Where is a "6000 year old earth" found in scripture?

[Vanguard PCD]

PA, I'm merely going by the argument you made. You made the argument that according to Gen. 1, a non-adamic race was made. I merely point out the impossibility of that argument based on the text you cited. The hebrew word used is adam. The argument you made from the text is literally impossible justify.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man (adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man (adam) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​

​

​

If you follow me on the UO forum, you'd know that I study Hebrew, Greek and Latin. You'd know that both world and biblical history are a passion of mine. I am non-denominational because I don't think any single group "has it right."

The term adam (adamah, ha-adamh) was used to mean "mankind." That is why it says let THEM (not him) have dominion... It is inclusive to mean males and females. You are viewing it as "a male and a female" when that is not what is meant.

And no, I do not take the entire Bible literally.

 

[Calminian]

[/INDENT]If you follow me on the UO forum, you'd know that I study Hebrew, Greek and Latin. You'd know that both world and biblical history are a passion of mine. I am non-denominational because I don't think any single group "has it right."

The term adam (adamah, ha-adamh) was used to mean "mankind." That is why it says let THEM (not him) have dominion... It is inclusive to mean males and females. You are viewing it as "a male and a female" when that is not what is meant.

And no, I do not take the entire Bible literally.

My advise to you then is keep studying. I think it's great. If that's really your goal, why not be more receptive to obvious corrections from a fellow student? I'm not brining to your attention anything very complicated.

Now the verses you cite for mankind in Genesis 1 are not adamah (ground), but rather adam. We are not adamahites, we are adamites.

Now if you're trying to say that anything made from the ground is adam, you simply haven't taken the time to think this through. The beasts were also formed from ha-adamah (the ground-Gen. 2:19), yet they are not adam (human). Adam was given this name, and since he is the forefather of us all, we all bear this name. We are adam because we are from Adam. Eve is also adam, being from Adam. Cows and other beasts who were formed from adamah are still not adam, but rather are named after the original animal from whom they descended.

So again, your textual argument that non-adamites were formed on day 6 fails. The Bible directly contradicts you (both in hebrew and english). Like I said, you can make arguments from other directions, such as science and other religious texts. But your arguments from the Bible don't add up.

And no, I do not take the entire Bible literally.

I pretty much guessed that.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Final post as this is futile...

The Hebrew term adam simply means mankind, i.e. humanity, not a specific man or male. The Hebrew term for male (as a gender) is ish, but is not used in any of those verses. Clearly, the Bible is referring to humankind, not a single male in Genesis 1. Even the Septuagint translates adam as anthropoi, which is Koine Greek for people/humanity. The pronouns used in Genesis 1 are even in plural form.

Sorry, but your argument fails in comparison to the insurmountable evidence that Genesis 1 provides. Now, if you take your Scripture from the KJV, then it is no wonder you are confused.

Peace.

 

[Calminian]

Final post as this is futile…

Oh I would totally agree. It doesn't appear to me you're really interested looking at the facts and reasoning through them. Seems you just want to believe what you want to believe. But I'll respond to your arguments (very poor ones) for the sake of anyone else reading this.

The Hebrew term adam simply means mankind, i.e. humanity, not a specific man or male.

Which I pointed out myself.

The Hebrew term for male (as a gender) is ish, but is not used in any of those verses. Clearly, the Bible is referring to humankind, not a single male in Genesis 1.

Of course. When Israel is referred to in the Bible, it can refer to the descendants of Israel, both male and female. Israel's descendants make up Israel. Adam's descendants make up adam (humanity). But the name, Israel, was derived from their ancestor Israel. Just because Israel has become a name for a group, does not mean that original man Israel did not exist, or that Israel did not come from him. Such reasoning is ludicrous.

This is really easy stuff. Your issue is not language but simple deductive reasoning.

Even the Septuagint translates adam as anthropoi, which is Koine Greek for people/humanity. The pronouns used in Genesis 1 are even in plural form.

I really am chuckling listening to you try to reason this away. Yes, the septuagint and english translations are both correct. But in the hebrew we see that the word for mankind is derived from the first man, Adam. Duh!

Sorry, but your argument fails in comparison to the insurmountable evidence that Genesis 1 provides. Now, if you take your Scripture from the KJV, then it is no wonder you are confused.

PA, your flippant response and citing of your credentials won't save you. You made an argument from the text, but failed to think it through. You knew adam was the word for mankind, but failed to ask yourself why? Why is the hebrew word for mankind adam? Hmmmm. Could it be because…..

 

[Sasquatchit]

Hi Cal,
I must agree. As I understand God, He is wiser than we will ever hope to imagine and if He really didn't want us to add the years to determine time periods then He could have left all that out. If God is as wise as I believe Him to be, then He knew that men would add these numbers. Personally I believe that He intended them for just the purpose that they have been used for centuries; that we might always have a record of how long this realm that He has created for man has really been around. However, I also understand that if I believe that science has given me the truth, then I have to find a way to make the Scriptures fit the science.


This sounds flawed and backwards! Why would u want to fit science to God's word, why not the other way around, fit science to God's word -- since it is Truth?

Of course, that is only my understanding and each one is free to choose what they will believe is 'truth'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Why not fit science to God's word, since science does not hold the keys to truth.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Two things...

1. The Bible never states that the heavens and earth were created on day 1, just "in the beginning." An undetermined amount of time could have passed from the creation of the earth to the creation of life on earth. The Bible does not say, so the Gap Theory is plausible.


No, it took 6 days....validated in:
Gen. 2:2 "And on the 7th. day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the 7th. day from ALL His work which He had done."


2. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. The first humans were the multitudes created in Genesis 1. This explains who Cain had to fear in his banishment, as well as who he married. Adam and Eve were the "parents" of the Hebrews, as they trace their genealogy to them. 6,000 years from Adam and Eve until now is fine, but only for tracing Hebrew genealogy, not the age of the earth.

You're wrong according to:
Gen. 2:21 "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place."
22 "Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."
3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living."

 

[Calminian]

Why not fit science to God's word, since science does not hold the keys to truth.

Indeed, and knowing Ted well, that's exactly what he meant to say.

It's very telling to me that people trust man's ideas over God's words, to the point where they feel they have to help God out, and explain what He really meant.

 

[mark kennedy]

Final post as this is futile...

It is futile, not because of who your trying to persuade but because the position is indefensible.

The Hebrew term adam simply means mankind, i.e. humanity, not a specific man or male.

I have two words for you, Israel and Jacob, they can mean both or either. Israel is called by Jacob's name, 'Israel', because the Hebrews descended from Jacob. This isn't rocket science, Adam is always the first parent of humanity in the Scriptures which is why 'humanity' is so often called by his name.

The Hebrew term for male (as a gender) is ish, but is not used in any of those verses. Clearly, the Bible is referring to humankind, not a single male in Genesis 1. Even the Septuagint translates adam as anthropoi, which is Koine Greek for people/humanity. The pronouns used in Genesis 1 are even in plural form.

What?

Sorry, but your argument fails in comparison to the insurmountable evidence that Genesis 1 provides. Now, if you take your Scripture from the KJV, then it is no wonder you are confused.

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the KJV and modern translations. All you have is an insurmountable exaggerated opinion of the veracity of your own opinions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Sasquatchit]

Who are these 'multitudes' created in Genesis 1, Adam and Ever were created on day six and that's all it says.

Where does it say multitude? Verse please?

 

[Sasquatchit]

Not quite.

The multitudes are the ones created on day 6.

Where do u see multitudes????


Adam and Eve were not created until after day 7, and thus Genesis 2.


U r not understanding what ur reading!

Adam and Eve were made on day 6.
Gen. 1:27 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
31 "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the 6th day."

I am fine with one Hebrew saying to another (via oral tradition) "Eve is the mother of us all," to mean "mother of the Hebrews." .

Where in the world did u get ur ideas from? The "Hebrew" word did not come about for many centuries.

 

[miamited]

Why not fit science to God's word, since science does not hold the keys to truth.

Hi sasquatchit,

Because it can't be done. By definition a miracle is something that cannot be explained by the natural and all science has is the natural.

Here's an example:

Some of you may have read this from me before so for those who have read this already please feel free to move on.

In our culture we tend to think things are miraculous only because they may have a one in a million or thousand or hundred chance of happening. A soldier in the civil war faced off against another soldier of the other side. One soldier fired his musket and the musket ball passed through the other soldier's scrotum. Down field behind the soldier who was shot was a young woman hanging out her clothes, yes such encounters in close proximity to houses and working fields was common. The musket ball that had passed through the other man's scrotum then continued down field and lodged in the woman's womb. Nine months later the woman gave birth to a healthy baby. Is that a miracle?

No, it's just a one in a million shot. When the musket ball passed through the soldier's scrotum it collected on itself some of the man's sperm. When that same musket ball lodged itself in the woman's womb mere milliseconds later the sperm impregnated an egg in her womb. It's a fairly natural and every day occurrence that sperm coming in contact with an egg will cause fertilization of the egg. Not a miracle, but wow!, a one in a million shot, eh?

When God caused the sea to open so that the Israelites could pass through the sea we are told that there was a wall of water on both their left hand and on their right. Now every single evidence that we have or ever have had of the natural properties of water says that this is impossible. But God did it! That's a miracle. So, let me ask you, do you have some natural evidence that would explain this anomaly?

Hopefully, you can see by this simple demonstration that 'proving' the things that God does is an impossible feat if we try to get science to explain God's miracles.

Let me ask you some other simple questions since you think we have the ability to use science to explain the miracles of God. How did Mary become pregnant? How did the sun stand still in the noon day sky? How did fire and brimstone fall on and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? How did a donkey talk? How did Lazarus walk out of that tomb after being dead for three days? How did Elijah go up with a whirlwind of fire into heaven? How did an ax head float? How did the river Jordan stop so that the Israelites crossed over on dry ground to the promised land. How were dead men seen walking around after Jesus' crucifixion? How did Peter get out of his prison chains?

Friend, it is always now and has always been that the righteous of God live by faith and not by scientific explanations, because scientific explanations, since they can only deal with the natural properties of things, cannot answer any of the 'hows' of what God does. The first rule of science is that there are no supernatural causes, just some that we may not understand yet.

I wish you well with your endeavor, but it's a fool's folly.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi sasquatchit,

Because it can't be done. By definition a miracle is something that cannot be explained by the natural and all science has is the natural.

Here's an example:

Some of you may have read this from me before so for those who have read this already please feel free to move on.

In our culture we tend to think things are miraculous only because they may have a one in a million or thousand or hundred chance of happening. A soldier in the civil war faced off against another soldier of the other side. One soldier fired his musket and the musket ball passed through the other soldier's scrotum. Down field behind the soldier who was shot was a young woman hanging out her clothes, yes such encounters in close proximity to houses and working fields was common. The musket ball that had passed through the other man's scrotum then continued down field and lodged in the woman's womb. Nine months later the woman gave birth to a healthy baby. Is that a miracle?

No, it's just a one in a million shot. When the musket ball passed through the soldier's scrotum it collected on itself some of the man's sperm. When that same musket ball lodged itself in the woman's womb mere milliseconds later the sperm impregnated an egg in her womb. It's a fairly natural and every day occurrence that sperm coming in contact with an egg will cause fertilization of the egg. Not a miracle, but wow!, a one in a million shot, eh?

When God caused the sea to open so that the Israelites could pass through the sea we are told that there was a wall of water on both their left hand and on their right. Now every single evidence that we have or ever have had of the natural properties of water says that this is impossible. But God did it! That's a miracle. So, let me ask you, do you have some natural evidence that would explain this anomaly?

Hopefully, you can see by this simple demonstration that 'proving' the things that God does is an impossible feat if we try to get science to explain God's miracles.

Let me ask you some other simple questions since you think we have the ability to use science to explain the miracles of God. How did Mary become pregnant? How did the sun stand still in the noon day sky? How did fire and brimstone fall on and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? How did a donkey talk? How did Lazarus walk out of that tomb after being dead for three days? How did Elijah go up with a whirlwind of fire into heaven? How did an ax head float? How did the river Jordan stop so that the Israelites crossed over on dry ground to the promised land. How were dead men seen walking around after Jesus' crucifixion? How did Peter get out of his prison chains?

Friend, it is always now and has always been that the righteous of God live by faith and not by scientific explanations, because scientific explanations, since they can only deal with the natural properties of things, cannot answer any of the 'hows' of what God does. The first rule of science is that there are no supernatural causes, just some that we may not understand yet.

I wish you well with your endeavor, but it's a fool's folly.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I agree with this for the most part, so don't take this as a disagreement per se. I think it's well put.

I would just add that, to an extent, we can look at scientific findings through biblical glasses and make sense of them. For instance, we can look at the fossil record in accordance with the biblical history of the flood and understand it better. We can look at evidence of the ice age, and use Biblical history to understand when it occurred.

Creation science is much like forensic science, which looks at natural causations in concert with intelligence causations, and puts the past together considering both. But of course in the case of creation science, we know beforehand that the testimony of the scriptures is impeccable.

So in a sense, science as in the scientific method is not compatible with supernatural events, there are scientific discoveries that are better understood when they are fit within a biblical framework.

 

[SkyWriting]

He is talking about bottlenecks, it's an effect from inbreeding, it shrinks the gene pool dramatically, even dangerously. Charles Darwin was a guy who knew so much about how favorable traits were inherited that he married his cousin. Then he becomes a full blown atheist because his daughters died, probably because of compromised immune systems, resulting from bottlenecks.

What he doesn't know is that it takes a while, sometimes generations for the bottlenecks to develop. The genomes of the new creations would have been complete genomes with no mutations and no adaptive traits permanently fixed. That kind of a massive gene pool is prime for adaptive evolution but he doesn't know that either, even though, it's pretty obvious.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The same can be said about bottlenecks due to Noahs Ark. But God brought the animals to Noah, and if anyone knows how to avoid DNA problems, it would be God.

Lord please forgive my flip-ency.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi sasquatchit,

Because it can't be done. By definition a miracle is something that cannot be explained by the natural and all science has is the natural.

An excellent Ted talk.

 

[mark kennedy]

The same can be said about bottlenecks due to Noahs Ark. But God brought the animals to Noah, and if anyone knows how to avoid DNA problems, it would be God.

Lord please forgive my flip-ency.

We can probably agree that the effects of the Flood decreased lifespans, we just don't talk much about why. Immediately after being released from the Ark we can be sure the mammals, birds and yes, even the reptiles became multiplying and diversifying and an historically high level. The genomes would have been nearly free of mutations with a large gene pool. As adaptations become permanent the gene pool tends to shrink, over time.

Their genomes would have been nearly pristine and the earth lush, without any competition for the survivors of the Flood. I know of no way to account for the diversification of their descendants except accelerated adaptive radiation. I marvel that people consider me anti-evolution, I believe in the most accelerated evolutionary history of all mammals, birds and reptiles into life as we know it in a vast array. In maybe 4000 years, in fact, the actual dispersal would have had to have been dramatically quick.

That's an accelerated evolution that would have scared Darwin to death. The only difference between Darwinian and Creationists is the time line, ours is much shorter and Darwin has all the time in the world, literally. Bottom line and I hate to break it to you but we are the most radical evolutionists on record. I've always wondered if you could build a statistical time line for the populations but never got around to it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

We can probably agree that the effects of the Flood decreased lifespans, we just don't talk much about why. Immediately after being released from the Ark we can be sure the mammals, birds and yes, even the reptiles became multiplying and diversifying and an historically high level. The genomes would have been nearly free of mutations with a large gene pool. As adaptations become permanent the gene pool tends to shrink, over time.

Their genomes would have been nearly pristine and the earth lush, without any competition for the survivors of the Flood. I know of no way to account for the diversification of their descendants except accelerated adaptive radiation. I marvel that people consider me anti-evolution, I believe in the most accelerated evolutionary history of all mammals, birds and reptiles into life as we know it in a vast array. In maybe 4000 years, in fact, the actual dispersal would have had to have been dramatically quick.

That's an accelerated evolution that would have scared Darwin to death. The only difference between Darwinian and Creationists is the time line, ours is much shorter and Darwin has all the time in the world, literally. Bottom line and I hate to break it to you but we are the most radical evolutionists on record. I've always wondered if you could build a statistical time line for the populations but never got around to it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'm afraid we are not.

Slow-evo's are the least informed. Measurable evolution of an individual takes place within that entities liftetime and changes its offspring. The effects are not known to be as permanent as with genetic changes but they are adaptation to the environment in one generation.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm afraid we are not.

Slow-evo's are the least informed. Measurable evolution of an individual takes place within that entities liftetime and changes its offspring. The effects are not known to be as permanent as with genetic changes but they are adaptation to the environment in one generation.

Actually it's two generations, at that point there is a strong tendency to revert bank to the grand parent form. It's the reason Mendel started his work quoted in my signature. Think in terms of money, the gene pool is pretty much the bank account so the genome can spend it pretty freely. It might not even require dangerous DNA edits (mutations), just more variety to choose from. Time wise, we are the most radical but the extent is limited by genomes of the original surviving generation. The point is, evolution doesn't happen because of the death of the less fit but an abundance of unbroken genes in the populations gene pool. It explains why inbreeding wouldn't be a problem early on because the danger of inbreeding is bottlenecks and, btw adaptations need bottle necks to fix the trait so the gene pool is smaller as a result.

The slo-evos assume long time frames to cloud the issue of the cause of adaptive radiation, we actually have one, God created.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually it's two generations, at that point there is a strong tendency to revert bank to the grand parent form.

Change is change. If they "revert" then they are changing very rapidly.
My illustration is that of an automobile. Few cars can handle a v-12, and none a v-14. Species have limitations of how much change the system can handle.

 

[mark kennedy]

Change is change. If they "revert" then they are changing very rapidly.
My illustration is that of an automobile. Few cars can handle a v-12, and none a v-14. Species have limitations of how much change the system can handle.

Most of the change for external traits, called alleles, is dominant and recessive genes that switch at a ratio of about 3:1. This can change color, texture, size...etc. What it doesn't change is the DNA. Gene expression can change things a lot, without changing the DNA at all, the biggest difference between identical twins is how genes are expressed in their brains.

What Darwinians have done is they equivocated mutations (damaged DNA) with change. What disturbs me the most about Creationists is they bought it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Most of the change for external traits, called alleles, is dominant and recessive genes that switch at a ratio of about 3:1. This can change color, texture, size...etc. What it doesn't change is the DNA. Gene expression can change things a lot, without changing the DNA at all, the biggest difference between identical twins is how genes are expressed in their brains.

What Darwinians have done is they equivocated mutations (damaged DNA) with change. What disturbs me the most about Creationists is they bought it.

I feel that Y.E. Creationists attempt to avoid faith in the Fathers Word and instead invent Science/Fiction stories to bolster their faith that are no more accurate than worshipers of human nature.