tell you God 'added' the dry land, or that the dry land was originally in the waters above the firmament. Peter doesn't say that either.

Where in the world did you get the idea that the dry land was above anything? See if this helps, When God made the heaven (air) and the earth (ground), I picture Him putting great quantities of air, dust, and water in three giant buckets.

When He filled the firmament, first with water and then with dry ground, picture it as a huge globe, completely enclosed with a huge window in the top, to protect it from rain, which would sink it, with time, since there would be no way for the water to escape. Remember that this globe completely contained the world of Adam.

In the midst of the Mountain of Eden, water came from the ground and left there and split into four great rivers which watered the whole face of the ground of that world. It cannot be our world since there are NOT four rivers which flow from Mt. Everest, and water our entire world. I call it the Mountain of Eden since the rivers originated there and water flows downhill. The Bible doesn't say that but I know water flows to the lowest point.

Aman:>>It simply means that God called both A & E, Adam, in the Day they were created. As you know it means mankind and I think that's the point. Eve was made in the Image of Jesus Spiritually.
​

Assyrian:>>Genesis never says being made in the image of God meant 'Spiritually', it could just as easily refer to our mind, our intelligence and emotions. After all you think human intelligence must have come from Adam. There are lots of intelligent humans, which according to your ideas means their intelligence in the image of God, who aren't born again.

All of Adam's descendants are humans. Prehistoric people must trace their beginning to the bacteria which lived 3.7 Billion years ago, and certainly did NOT come from the Special Creation of Adam, the first Human. Adam lived on the first world in the middle of the water. We became Humans when our prehistoric ancestors married and produced today's humans with Noah's grandsons, great grandsons, etc. The LORD scattered us from Babel over the whole face of this Earth. That's WHEN we evolved from animal to human intelligence. That's God's Truth.

************

Assyrian:>>If you are talking about Adam and Eve meaning mankind, can you clarify when you think the sixth day made in God's image refers to. Is it
(1) During the lifetime of Adam before he sinned?
or is it
(2) Thousands of years later when Jesus' death and resurrection brought spiritual birth to all of mankind who put their faith in him?

Adam, like ALL MANKIND, had to be born of God's Spirit in order to receive Salvation and life Eternal. In order to be born in God's Spirit, you must believe in Jesus and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Faith in Jesus and His Holy Word is what saves us, and that is not of ourselves, but is a Gift from God, the Father.

********

Originally Posted by Aman

It's your time to explain WHY Adam was NOT made Spiritually on the 3rd Day, but was only made physically.
​

Assyrian:>>Not sure why you think I need to explain about how Adam was made on the third day, that is your idea. The human spirit is simply not mentioned in the Genesis creation accounts. The nearest you have is the reference in Genesis 2:7 the LORD God ...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
​

Aman:>>It reveals HOW Jesus gave temporary life to the creatures He made from the dust of the ground. He didn't make them alive Spiritually because ONLY the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can made a New Person in Christ. God said, Let US make man in OUR Image.
​

Assyrian:>>So nothing for me to have to explain here?

Do you agree with my views?

Assyrian:>>You said nothing about the reason there were no plants in Genesis 1.
​

Aman:>>All the plants were made AFTER the first Earth was made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12 and Genesis 2:8 shows that this was AFTER man was made.
​

Assyrian:>>You are still saying nothing about the reason there were no plants. Talking about what happened and when it happened is not the same as explain the reason why it hadn't happen before then. An explanation for the lack of plants is given in Genesis 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. You need to tell us how that explanation works on day three in Genesis 1, after dry land appeared, but before the plants were created. So far you have failed.

Picture the huge globe filled with water and dry ground. It didn't rain because the windows on high were closed. Then, when Noah was 600:

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Remember that it was February 17th when the windows were opened.

Assyrian:>>Sorry evolution say nothing about hominids hybridising with the occupants of an interplanetary Ark. Evolution shows us that modern humans evolved in Africa from earlier hominids, and that the ones who migrated out of Africa interbred with earlier migrants out of Africa like Neanderthals and Denisovans. Of course you don't need Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA to be intelligent.
​

Aman:>>I agree. The only way to become Human is to inherit the higher intelligence of Adam. Today's Evolution cannot tell us HOW Or WHEN we evolved from animal to human intelligence because it hasn't learned How to tell the difference between animal and human intelligence, today.
​

Assyrian:>>How is that agreeing with me?

I agree that today's Evolution knows NOTHING about how and when we changed from animal to human intelligence. They are totally ignorant.

Assyrian:>>You aren't dealing with what science has shown us, the relationship between animals and human intelligence, and you are basing you argument on what science hasn't shown us, a supposed difference between human and animal intelligence that you believe could not have evolved. This is not science agreeing with your interpretation of the bible, this is you ignoring what science has shown us, and claiming your interpretation fits what science hasn't shown.

God tells us in ll Peter 3:3-7 that the Scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned. That has NOTHING to do with my interpretation but is prophecy of things to come in the last days. Since I now know what scoffers are going to do at the end of time, I am simply believing the prophecy of this event recorded by God Himself.

Assyrian:>>Any trait in human intelligence you will find precursors among animals. They have their own words, vervet monkeys have different cries that can mean snake, leopard or eagle, prairie dogs can make up with specific warning cries like here comes that human in the yellow shirt; animals can have a concept of fairness; a concept of number; they can have culture and can teach each other skills they have learned. You also need to understand how these traits can develop as mental capacity grows. Look at a toddler as they grow, when they start to learn to speak they less of a vocabulary than Koko the gorilla, They can manage dadda, mamma, cup and make very good use of 'no'. As their vocabulary develops they can start stringing words together in the right order and learn grammar and how to use metaphors.

The difference between human and animal intelligence is that animals don't have the ability to know good and evil. Only humans and God know the difference. Only the descendants of Adam are humans.

The writer of Scripture is God. He knew what Day man was made BEFORE He began His Creation. If it didn't, He wouldn't be God. The problem with being the Supreme intelligence of Creation is to communicate this to mortal people.
​

Assyrian:>>And yet we find the idea of man being made on the sixth day in Genesis 1, something you dismiss as a silly notion. Is it a silly notion, or was it inspired by God? Perhaps it is you thinking it is a silly notion that is what's silly.

I agree that that's silly because man was "made" or formed physically on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7

************Continued

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Not if the first world were much smaller than our's and was in the water and out of the water, floating in the waters of Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat.
​

Assyrian:>>I though you claimed the dry land that appeared on day three came from outside the firmament. Is that the dry land we see today including the mountains of Ararat, or is it the mini planet you have floating in Lake Van?

It is the mini planet which God placed in the Lake, the globe, which is filled with water and ground from the original creation of those elements. The mountains of Ararat are a recent formation and came some 9 Billion years after the Big Bang.

Assyrian:>>You seem to be basing your understanding of 2Peter 3:5 on the AV the earth standing out of the water and in the water. It is a bad translation to start with. You should check out Some modern translations.
ESV the earth was formed out of water and through water
NASB the earth was formedout of water and by water,
NIV the earth was formed out of water and by water,

The water in Genesis 1:2 came from the air or heaven which was made in Genesis 1:1. Scripture does NOT say the earth was fromed out of the water, through water, nor by water. That's WHY I stick to the KJV, which allows me access to the original Hebrew and Greek.

Assyrian:>>Another problem is that you seem to be reading that as post flood rather than a description of the creation. In fact you just quoted it referring to day three in Genesis 1, how can it refer to the flood?

The Flood happened some 10k years ago. It has nothing to do with Day 3.

Aman:>>The increase in intelligence is obvious. The sons of God (Prehistoric man) was no dummy....BUT....neither was Adam. Adding the higher intelligence level of Adam to the descendants of Mitochondrial Eve produces today's humans. It's nothing new. It happened on the first Earth when Cain's descendants had smelting, musical instrument building, city building and high technology which ONLY humans have. Might I add, with little or No Evolution. Read Genesis 4 and try to make that fit with your ideas.
​

Assyrian:>>You are mistaking culture and technology for intelligence. There are tribes of modern humans around the world still living a stone age hunter gatherer existence. Are you saying they are not intelligent or that they need to interbreed with the more intelligent colonists before their children can take their place in modern human society? I presume you don't believe that, but if as you claim human intelligence automatically results in the development of cities and technology, why are intelligent modern humans still living in the stone age? And if it is possible for intelligent modern humans to still live as stone age hunter gatherers today, then there is no reason why there weren't intelligent modern humans on earth for thousands of years before the right conditions in the middle east led to the development of agriculture, cities, writing and a rapid increase in technology.

Farming, city building, smelting, tent making, and musical instruments were made by Cain's descendants on the first world. They show a higher intelligence level than ANY prehistoric man living in a Cave. Notice also that they did NOT have the long period of evolution which you think produces human intelligence.

********

Aman:>>I'm the only person I know who shows that Scripture supports Evolution, which I prefer to call Adaptation. Genesis 6:4 shows that the sons of God (Prehistoric man) married and produced children, mighty men, men of reknown, and Giants intellectually. These offsrping were Humans. Only the descedants of Adam are human.
​

Assyrian:>>Try showing from scripture that the 'sons of God' refer to cavemen, try showing that nephilim were 'intellectual giants' rather than renowned warriors.


Genesis 6:4 is speaking of the OFFSPRING who were excellent, noble, and skilful, mighty men, men of reknown, giants intellectually, is indicated. The Nephilim were the sons of God. Caveman is a scientific slang term to the sons of God.


*********
Aman:>>I accept Factual Science but I find problems with the false assumptions of some of today's scientists. My main problem with the TOE is that it falsely assumes we evolved our human intelligence over long periods of time.

Assyrian:>>Accepting science mean accepting what science considers science, not picking an choosing whatever bits fit you fantastical views.

What do you do when Science is incorrect according to God? A good example is the unsupported idea that we inherited our human intelligence from mindless Nature. God tells us it came from Adam, the first human, who was made from the dust of the ground long BEFORE any other living creature.

Aman:>>I show that this false Theory is wrong by showing that since Lucy walked this Earth, that in less than 1% of that time have we grown our own food.
We began to farm just South of the mountains of Ararat, and there you will find the FIRST human cities on this Planet, shown in Scripture to be built by one of Noah's great grandchildren. His name is Nimrod and he is the FIRST generation of Humans to inhabit our world. He is the product of Noah's grandson, who had NO other human to marry, and a prehistoric woman, whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day.
​

Assyrian:>>That area of Turkey is also the first wild wheat was formed through natural hybridisation between grasses about 10,000 years before it was domesticated. Modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, but wheat wasn't. When the first wild wheat appeared, it was also the period of the ice age coming to an end then going into the refreeze of the Younger Dryas. Was the original hybrid even suitable for domestication, or did it need thousands of years of adaptation to changing climate before it was also suitable for agriculture? The advent of agriculture in Anatolia had to wait until there were plants suitable for domestication growing in an area where the climate was suitable for agriculture too.

Perhaps it came with Noah, since he arrived in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, from a world which had agriculture, and seeds. Did you ever consider that?

Aman:>>Count it for yourself. Noah's grandson, like Cain, had NO other human to marry. He married a woman whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day. The offsping of that union was Noah's great grandson, Nimrod. He is the combination of the descendants of Adam AND the descendants of Mitochondrial Eve, on our Earth. The proof? Today, ALL Humans on this Planet are the same as Nimrod.
​

Assyrian:>>Sorry still nothing about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation.

Noahs grandsons had NO other humans to marry.
They married and produced children with Adam's intelligence.

Nimrod, one of Noah's great grandsons, was the first geneation of today's humans. He built the FIRST human cities, on this planet in just ONE generation, removed from a prehistoric mother, IF you believe God instead of man. Genesis 10 This is Scriptural evidence of the evolution of humans from prehistoric people. That's God's Truth.

***********
Aman:>>I didn't do that. I read it for what it said, instead of listening to the obviously confused people who told me to just accept it by faith in their views. I knew it was God's Truth when it agreed with every other discovered Truth of mankind.

Assyrian:>>You mean every discovered truth you agree with because it agrees with your interpretation?

No, but I've been online for more than 15 years debating Evols. In all that time NO Christian has ever refuted me Scripturally. Young Earthers can see that I'm the youngest of the young earthers, Old Earthers can see that I agree that the Big Bang was more than 13.7 Billion years ago, in man's time, but just 3 Days ago, in God's time.

Then we get to the Theistic Evols, who want to believe that we evolved from creatures which came before us. This is UnScriptural and refuted by Genesis 2:4-7 which clearly shows that man was made the 3rd Day, after the Earth but Before the plants, herbs, and rain. They don't seem to like me, because I show that Scripturally, they are wrong.

Aman:>>I've grown enough.
​

Assyrian:>>The bible is quite keen on us being teachable, no so much so being wise in our own eyes.

It's not that. It's a matter of time for me. If I don't share some of my study with others now, it will soon be too late to share with them, on this earth. I'll be happy to discuss it tomorrow.

Aman:>>My problem now is to get people who are stuck in their own views to actually read it for themselves. Some are as confused as you seem to be, and cannot refute my views Scripturally, so they imply that it can't be the Truth. It couldn't be, because they haven't seen it before, they tell themselves.
​

Assyrian:>>You problem is people can see for themselves that scripture doesn't say all the thing you read into it.

I get no complaints from Bible readers and born again Christians. My opponants are my teachers, and my chief teachers keep trying to get Scripture to disagree with their belief in "Science", but it doesn't. The problem is with my teacher's distorted views caused by believing in the knowledge of this world instead of measuring it against God's standard.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

You are getting the idea. They need to be square brackets [ ] rather than curly brackets { } or round brackets ( ). Instead of having to write out the quote tags yourself each time, just highlight the text you want in quote tags and press the quote button

. Preview the results before you post and you will see if you have the right sequence of quote and unquote tags

Not so. Genesis 1:6-8 tells us the 1st "heaven" was made the 2nd day.
Genesis 2:4 tells us of other heavens made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made. I have NEVER limited the number of heavens made. The least number that fits the text would be 3, IMHO. There could be a Million or more, but that's my unsupported opinion.

Ok so there could be more than three, where do you get the numbers of these heavens? They aren't mentioned in Genesis.

Then you are assuming that they are numbered chronologically rather than spatially. If the third heaven really is the 'highest heaven' the bible speaks about, then maybe it is called the third heaven because it is highest.

It is the object of the Creation. When God is Finished with His Creation of the Third Heaven, and it is filled with ALL the host of it, God will CEASE creating, which is what rest means in Hebrew. That is FUTURE to our time, since we live today on the 6th Day.

How does that explain how the heavens were numbered and what numbers were created on what day?

Then there is the problem with your identification of first, second and third heavens with the heavens mentioned in Genesis 1&2 when Genesis doesn't number them. Why is the first heaven made on the second day, when we are told God created the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1?

Genesis 1:1 is telling us of the creation of the basic elements which will be used by Jesus to build a perfect, PHYSICAL, heaven. So God created or brought into the physical world air and dust, but everything God had made apart from Himself was filled with darkness and death. God spoke, "Let there be Light" and Jesus came forth from within the Invisible Spirit of God, and took the air, dust , and water, which came from the air, to make everything which exists physically.

How does that answer my question?

Sure there is. Here it is:

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 speaking of the THIRD Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-10

That is Genesis 2, it isn't mentioned on day three in Genesis 1. Day three is all about making the land and sea and filling the land with plants. You keep adding more stuff in that isn't there.

Peter speaks of the world (kosmos) that "THEN WAS" as being totally and completely destroyed in the Flood.

Just because the Greek word is kosmos, it doesn't mean it's the same as the English word cosmos. John 3:6 says 'For God so loved the kosmos' is it talking about the people of the earth, or does it mean God really loved the firmament?

There are references to the 1st heaven being destroyed from Genesis 6:13 to Revelation 21:1. God even tells Noah that Never again will He destroy the earth in a flood. Genesis 9:11 KJV - And I will establish my covenant with - Bible Gateway

Genesis 6:13 doesn't say the first heaven was destroyed nor does Genesis 9:11, and if the first heaven is going to be destroyed in Rev 21:1 how can you say it was already destroyed in the flood?

I really don't know if this is a comprehension problem with you or not. You are still talking about what happened and when, but you are completely failing to address the issue of why or why not. Genesis 2 tells us why there were no plants in Gen 2:5. You haven't yet answered how this explanation fits the plant free world of Gen 1:10.

It's obviously God's way of adding information as He goes along with His narrative. A little here, a little there, precept upon precept...

Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;

You really can't answer the question can you?

That fact alone destroys your 'man made on the third day' idea. Te passages simply don't line up.

Here's the sequence. God made air, dust, and water, and Jesus came forth into the physical world on the first Day. We know Jesus was there because He prays to the Father, just before His Crucifixion, to return to Him the Glory which He had with the Father BEFORE the world was. The ONLY Day before the firmament of the first world was made is the 1st Day.

Actually there was eternity before the earth was created. There is also no mention of firmament on the first day, creating the heavens and the earth, yes, but no firmament.

Jesus made that firmament which was the boundary of the first world. We are told in Genesis 1:6-8 that Jesus put that firmament in the midst or middle of the water. We know it was filled with air for God called it Heaven. We kinow it was in the water and out of the water which indicates it was floating.

I addressed you misunderstanding of 2Peter 3 in the following post, post 21.

We also know it was "clean dissolved" in the waters of the Flood. Adam was never a part of our Cosmos.

The only passage I can find that uses the phrase 'clean dissolved' is Isaiah 24:19 in the AV The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. But the whole passage is about a future destruction of the whole earth. 21 On that day the LORD will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth.

The firmament was empty. I picture it as a giant plastic bubble. God twisted the water and it roared as He placed some of the water inside the firmament. Then He added dry ground, and called it Earth. If it doesn't sound much like our world, you would be correct. Genesis doesn't say what we have been told it says.

I thought the firmament was created between the waters, Gen 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water”, not created as an empty bubble and water brought in. It doesn't God added dry land either. You haven't addressed what I said about the Hebrew word ra'ah and the meaning of let dry land appearGen 1:9.

Assyrian:>>It doesn't say the firmament was floating on the waters below. If the firmament refers to the heavens as Genesis shows us, then the firmament is probably much higher than you suggest, and Gen 1:6-8 may be describing a situation where you have the waters below, a gap contain what we refer to as air, then the firmament hold up the waters above. You still have the firmament in the midst or between the two waters and it fits the Hebrew understanding of firmament much better.

I picture the firmament as a large glasslike boundary which contains the first heaven inside it. It's filled with air, so it floats on the water, and the water is above it and below it, hint, hint. It's in the water and out of the water exactly as Peter tells us it was.

So your picture is this?
[FONT=&quot]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[FONT=&quot]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ waters above the firmament
~~~~[/FONT][sup][FONT=&quot]([/FONT][FONT=&quot]air[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT][/sup][FONT=&quot]~~~~~~ air (and dust) filled firmament bubble floating partly out of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ and partly in the water
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/FONT]

Of course Peter doesn't say the firmament was 'standing out of the water and in the water' as the AV puts it, he says 2Pet 3:5 and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. You are right that there is probably air inside the firmament, but you need to remember what the firmament meant to an ancient Hebrew like David, it meant the skies or the heavens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ waters above the firmament
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀[FONT=&quot] firmament
air air air air air air
air air air air air air
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ waters below the firmament

When the waters were gathered to one place and dry land appeared you had;

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ waters above the firmament
[/FONT]▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ the firmament
air air air air air
_________ air air
the earth\ air air standing out of the water
..........\~~~~~~
..... .....\~~~~~ and in the water

Notice what else Peter tells us happened to that world, "THAT THEN WAS":
2 Peter 3:6
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed, totally.

That isn't the firmament either, it is the same word as here 2Pe 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. It was the world of the ungodly, their violent and wicked civilisation and society that was destroyed.

*******

Assyrian:>>I wouldn't read too much into the Hebrew word for seas having the etymology 'roaring', Genesis doesn't mention the seas roaring, and besides it doesn't do anything to support you interpretation.

Thanks for your unsupported opinion. Here's mine:

Strong's H3220 - yam
יָם
Transliteration
yam
Pronunciation
yäm (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From an unused root meaning to roar
TWOT Reference
871a
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) sea

As I posted. Seas is the Hebrew word which ONLY God could have known since it was BEFORE Adam was made. It comes from an unknown root word which means to ROAR. It's proof of God since there was NO man alive at the time to utter the word.

You should have looked at the Gesenius Lexicon in your Blue Letter bible link. It says the derivation is conjecture. Since you realise God communicated his word in the language of the Hebrews, you should realise the meaning of the words is what they meant in Hebrew and God used the Hebrew word for the seas. If he wanted to say the seas roared, he would have used the Hebrew word for roar, but he didn't.

Assyrian:>>It doesn't tell you God 'added' the dry land, or that the dry land was originally in the waters above the firmament. Peter doesn't say that either.

Where in the world did you get the idea that the dry land was above anything? See if this helps, When God made the heaven (air) and the earth (ground), I picture Him putting great quantities of air, dust, and water in three giant buckets.

When He filled the firmament, first with water and then with dry ground, picture it as a huge globe, completely enclosed with a huge window in the top, to protect it from rain, which would sink it, with time, since there would be no way for the water to escape. Remember that this globe completely contained the world of Adam.

So what land was added to the waters below the firmament and where does it say the land was added?

to be...
[/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

...continued

In the midst of the Mountain of Eden, water came from the ground and left there and split into four great rivers which watered the whole face of the ground of that world. It cannot be our world since there are NOT four rivers which flow from Mt. Everest, and water our entire world. I call it the Mountain of Eden since the rivers originated there and water flows downhill. The Bible doesn't say that but I know water flows to the lowest point.

Mt Everest???

Assyrian:>>Genesis never says being made in the image of God meant 'Spiritually', it could just as easily refer to our mind, our intelligence and emotions. After all you think human intelligence must have come from Adam. There are lots of intelligent humans, which according to your ideas means their intelligence in the image of God, who aren't born again.

All of Adam's descendants are humans. Prehistoric people must trace their beginning to the bacteria which lived 3.7 Billion years ago, and certainly did NOT come from the Special Creation of Adam, the first Human. Adam lived on the first world in the middle of the water. We became Humans when our prehistoric ancestors married and produced today's humans with Noah's grandsons, great grandsons, etc. The LORD scattered us from Babel over the whole face of this Earth. That's WHEN we evolved from animal to human intelligence. That's God's Truth.

You haven't addressed my point, just restated you views.

Assyrian:>>If you are talking about Adam and Eve meaning mankind, can you clarify when you think the sixth day made in God's image refers to. Is it
(1) During the lifetime of Adam before he sinned?
or is it
(2) Thousands of years later when Jesus' death and resurrection brought spiritual birth to all of mankind who put their faith in him?

Adam, like ALL MANKIND, had to be born of God's Spirit in order to receive Salvation and life Eternal. In order to be born in God's Spirit, you must believe in Jesus and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Faith in Jesus and His Holy Word is what saves us, and that is not of ourselves, but is a Gift from God, the Father.

I am trying to understand your interpretation here, could you please answer my questions.

Do you agree with my views?

Of course not. Your question was based on on your views being right, Adam being made on the third day. Since I don't believe that, there was nothing in your question for me to answer.

Picture the huge globe filled with water and dry ground. It didn't rain because the windows on high were closed. Then, when Noah was 600:
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Remember that it was February 17th when the windows were opened.

You really can't answer the question can you? Here it is again

Assyrian:>>You are still saying nothing about the reason there were no plants. Talking about what happened and when it happened is not the same as explain the reason why it hadn't happen before then. An explanation for the lack of plants is given in Genesis 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. You need to tell us how that explanation works on day three in Genesis 1, after dry land appeared, but before the plants were created. So far you have failed.
​

When you write you reply to it this time, don't just explain you views over and over again, try to answer the question I am asking you. Then read back over it. Ask yourself if explains the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10 and if the reason in Gen 1 it fits the reason given for no plants in Gen 2:5.

I agree that today's Evolution knows NOTHING about how and when we changed from animal to human intelligence. They are totally ignorant.

Science does know a lot about the change from animal to human intelligence. Not having scientific evidence for something that you made up, is hardly ignorance.

God tells us in ll Peter 3:3-7 that the Scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned. That has NOTHING to do with my interpretation but is prophecy of things to come in the last days. Since I now know what scoffers are going to do at the end of time, I am simply believing the prophecy of this event recorded by God Himself.

I don't think Peter mentioned the origin of human intelligence or that we got it from interplanetary travellers who interbred with cavemen.

The difference between human and animal intelligence is that animals don't have the ability to know good and evil. Only humans and God know the difference. Only the descendants of Adam are humans.

Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that some animals have a sense of fairness? Our moral understanding is simply more developed than theirs.

I agree that that's silly because man was "made" or formed physically on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7

I was talking about what it says in Genesis 1.

Assyrian:>>I though you claimed the dry land that appeared on day three came from outside the firmament. Is that the dry land we see today including the mountains of Ararat, or is it the mini planet you have floating in Lake Van?

It is the mini planet which God placed in the Lake, the globe, which is filled with water and ground from the original creation of those elements. The mountains of Ararat are a recent formation and came some 9 Billion years after the Big Bang.

So is there any mention of God creating the world of Ararat, the world we all live in, where the Israelites all lived?

The water in Genesis 1:2 came from the air or heaven which was made in Genesis 1:1. Scripture does NOT say the earth was fromed out of the water, through water, nor by water. That's WHY I stick to the KJV, which allows me access to the original Hebrew and Greek.

The KJV was written in Jacobean English not Hebrew and Greek, by scholars who know less about Hebrew and Greek than the scholars who translate our modern bibles.

Assyrian:>>Another problem is that you seem to be reading that as post flood rather than a description of the creation. In fact you just quoted it referring to day three in Genesis 1, how can it refer to the flood?

The Flood happened some 10k years ago. It has nothing to do with Day 3.

Then why did you quote the reference talking about day three:

Originally Posted by Aman777 Now, the firmament had water inside it and outside it. God added "dry ground" and called it Earth. It was the world of Adam. Peter tells us it was in the water and out of the water. ll Peter 3:5
​

Farming, city building, smelting, tent making, and musical instruments were made by Cain's descendants on the first world. They show a higher intelligence level than ANY prehistoric man living in a Cave. Notice also that they did NOT have the long period of evolution which you think produces human intelligence.

I notice you made no attempt to address my point. This is getting pretty tedious Aman.

Assyrian:>>Try showing from scripture that the 'sons of God' refer to cavemen, try showing that nephilim were 'intellectual giants' rather than renowned warriors.

Genesis 6:4 is speaking of the OFFSPRING who were excellent, noble, and skilful, mighty men, men of reknown, giants intellectually, is indicated. The Nephilim were the sons of God. Caveman is a scientific slang term to the sons of God.

In other words, you can't.

What do you do when Science is incorrect according to God? A good example is the unsupported idea that we inherited our human intelligence from mindless Nature. God tells us it came from Adam, the first human, who was made from the dust of the ground long BEFORE any other living creature.

If you don't like science, stop pretending it agrees with your interpretation of scripture.

Assyrian:>>That area of Turkey is also the first wild wheat was formed through natural hybridisation between grasses about 10,000 years before it was domesticated. Modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, but wheat wasn't. When the first wild wheat appeared, it was also the period of the ice age coming to an end then going into the refreeze of the Younger Dryas. Was the original hybrid even suitable for domestication, or did it need thousands of years of adaptation to changing climate before it was also suitable for agriculture? The advent of agriculture in Anatolia had to wait until there were plants suitable for domestication growing in an area where the climate was suitable for agriculture too.

Perhaps it came with Noah, since he arrived in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, from a world which had agriculture, and seeds. Did you ever consider that?

So it is just coincidence that the wheat seeds Noah brought from another planet fit the genomes of wild grasses that just happen to have been growing in the region where his interplanetary Ark landed?

Assyrian:>>Sorry still nothing about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation.

Noahs grandsons had NO other humans to marry.
They married and produced children with Adam's intelligence.
Nimrod, one of Noah's great grandsons, was the first geneation of today's humans. He built the FIRST human cities, on this planet in just ONE generation, removed from a prehistoric mother, IF you believe God instead of man. Genesis 10 This is Scriptural evidence of the evolution of humans from prehistoric people. That's God's Truth.

You are still haven't show anything in scripture about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation. Where does it say Nimrod's mother was an unintelligent cave woman?

No, but I've been online for more than 15 years debating Evols. In all that time NO Christian has ever refuted me Scripturally. Young Earthers can see that I'm the youngest of the young earthers, Old Earthers can see that I agree that the Big Bang was more than 13.7 Billion years ago, in man's time, but just 3 Days ago, in God's time.

Then we get to the Theistic Evols, who want to believe that we evolved from creatures which came before us. This is UnScriptural and refuted by Genesis 2:4-7 which clearly shows that man was made the 3rd Day, after the Earth but Before the plants, herbs, and rain. They don't seem to like me, because I show that Scripturally, they are wrong.

When you say none of them could refute you, is that because you ignored every point you couldn't answer?

It's not that. It's a matter of time for me. If I don't share some of my study with others now, it will soon be too late to share with them, on this earth. I'll be happy to discuss it tomorrow.

Then again if you are not teachable you won't be able to see any of your errors and all the time you spend sharing your ideas will simply be wasted.

I get no complaints from Bible readers and born again Christians. My opponants are my teachers, and my chief teachers keep trying to get Scripture to disagree with their belief in "Science", but it doesn't. The problem is with my teacher's distorted views caused by believing in the knowledge of this world instead of measuring it against God's standard.

In Love,
Aman

I'm born again, read the bible, and can see for myself scripture doesn't say the things you read into it.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Not so. Genesis 1:6-8 tells us the 1st "heaven" was made the 2nd day.
Genesis 2:4 tells us of other heavens made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made. I have NEVER limited the number of heavens made. The least number that fits the text would be 3, IMHO. There could be a Million or more, but that's my unsupported opinion.
​

Assyrian:>>Ok so there could be more than three, where do you get the numbers of these heavens? They aren't mentioned in Genesis.

ll Peter 3:5 calls the first heaven the world that THEN WAS, and tells us it was totally destroyed in the Flood. It was made the 2nd Day.
ll Peter 3:6 calls our Cosmos the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW will be burned.
ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us Paul went to the 3rd Heaven, where Jesus is today.


Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>Then you are assuming that they are numbered chronologically rather than spatially. If the third heaven really is the 'highest heaven' the bible speaks about, then maybe it is called the third heaven because it is highest.
​

Aman:>>It is the object of the Creation. When God is Finished with His Creation of the Third Heaven, and it is filled with ALL the host of it, God will CEASE creating, which is what rest means in Hebrew. That is FUTURE to our time, since we live today on the 6th Day.
​

Assyrian:>>How does that explain how the heavens were numbered and what numbers were created on what day?

It doesn't. You have to read the entire Bible and be born Spiritually to understand.

Assyrian:>>Then there is the problem with your identification of first, second and third heavens with the heavens mentioned in Genesis 1&2 when Genesis doesn't number them. Why is the first heaven made on the second day, when we are told God created the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1?

In the beginning God created the heaven (air) and the earth (ground). And the earth (ground) was without form and void....

These are the ingredients Jesus will use to make everything which exists physically. Notice the Earth is without form. It's NOT our Planet Earth for it's just dust, unformed dust, empty dead dust, but mix it with water and you can fashion anything you want. The first Planet Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10
​

Aman:>>Genesis 1:1 is telling us of the creation of the basic elements which will be used by Jesus to build a perfect, PHYSICAL, heaven. So God created or brought into the physical world air and dust, but everything God had made apart from Himself was filled with darkness and death. God spoke, "Let there be Light" and Jesus came forth from within the Invisible Spirit of God, and took the air, dust , and water, which came from the air, to make everything which exists physically.
​

Assyrian:>>How does that answer my question?

You had confused God making the Planet Earth with His creation of the ground or dust. My words are in answer to your confusion.

Aman:>>Sure there is. Here it is:

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 speaking of the THIRD Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made, the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-10
​

Assyrian:>>That is Genesis 2, it isn't mentioned on day three in Genesis 1. Day three is all about making the land and sea and filling the land with plants. You keep adding more stuff in that isn't there.

Not so. Genesis 2:4 takes us BACK to the 3rd Day and adds information which Genesis 1 did not explain. It's the SAME way with ALL of the rest of Scripture. ALL Scripture points BACK to the OUTLINE of the 7 Days or Ages of Creation told in Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3.

The entire History of God's Creation, written BEFORE the events happen, is contained in the first Chapter of Genesis and 3 verses of Genesis two. The details are contained in the rest of the Bible and refer BACK to the events of these 7 Days. It's PROOF of God since NO man could write our History BEFORE the events happen.

Aman:>>Peter speaks of the world (kosmos) that "THEN WAS" as being totally and completely destroyed in the Flood.
​

Assyrian:>>Just because the Greek word is kosmos, it doesn't mean it's the same as the English word cosmos. John 3:6 says 'For God so loved the kosmos' is it talking about the people of the earth, or does it mean God really loved the firmament?

He didn't love the sin of that world either nor of the present "heavens and earth" which Peter calls the world WHICH IS NOW, which is scheduled to be burned. Perhaps He is speaking of the 3rd Heaven, wherein dwelleth righteousness,

There are references to the 1st heaven being destroyed from Genesis 6:13 to Revelation 21:1. God even tells Noah that Never again will He destroy the earth in a flood. Genesis 9:11 KJV - And I will establish my covenant with - Bible Gateway
​

Genesis 6:13 doesn't say the first heaven was destroyed nor does Genesis 9:11, and if the first heaven is going to be destroyed in Rev 21:1 how can you say it was already destroyed in the flood?

I really don't know if this is a comprehension problem with you or not. You are still talking about what happened and when, but you are completely failing to address the issue of why or why not. Genesis 2 tells us why there were no plants in Gen 2:5. You haven't yet answered how this explanation fits the plant free world of Gen 1:10.
​

It's obviously God's way of adding information as He goes along with His narrative. A little here, a little there, precept upon precept...

Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth;
​

You really can't answer the question can you?

That fact alone destroys your 'man made on the third day' idea. Te passages simply don't line up.

Here's the sequence. God made air, dust, and water, and Jesus came forth into the physical world on the first Day. We know Jesus was there because He prays to the Father, just before His Crucifixion, to return to Him the Glory which He had with the Father BEFORE the world was. The ONLY Day before the firmament of the first world was made is the 1st Day.
​

Actually there was eternity before the earth was created. There is also no mention of firmament on the first day, creating the heavens and the earth, yes, but no firmament.

Jesus made that firmament which was the boundary of the first world. We are told in Genesis 1:6-8 that Jesus put that firmament in the midst or middle of the water. We know it was filled with air for God called it Heaven. We kinow it was in the water and out of the water which indicates it was floating.
​

I addressed you misunderstanding of 2Peter 3 in the following post, post 21.

We also know it was "clean dissolved" in the waters of the Flood. Adam was never a part of our Cosmos.
​

The only passage I can find that uses the phrase 'clean dissolved' is Isaiah 24:19 in the AV The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. But the whole passage is about a future destruction of the whole earth. 21 On that day the LORD will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth.

The firmament was empty. I picture it as a giant plastic bubble. God twisted the water and it roared as He placed some of the water inside the firmament. Then He added dry ground, and called it Earth. If it doesn't sound much like our world, you would be correct. Genesis doesn't say what we have been told it says.
​

I thought the firmament was created between the waters, Gen 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water”, not created as an empty bubble and water brought in. It doesn't God added dry land either. You haven't addressed what I said about the Hebrew word ra'ah and the meaning of let dry land appearGen 1:9.

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>You really can't answer the question can you? Here it is again

Assyrian:>>You are still saying nothing about the reason there were no plants. Talking about what happened and when it happened is not the same as explain the reason why it hadn't happen before then. An explanation for the lack of plants is given in Genesis 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. You need to tell us how that explanation works on day three in Genesis 1, after dry land appeared, but before the plants were created. So far you have failed.
​

When you write you reply to it this time, don't just explain you views over and over again, try to answer the question I am asking you. Then read back over it. Ask yourself if explains the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10 and if the reason in Gen 1 it fits the reason given for no plants in Gen 2:5.

Dear Assyrian, The reason there were no plants is that they hadn't been made yet. They grew in Genesis 1:12 and in Genesis 2:8 AFTER man was made from the dust of the ground.

The plants and herbs GREW after man was made. This was on the 3rd Day. Can you refute that Scripturally? I don't think you can.


In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>God tells us in ll Peter 3:3-7 that the Scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned. That has NOTHING to do with my interpretation but is prophecy of things to come in the last days. Since I now know what scoffers are going to do at the end of time, I am simply believing the prophecy of this event recorded by God Himself.
​

Assyrian:>>I don't think Peter mentioned the origin of human intelligence or that we got it from interplanetary travellers who interbred with cavemen.

Dear Assyrian, Nice side step. Peter didn't mention a lot of things, but let's concentrate on what he did mention. He mentioned that Scoffers (Unbelievers) in the last Days would NOT believe, but be Willingly Ignorant, that the first world was totally destroyed in the Flood, and that our world will be burned.

Your reply focused on me and NOT on what Peter said. Do you believe that the first Earth was totally destroyed in the Flood and that our world will be burned?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>Try showing from scripture that the 'sons of God' refer to cavemen, try showing that nephilim were 'intellectual giants' rather than renowned warriors.
​

Aman:>>Genesis 6:4 is speaking of the OFFSPRING who were excellent, noble, and skilful, mighty men, men of reknown, giants intellectually, is indicated. The Nephilim were the sons of God. Caveman is a scientific slang term to the sons of God.
​

Assyrian:>>In other words, you can't.

Dear Assyrian, Of course I can. Here is the verse I was speaking about:

Gen 6:4 There 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.

This verse is speaking of intellectual giants, and not big people. The is shown at the end of the verse when God calls the Offsping of the sons of God (prehistoric man) and the daughters of men (Heb-Adam) as being mighty men and men of renown.

The sons of God (which you call Caveman) were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Since prehistoric man moved, he is included in the creatures which were made from the water on the 5th Day. Science agrees that all life on our Planet had it's origin in the water. The cells within our bodies cannot live without water. Prehistoric man had his origin in the water.

This explains WHERE Cain's wife came from on the 1st Earth AND fulfills the prophecy which is found in Genesis Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,

The intellectual giants appeared on the first earth, the earth of Adam, when the sons of God married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first human. The fulfillment of the Prophecy couldn't happen but one time per world, and also after that means this will be repeated again:

It was repeated again when the descendants of the sons of God, whose origin was in the water on our Earth, married and produced children with Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, on the first earth, had NO other humans to marry. Don't believe me? Then explain the "and also after that".

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>Sorry still nothing about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation.
​

Aman:>>Noahs grandsons had NO other humans to marry.
They married and produced children with Adam's intelligence.
Nimrod, one of Noah's great grandsons, was the first geneation of today's humans. He built the FIRST human cities, on this planet in just ONE generation, removed from a prehistoric mother, IF you believe God instead of man. Genesis 10 This is Scriptural evidence of the evolution of humans from prehistoric people. That's God's Truth.
​

Assyrian:>>You are still haven't show anything in scripture about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation. Where does it say Nimrod's mother was an unintelligent cave woman?

Dear Assyrian, Where did she come from? Noah's 3 sons were married to the only other humans on this Planet, and their sons had NO other humans to marry. They were exactly like Cain was on the first Earth.

Cush married a prehistoric woman and produced Nimrod showing that the combination of the sons of God and Adam's descendants produced today's humans. It's takes 9 months to produce a Human baby. That is LESS than a generation, come to think of it.

Here's a good example of empirical evidence that this is God's Truth. Every human on this Earth has the human intelligence of Adam AND they also have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150k years ago. With YOUR understanding, explain that.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>It's not that. It's a matter of time for me. If I don't share some of my study with others now, it will soon be too late to share with them, on this earth. I'll be happy to discuss it tomorrow.
​

Assyrian:>>Then again if you are not teachable you won't be able to see any of your errors and all the time you spend sharing your ideas will simply be wasted.

Dear Assyrian, No they won't. I'm storing up treasures in heaven. That's what Jesus told me to do.

Aman:>>I get no complaints from Bible readers and born again Christians. My opponants are my teachers, and my chief teachers keep trying to get Scripture to disagree with their belief in "Science", but it doesn't. The problem is with my teacher's distorted views caused by believing in the knowledge of this world instead of measuring it against God's standard.
​

Assyrian:>>I'm born again, read the bible, and can see for myself scripture doesn't say the things you read into it.
​

Tell us how you were born again.

In Love,
Aman



​

 

[Assyrian]

ll Peter 3:5 calls the first heaven the world that THEN WAS, and tells us it was totally destroyed in the Flood. It was made the 2nd Day.

Sorry, no. Peter talks of the heavens existing long ago, but he doesn't say they were the first heaven. He talks of 'the world that then was' perishing in the flood, but he doesn't identify 'the world that then was' with the heavens he just mentioned.

ll Peter 3:6 calls our Cosmos the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW will be burned.

Peter only mentions the word kosmos with reference to the world that perished in the flood. He doesn't mention our kosmos or identify them with the heavens and earth that exist now.

ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us Paul went to the 3rd Heaven, where Jesus is today.

Yes you have a reference to one heaven that has a number attached to it, the third heaven, but you haven't identified it scripturally with any heaven mentioed in Genesis or 2 Peter, or given any scriptural basis for the numbers you attach to to any other heavens.

It doesn't. You have to read the entire Bible and be born Spiritually to understand.

So you haven't any scriptural basis for for you identification of the different numbered heavens, it is a secret you think was revealed to you by the Holy Spirit? That means it is our responsibility to test the revelations you bring to us to see if they really are from God.

You had confused God making the Planet Earth with His creation of the ground or dust. My words are in answer to your confusion.

My question was about the heavens created in Genesis 1 rather than the earth. You want to relabel heavens and earth in that verse as 'air' and 'dust', you can do that all you like, but the fact remains the bible called what God created 'heavens'. Whether they are air or not, they are still called heavens, so how do you know 'the first heaven' is the heavens from day two rather than the heavens in Genesis 1:1?

Not so. Genesis 2:4 takes us BACK to the 3rd Day and adds information which Genesis 1 did not explain. It's the SAME way with ALL of the rest of Scripture. ALL Scripture points BACK to the OUTLINE of the 7 Days or Ages of Creation told in Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3.

Genesis 2:4 says nothing about taking us back to the third day. It says in the day God created the heavens and the earth. If it is pointing us back to Genesis 1, you should look for a day where God made both heavens and earth. That isn't day three, God was working on the earth that day, not the heavens. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and making excuses for paring the corners of the round peg because that is where it is supposed to fit, God must have made it that way.

The entire History of God's Creation, written BEFORE the events happen, is contained in the first Chapter of Genesis and 3 verses of Genesis two. The details are contained in the rest of the Bible and refer BACK to the events of these 7 Days. It's PROOF of God since NO man could write our History BEFORE the events happen.

That has nothing to do with you interpretation being right.

He didn't love the sin of that world either nor of the present "heavens and earth" which Peter calls the world WHICH IS NOW, which is scheduled to be burned. Perhaps He is speaking of the 3rd Heaven, wherein dwelleth righteousness,

When John said God so loved the world, it means God loved the people. That is why John goes straight on to describe God sending his son to die for them. I suggest you either learn Greek properly or stick to decent English translations. Don't go thinking you understand the meaning of the Greek word kosmos because you know the English word cosmos.

Dear Assyrian, The reason there were no plants is that they hadn't been made yet. They grew in Genesis 1:12 and in Genesis 2:8 AFTER man was made from the dust of the ground.

The plants and herbs GREW after man was made. This was on the 3rd Day. Can you refute that Scripturally? I don't think you can.

In Love,
Aman

OK we have a bit more progress here. You are giving the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10, "they hadn't been created yet". But you still haven't addressed the rest of my question. Is this the reason given in Gen 2:5 for there not being any plants? Does the reason there were no plants in Gen 2:5 fit the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10?

Aman:>>God tells us in ll Peter 3:3-7 that the Scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned. That has NOTHING to do with my interpretation but is prophecy of things to come in the last days. Since I now know what scoffers are going to do at the end of time, I am simply believing the prophecy of thias event recorded by God Himself.
​

Assyrian:>>I don't think Peter mentioned the origin of human intelligence or that we got it from interplanetary travellers who interbred with cavemen.

Dear Assyrian, Nice side step. Peter didn't mention a lot of things, but let's concentrate on what he did mention. He mentioned that Scoffers (Unbelievers) in the last Days would NOT believe, but be Willingly Ignorant, that the first world was totally destroyed in the Flood, and that our world will be burned.

Your reply focused on me and NOT on what Peter said. Do you believe that the first Earth was totally destroyed in the Flood and that our world will be burned?

In Love,
Aman

The problem is, you quoted the 2Peter in response to our discussion about science and the origin of human intelligence. If Peter doesn't deal with that, then maybe you are the one sidestepping.

Dear Assyrian, Of course I can. Here is the verse I was speaking about:

Gen 6:4 There 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.

This verse is speaking of intellectual giants, and not big people. The is shown at the end of the verse when God calls the Offsping of the sons of God (prehistoric man) and the daughters of men (Heb-Adam) as being mighty men and men of renown.

The sons of God (which you call Caveman) were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Since prehistoric man moved, he is included in the creatures which were made from the water on the 5th Day. Science agrees that all life on our Planet had it's origin in the water. The cells within our bodies cannot live without water. Prehistoric man had his origin in the water.

This explains WHERE Cain's wife came from on the 1st Earth AND fulfills the prophecy which is found in Genesis Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,

The intellectual giants appeared on the first earth, the earth of Adam, when the sons of God married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first human. The fulfillment of the Prophecy couldn't happen but one time per world, and also after that means this will be repeated again:

It was repeated again when the descendants of the sons of God, whose origin was in the water on our Earth, married and produced children with Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, on the first earth, had NO other humans to marry. Don't believe me? Then explain the "and also after that".

In Love,
Aman

You are the one who used the term cavemen, but that isn't the issue here. Whether you call them hominins, hominids, primitive humans or cavemen, you still have to show this is what 'the sons of God' refers to. You also have to show the women Noah's grandchildren married were unintelligent, and you still have to show the Nephilim were intellectual giants.

Assyrian:>>You are still haven't show anything in scripture about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation. Where does it say Nimrod's mother was an unintelligent cave woman?

Dear Assyrian, Where did she come from? Noah's 3 sons were married to the only other humans on this Planet, and their sons had NO other humans to marry. They were exactly like Cain was on the first Earth.

Cush married a prehistoric woman and produced Nimrod showing that the combination of the sons of God and Adam's descendants produced today's humans. It's takes 9 months to produce a Human baby. That is LESS than a generation, come to think of it.

Here's a good example of empirical evidence that this is God's Truth. Every human on this Earth has the human intelligence of Adam AND they also have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150k years ago. With YOUR understanding, explain that.

In Love,
Aman

I have no problem with Noah's grandchildren marrying locals, my problem is your claim they were an unintelligent, primitive form of human and that there was a sudden jump in intelligence in the next generation as a result of interbreeding with extraterrestrials.

Dear Assyrian, No they won't. I'm storing up treasures in heaven. That's what Jesus told me to do.

Assuming Jesus told you to teach these strange ideas, but if you aren't teachable how will you find out if you are wrong.

Tell us how you were born again.

I was raised a Catholic but I came to the Lord through the Charismatic Renewal. I was just a teenager when I asked God to come into my life, he open up his word to me and taught me more and more about faith and salvation all he did for me through the cross. He is still teaching me about that.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

ll Peter 3:5 calls the first heaven the world that THEN WAS, and tells us it was totally destroyed in the Flood. It was made the 2nd Day.
​

Assyrian:>>Sorry, no. Peter talks of the heavens existing long ago, but he doesn't say they were the first heaven. He talks of 'the world that then was' perishing in the flood, but he doesn't identify 'the world that then was' with the heavens he just mentioned.

Dear Assyrian, You are correct IF you find it impossible to see the deep truth of the words. Try to explain Peter's total destruction of the first heaven, with YOUR understanding.

Aman:>>ll Peter 3:6 calls our Cosmos the heavens and earth WHICH ARE NOW will be burned.
​

Assyrian:>>Peter only mentions the word kosmos with reference to the world that perished in the flood.

I know. He tells us the first kosmos (Cosmos) the first world, the first heaven, the first Universe, was totally destroyed in the Flood. Correct?

Assyrian:>>He doesn't mention our kosmos or identify them with the heavens and earth that exist now.

Sure he does. He tells us that our heaven and earth will be burned. Instead of using the word kosmos, he uses the word heavens and earth. 2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire...

Can you see that kosmos and heavens and earth are both terms for the same thing?

Aman:>>ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us Paul went to the 3rd Heaven, where Jesus is today.
​

Assyrian:>>Yes you have a reference to one heaven that has a number attached to it, the third heaven, but you haven't identified it scripturally with any heaven mentioed in Genesis or 2 Peter, or given any scriptural basis for the numbers you attach to to any other heavens.

The first "Heaven" was made the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8
Other "Heavens" were made the 3rd Day. Gen. 2:4

Lets play a game. We know the first heaven was made the 2nd Day and the other heavens were made the 3rd Day, and we know that Scripture speaks of 3 heavens.

The first is different from the others because it is surrounded by water.
The third is the world to come, the perfect world of God.

Which one is missing? Why, it's our world, the 2nd heaven, which is not mentioned specifically, but is easy to discern. All you have to do is look out the window.

Aman:>>It doesn't. You have to read the entire Bible and be born Spiritually to understand.
​

Assyrian:>>So you haven't any scriptural basis for for you identification of the different numbered heavens, it is a secret you think was revealed to you by the Holy Spirit? That means it is our responsibility to test the revelations you bring to us to see if they really are from God.

Your premise in incorrect. I just laid out the scriptural basis for the different heavens, Scripturally.

Aman:>>You had confused God making the Planet Earth with His creation of the ground or dust. My words are in answer to your confusion.
​

Assyrian:>>My question was about the heavens created in Genesis 1 rather than the earth. You want to relabel heavens and earth in that verse as 'air' and 'dust', you can do that all you like, but the fact remains the bible called what God created 'heavens'. Whether they are air or not, they are still called heavens, so how do you know 'the first heaven' is the heavens from day two rather than the heavens in Genesis 1:1?

By the context of the verses. It is the beginning of the creation and God makes the heaven (air), earth (ground) and water. But the ground was without form and empty, and death was upon everything God had made apart from Himself. That is WHY the word "earth" is used in Genesis 1:1 and the word "Earth" is used in Genesis 1:10.

The old idea that everything is made of air, dust, and water, and those things which have life, also have fire, which completes the necessary ingredients to make EVERYthing which exists physically. Correct? With these physical ingredients Jesus will be able to produce a Singularity, in order to make our world. Correct?

Aman:>>Not so. Genesis 2:4 takes us BACK to the 3rd Day and adds information which Genesis 1 did not explain. It's the SAME way with ALL of the rest of Scripture. ALL Scripture points BACK to the OUTLINE of the 7 Days or Ages of Creation told in Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3.
​

Assyrian:>>Genesis 2:4 says nothing about taking us back to the third day. It says in the day God created the heavens and the earth. If it is pointing us back to Genesis 1, you should look for a day where God made both heavens and earth. That isn't day three, God was working on the earth that day, not the heavens. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and making excuses for paring the corners of the round peg because that is where it is supposed to fit, God must have made it that way.

Go back and look for the Day the Earth was made. It was the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:9-10
On that 3rd Day, the LORD made the plants to grow, but BEFORE that happens, the LORD makes man of the dust of the ground and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life, and man becomes a living soul. That is what Genesis 2:4-7 is telling us.

Aman:>>The entire History of God's Creation, written BEFORE the events happen, is contained in the first Chapter of Genesis and 3 verses of Genesis two. The details are contained in the rest of the Bible and refer BACK to the events of these 7 Days. It's PROOF of God since NO man could write our History BEFORE the events happen.
​

Assyrian:>>That has nothing to do with you interpretation being right.

Sure it does. Occam's razor. God's Truth is the complete Truth and the most simple. Genesis 1 is the complete History of the first 6 Days, which are ongoing. Genesis 2:1-3 tells us of a Future time on the Age of Joy, the 7th Day, the Great Sabbath, when God rests from ALL of His work of creating. Genesis 2:2-3

Aman:>>He didn't love the sin of that world either nor of the present "heavens and earth" which Peter calls the world WHICH IS NOW, which is scheduled to be burned. Perhaps He is speaking of the 3rd Heaven, wherein dwelleth righteousness,
​

Assyrian:>>When John said God so loved the world, it means God loved the people. That is why John goes straight on to describe God sending his son to die for them. I suggest you either learn Greek properly or stick to decent English translations. Don't go thinking you understand the meaning of the Greek word kosmos because you know the English word cosmos.

I haven't seen anything from you. When are you going to tell us how your interpretation is better than mine? It's easy to set back and shoot down views but much harder to actually post something positive. Please try to do better.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, The reason there were no plants is that they hadn't been made yet. They grew in Genesis 1:12 and in Genesis 2:8 AFTER man was made from the dust of the ground.

The plants and herbs GREW after man was made. This was on the 3rd Day. Can you refute that Scripturally? I don't think you can.

Assyrian:>>OK we have a bit more progress here. You are giving the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10, "they hadn't been created yet". But you still haven't addressed the rest of my question. Is this the reason given in Gen 2:5 for there not being any plants? Does the reason there were no plants in Gen 2:5 fit the reason there were no plants in Gen 1:10?

Dear Assyrian, Absolutely. The purpose of the additional text in Genesis 2:4-7 is to show that man was made after the earth was made but before the plants grew on the 3rd Day. The rest of the Bible is the same, since it adds details to the outline of Genesis 1 which tells us of God's 6 Creative Days. The details add information to the events of the 6 Days.


​

Originally Posted by Aman777

Aman:>>God tells us in ll Peter 3:3-7 that the Scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned. That has NOTHING to do with my interpretation but is prophecy of things to come in the last days. Since I now know what scoffers are going to do at the end of time, I am simply believing the prophecy of thias event recorded by God Himself.
​

Assyrian:>>I don't think Peter mentioned the origin of human intelligence or that we got it from interplanetary travellers who interbred with cavemen.

Aman:>>Dear Assyrian, Nice side step. Peter didn't mention a lot of things, but let's concentrate on what he did mention. He mentioned that Scoffers (Unbelievers) in the last Days would NOT believe, but be Willingly Ignorant, that the first world was totally destroyed in the Flood, and that our world will be burned.

Your reply focused on me and NOT on what Peter said. Do you believe that the first Earth was totally destroyed in the Flood and that our world will be burned?

Assyrian:>>The problem is, you quoted the 2Peter in response to our discussion about science and the origin of human intelligence. If Peter doesn't deal with that, then maybe you are the one sidestepping.

Not so. Peter reveals how to tell Bible believers from those whose faith is in man's knowledge. Science is ignorant of the FACT that we inherited our Human intelligence from Adam's descendants. Their entire Theory of Evolution is in jeapordy because of this knowledge. God set a trap for those who THINK they know more than God, and Peter is telling us of the Snare, which God will use in the last days to separate the good from the evil.
​

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, Of course I can. Here is the verse I was speaking about:
​

Gen 6:4 There 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.

This verse is speaking of intellectual giants, and not big people. The is shown at the end of the verse when God calls the Offsping of the sons of God (prehistoric man) and the daughters of men (Heb-Adam) as being mighty men and men of renown.

The sons of God (which you call Caveman) were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Since prehistoric man moved, he is included in the creatures which were made from the water on the 5th Day. Science agrees that all life on our Planet had it's origin in the water. The cells within our bodies cannot live without water. Prehistoric man had his origin in the water.

This explains WHERE Cain's wife came from on the 1st Earth AND fulfills the prophecy which is found in Genesis Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,

The intellectual giants appeared on the first earth, the earth of Adam, when the sons of God married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first human. The fulfillment of the Prophecy couldn't happen but one time per world, and also after that means this will be repeated again:

Assyrian:>>You are the one who used the term cavemen, but that isn't the issue here. Whether you call them hominins, hominids, primitive humans or cavemen, you still have to show this is what 'the sons of God' refers to. You also have to show the women Noah's grandchildren married were unintelligent, and you still have to show the Nephilim were intellectual giants.

I got you thinking though. Didn't I?


Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>You are still haven't show anything in scripture about prehistoric people evolving human intelligence in one generation. Where does it say Nimrod's mother was an unintelligent cave woman?
​

Aman:>>Dear Assyrian, Where did she come from? Noah's 3 sons were married to the only other humans on this Planet, and their sons had NO other humans to marry. They were exactly like Cain was on the first Earth.

Cush married a prehistoric woman and produced Nimrod showing that the combination of the sons of God and Adam's descendants produced today's humans. It's takes 9 months to produce a Human baby. That is LESS than a generation, come to think of it.

Here's a good example of empirical evidence that this is God's Truth. Every human on this Earth has the human intelligence of Adam AND they also have the DNA of a prehistoric woman who lived more than 150k years ago. With YOUR understanding, explain that.

Assyrian:>>I have no problem with Noah's grandchildren marrying locals, my problem is your claim they were an unintelligent, primitive form of human and that there was a sudden jump in intelligence in the next generation as a result of interbreeding with extraterrestrials.

I have Never referred to Adam as an extraterrestrial. He lived in another heaven which could easily fit into Lake Van in the mountains of Ararat. Picture a Giant Snow Globe, which is completely separate from out Cosmos, but floating in Lake Van.

​

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, No they won't. I'm storing up treasures in heaven. That's what Jesus told me to do.
​

Assyrian:>>Assuming Jesus told you to teach these strange ideas, but if you aren't teachable how will you find out if you are wrong.

Aman:>>Tell us how you were born again.
​

Assyrian:>>I was raised a Catholic but I came to the Lord through the Charismatic Renewal. I was just a teenager when I asked God to come into my life, he open up his word to me and taught me more and more about faith and salvation all he did for me through the cross. He is still teaching me about that.


Aman:>>It was repeated again when the descendants of the sons of God, whose origin was in the water on our Earth, married and produced children with Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, on the first earth, had NO other humans to marry. Don't believe me? Then explain the "and also after that".

Assyrian? Hello? I didn't catch your answer to "and also after that". Hello?

In Love,
Aman

​

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Aman:>>Dear Readers, Man was made from the dust of the ground on third Day.
​

Sky:>>No matter....

Dear Sky, It matters a great deal to those of us who seek to find the Truth of the Creation.

You are lost.
Jesus did not intend for you to waste your life in persuit of petty thoughts.
Read this 20 times:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."


Note that there is no mention of "reading" anywhere in your education about creation.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Dear Readers, Man was made from the dust of the ground on third Day.
​

Sky:>>No matter....

Aman:>>Dear Sky, It matters a great deal to those of us who seek to find the Truth of the Creation.

Sky:>>You are lost.

Dear Sky, Not so. Jesus found me and I'm as sure for Heaven as He is. Since you are supposedly my brother, I would remind you that you should never Judge me. You have no right, unless you have been perfect. Have you?

Sky:>>Jesus did not intend for you to waste your life in persuit of petty thoughts.
Read this 20 times:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Amen. I totally agree. Why do you deny that the discoveries of Science and History which refute your religion, are True also? Do you think the true discoveries of Science and History are just lies from the pits of Hell?

If not, then you should agree with me that God's Truth agrees with Science and History and every other discoverd Truth. Correct? Or do you wish to falsely judge me again?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Aman, listen. This is a really bad theory. I know you're proud of it and a bit defensive as we all can be with our theology. But seriously, this is some really really bad exegesis.

Now no one has perfect theology. But sometimes you have to listen to those around you who are patiently trying to inform you about very obvious error.

I really would plead with you as a friend to consider the problems with this view, and to consider that you are likely the only person are earth at this time seeing the rationale of reading scripture like this. That in and of itself doesn't mean your wrong, but it's usually a good clue you may need to rethink things.

Sincerely

 

[Aman777]

Calminian:>>Aman, listen. This is a really bad theory. I know you're proud of it and a bit defensive as we all can be with our theology. But seriously, this is some really really bad exegesis.

Dear Cal, Thanks for your concern. I understand your confusion, but it's not your fault. You have been the victim of believing the thoughts of ancient men and NOT what is actually written in Scripture. I will shut up and quit telling everyone this story IF you will refute me Scripturally. One can easily refute the traditional view Scripturally, but I don't think you can refute God's Holy Word.

Cal:>>Now no one has perfect theology. But sometimes you have to listen to those around you who are patiently trying to inform you about very obvious error.

I'm waiting and so far NO one has been able to refute my views Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically. It seems the only one's who try are my usual foe, the TEs. It's no problem dealing with them since the change God's Holy Word into fables.

Cal:>>I really would plead with you as a friend to consider the problems with this view, and to consider that you are likely the only person are earth at this time seeing the rationale of reading scripture like this. That in and of itself doesn't mean your wrong, but it's usually a good clue you may need to rethink things.

IOW, Because you haven't read this before, it couldn't be right, because if it was, it would agree with your views. Right? There is a difference between my views and the traditional view BUT there is NO difference between what is actually written by God Himself. Don't believe me. Try to refute it. I've tried for 30 years and I can't do it. Please help me out by showing me specifically where I am in error.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Calminian:>>Aman, listen. This is a really bad theory. I know you're proud of it and a bit defensive as we all can be with our theology. But seriously, this is some really really bad exegesis.

Dear Cal, Thanks for your concern. I understand your confusion, but it's not your fault. You have been the victim of believing the thoughts of ancient men and NOT what is actually written in Scripture. I will shut up and quit telling everyone this story IF you will refute me Scripturally. One can easily refute the traditional view Scripturally, but I don't think you can refute God's Holy Word.

Cal:>>Now no one has perfect theology. But sometimes you have to listen to those around you who are patiently trying to inform you about very obvious error.

I'm waiting and so far NO one has been able to refute my views Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically. It seems the only one's who try are my usual foe, the TEs. It's no problem dealing with them since the change God's Holy Word into fables.

Cal:>>I really would plead with you as a friend to consider the problems with this view, and to consider that you are likely the only person are earth at this time seeing the rationale of reading scripture like this. That in and of itself doesn't mean your wrong, but it's usually a good clue you may need to rethink things.

IOW, Because you haven't read this before, it couldn't be right, because if it was, it would agree with your views. Right? There is a difference between my views and the traditional view BUT there is NO difference between what is actually written by God Himself. Don't believe me. Try to refute it. I've tried for 30 years and I can't do it. Please help me out by showing me specifically where I am in error.

In Love,
Aman

I kind of had a feeling that would be your response. Figured I'd give it a try.