Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But you still see land/earth existing in genesis so continents did exists.. and even if all contents where joined (as science says) it still wouldn't be day on all areas since the world is still a globe. so yes, which part of the land was day and which part was night?

The YEC's also say the continents once were joined in some fashion (as science says). What's your point?

Keep in mind we see recumbent folds of the strata in the mountains. This clearly indicates the continents moved rather quickly and crashed into each other to form the mountains.
The strata folded due to the force applied to the sediment that was deposited during the flood of Noah.
The Old Earth models would have the strata snap, crackling and popping and not forming the recumbent folds. (as science says)
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The YEC's also say the continents once were joined in some fashion (as science says). What's your point?

Keep in mind we see recumbent folds of the strata in the mountains. This clearly indicates the continents moved rather quickly and crashed into each other to form the mountains.
The strata folded due to the force applied to the sediment that was deposited during the flood of Noah.
The Old Earth models would have the strata snap, crackling and popping and not forming the recumbent folds. (as science says)

Yes, i understand the continental drift theory regardless even with all the land being joined as one single continent, there still would be a time difference due to the shape of the earth. The continents all joined together would still consume more than one face of the sphere.

In Gen 1:4-5, you have the concept of time on earth being described (with the creation of Day and night) and due to the morning came the 1st day. But technically wouldn't the "1st Day" be different for some parts of earth?
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Bingo! So where God hovered = light the far side of the word = dark!
Where does it say "God hovered = light"? After that verse in Gen 2, the only time light came into existence was when he said it to be, and he was also hovering over the waters? None of this shows a "far side of the earth" or anything you are suggesting as answers. I don't understand why you are priding yourself from being obnoxious.
 
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The 2 creation acounts support each other. The second pretty much is a description of day 6.

You clearly have neither studied nor understood them then.

Ch.1 Has Light created on the first day. Then day 2 we get the firmament (a Dome) between heaven and earth. Day 3 dry land, sea, vegitation. Day 4 Sun, moon, stars. Day 5, Birds & fish. Day 6 reptiles, mammals,creeping thinks etc. The animals are made first and then man and woman together later on the 6th day.

Ch.2 Has Man created on the first day before all the animals. No plants or herbs, no rain, no sea mentioned either. Then Eve is created after Adam has named each of the animals God has made for him to hopefully 'find a mate'.There is no indication in Ch.2 that this all happened on the 6th day of creation. You have just imagined that. The text is clear, when man was made there were no plants or herbs, no rain and no one to till the ground.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen.2:4-9.

There are only no anomalies for people who don't want them to be there. They can blithely ignore them and pretend they don't exist. If your interpretaion does not fit the facts presented in the text, then it is your interpretaion that is wrong, not the text, not the context, not the author's words, not the translation, but your interpretation of the meaning of the text.

What fails is the need for Christ, God in the flesh, as you have no reason for the fall of mankind.

Pick up and read ANY newspaper in any era and you will get irrefutable evidence that there is something wrong with mankind, something that has been wrong with mankind since we stood upright. Something that is still wrong with mankind by the time every toddler takes his or her first faltering step. That something has nothing to do with physically eating fruit, either now or in the past. It has to do with thinking ourselves WISE when we are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Rev.3:17.

The whole Adam and Eve story illustrates the problem aptly. Treating it as 'History' merely offers you and other YECs to ignore the fact that YOU ARE ADAM, (mankind). The story is not history, it is bang up to date. Without Christ and his atonement, you are sunk mate, Wise UP!
.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Cis.jd
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where does it say "God hovered = light"? After that verse in Gen 2, the only time light came into existence was when he said it to be, and he was also hovering over the waters? None of this shows a "far side of the earth" or anything you are suggesting as answers. I don't understand why you are priding yourself from being obnoxious.
Well, whenever light here on earth came to be, He already had light!

Ge 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now if we have a light source (in this case possibly God) MOVING over earth, that means some of the earth would not have that source at times!

Also, the word moved in Hebrew means this

  1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
  2. (Piel) to hover
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well, whenever light here on earth came to be, He had light!

Ge 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now if we have a light source (in this case possibly God) MOVING over earth, that means some of the earth would not have that source at times!

Also, the word moved in Hebrew means this

  1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
  2. (Piel) to hover

But it doesn't say the hovering Spirit of God was causing light or the source of light. Additionally, this doesn't answer the start of natural time which we see happening once morning was established. If God separated the light/darkness and for the morning to allow the "first day" wouldn't that logically mean that this "first day" was different whatever land was on the exact face of the earth that facing the sun?

Additionally, what makes you conclude that other parts of the earth where in darkness where God hasn't "hovered over" yet?

Your definition and translation referencing is irrelevant, this is not explaining to me on how the 1st day can happen for the entire planet given it's shape.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But it doesn't say the hovering Spirit of God was causing light or the source of light.
Since the sun was not yet created by Him, and we know He lights up stuff such as New Jerusalem, and that He was here and hovering...we cannot rule out this as the source of light, to say the least!

Additionally, this doesn't answer the start of natural time which we see happening once morning was established. If God separated the light/darkness and for the morning to allow the "first day" wouldn't that logically mean that this "first day" was different whatever land was on the exact face of the earth that facing the sun?
Not at all. There will still be mornings and evenings after we do not need the sun any more! Why would there not have been days also? A day is marked by light and darkness and a certain time period, not by the sun. The sun came later and marked it, just like it was supposed to do. That doesn't mean there will be no days with no sun.
Additionally, what makes you conclude that other parts of the earth where in darkness where God hasn't "hovered over" yet?
Take a flashlight shine it on a globe. Notice the side away from the light is dark? Now since we know days and evenings and mornings already existed before the sun did, it is logical to assume some of the earth was dark/light for a certain time! Elementary.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Since the sun was not yet created by Him, and we know He lights up stuff such as New Jerusalem, and that He was here and hovering...we cannot rule out this as the source of light, to say the least!
But you have no biblical verse stating that God hovering around the earth was causing any light, you are clearly just throwing this out from nowhere.

Not at all. There will still be mornings and evenings after we do not need the sun any more! Why would there not have been days also? A day is marked by light and darkness and a certain time period, not by the sun. The sun came later and marked it, just like it was supposed to do. That doesn't mean there will be no days with no sun.
How will there be morning or evening with out the sun? Even Genesis shows that morning and evening where established after God created light (the sun). LOL at you making up your own stuff. There is nothing in the bible telling you on which side was facing morning or night, there is nowhere in genesis that hints the shape of the planet, and there is nothing in the bible supporting your bad guessing game excuses of God's hovering causing light.

Take a flashlight shine it on a globe. Notice the side away from the light is dark? Now since we know days and evenings and mornings already existed before the sun did, it is logical to assume some of the earth was dark/light for a certain time! Elementary.

Yes, so when the Sun is shinning on a specific part of the globe, that means that specific spot is the day time while the other side is night time. So technically "the first day" isn't for the entire earth, unless you believe the Earth is flat.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The 2 creation acounts support each other. The second pretty much is a description of day 6.
I've already discussed the light before the sun with you. Your reply back was pretty much void of a response.

You clearly have neither studied nor understood them then.

Ch.1 Has Light created on the first day. Then day 2 we get the firmament (a Dome) between heaven and earth. Day 3 dry land, sea, vegitation. Day 4 Sun, moon, stars. Day 5, Birds & fish. Day 6 reptiles, mammals,creeping thinks etc. The animals are made first and then man and woman together later on the 6th day.

Ch.2 Has Man created on the first day before all the animals. No plants or herbs, no rain, no sea mentioned either. Then Eve is created after Adam has named each of the animals God has made for him to hopefully 'find a mate'.There is no indication in Ch.2 that this all happened on the 6th day of creation. You have just imagined that. The text is clear, when man was made there were no plants or herbs, no rain and no one to till the ground.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. 5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land


The verse is describing a time when God made the earth but had not made the bush of the fields and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land,

That was settled on day 3 when God made the vegetation.

and there was no man to work the ground,

True, there was no man on day 3

6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—

7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Verse 7 above speaks of day 6

8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The garden was a second time God caused vegetation to appear.

I get a little dissapointed with people who make claims about someone simply because they disagree with them. You had posted "You clearly have neither studied nor understood them then." I've studied it to the point I answered your grievance.
-------------------
Animals were made Prior to Eve.

19Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. ESV
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, whenever light here on earth came to be, He already had light!

Ge 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now if we have a light source (in this case possibly God) MOVING over earth, that means some of the earth would not have that source at times!

Also, the word moved in Hebrew means this

  1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
  2. (Piel) to hover
Another theory the light was the angels who were watching the creation process.

Job 38:6 On what were its foundations laid, or who set its core in place— 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. 5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land


The verse is describing a time when God made the earth but had not made the bush of the fields and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land,

That was settled on day 3 when God made the vegetation.

and there was no man to work the ground,

True, there was no man on day 3

6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—

7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Verse 7 above speaks of day 6

8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The garden was a second time God caused vegetation to appear.

I get a little dissapointed with people who make claims about someone simply because they disagree with them. You had posted "You clearly have neither studied nor understood them then." I've studied it to the point I answered your grievance.
-------------------
Animals were made Prior to Eve.

19Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. ESV

Have you ever heard of the term eisegesis? You should have because you do it.
.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Another theory the light was the angels who were watching the creation process.

Job 38:6 On what were its foundations laid, or who set its core in place— 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb
The random guessing is amazing.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know, I thought evolutionists believed the human race evolved from apes, no?

I think pointing that kind of science out in any kind of funny comparison to humans is considered racist now isn't it?

Not sure.

To the OP

Adam in one place calls her woman for she was taken from man (and he called her name Eve) and in another place after that it says God created them male and female and in the day they were created He called THEIR name Adam in Gen 5:2 Just as with earlier it says, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he THEM. But he called THEIR NAME Adam even though Adam called her Eve.

I think some folks are offended when you say "mankind" as an all inclusive thing between them but theres an example of calling the two by one name.

Indeed, good point. We are all Adam because we all come from Adam, including Eve who came from Adam's side. That is precisely why she can be called Adam.

This is very common in Scripture, for people to be called after their ancestors. Some are Israel, because they've descended from Israel. Some are Egypt because they've descended from Mizriam. But all of us are Adam. And the Bible makes it very clear Eve also is from Adam, both in the creation story, and in the Genesis 5 toledoth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Went there....he said "there is no biblical account of material human origins".

1 Cor 15:41 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. ESV

That's the nonsense that Walton at Wheatland has been peddling. The interesting thing is, Genesis specifically mentions material in 1:2—the unformed and unfilled earth. Then it goes on to explain the organization of material.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why not? It seems a very good way for God to have designed a universe to operate. Something seems to be driving it but we seem to be doing our best to destroy it, by disobedience to God and failure to tend and keep it.

Evolution is not magic, and neither is creation. Why can't evolution be creative, controlled by God who is invisible, immortal, omnipotent and immutable. ...
.

No, but creation is miraculous, while evolution is framed with naturalistic assumptions. If you disagree, you destroy the scientific aspect of evolution. If you insist that evolution needs God's intervention—miracles—then there really is no need for a naturalistic method of investigation. Once a miracle is required, the whole theory crashes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
.....The hebrew word used for 'make' which is used of 'mankind', (not a person with the Hebrew name of Adam), is very broad in meaning. It does not specifically state that God made Adam at the end of the sixth day of the creation......

Actually it does. The Hebrew word is actually adam from the very early verses and throughout.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I 'believe' Genesis, as I 'believe' the parable of the Prodigal Son, or the parable of The Good Samaritan. Neither have to have actually 'happened' exactly the way the stories are told, for the story to have profound meaning relevant to human nature, sin, forgivness of God and the nature of salvation. They don't have to be 'history' in order to be 'the truth'. Likewise chapters 1 to 5 of Genesis do not have to be history in order to be 'the truth'.

he taught me, and said to me,
"Let your heart hold fast my words;
keep my commandments, and live;
do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
Get wisdom; get insight.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you;
love her, and she will guard you.
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever you get, get insight. Prov.4:4-7.

.

But parables are actually called parables, whereas the Genesis account is treated as narrative all throughout the rest of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
....This is in fact the 'fallen' condition of mankind in operation. The irony is that this tendency is very effectively brought out in the Adam and Eve story. It comes naturally to us 'fallen' human beings, to deny responsibility, blame others for our disobedience and hide from the TRUTH as He walks in the garden of our lives.
.

This is where I think evolutionary theology becomes very problematic. After creating man and completing the 6 days, God said everything was "very good." Then comes the story of the fall. But with your view of Genesis, it's natural, meaning God created it, and us, very bad. It completely dismissing the fall.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
the creation account undeniably has a lot of parallels and metaphors, and the text itself has inconsistencies like light coming before the sun. The creation account is similar to the Egyptian creation myth and given the influence the Egyptians had on the Israelites this is no surprise......

Actually, the Genesis account predates Moses and Egypt. In fact, it documents the founder of Egypt, Mizraim (Gen. 10). None of the events documented in Genesis were during Moses lifetime. He was, in essence, a historian when he wrote Genesis, gathering the story from preexisting documents that had to be older than both Moses and Mizriam. Thus, there's no reason to conclude Genesis was influenced by Egyptian myth. Here's a helpful article on this: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery

In fact, there's one key difference between Genesis and all creation myth. Genesis records the creation of formless material (Gen. 1:2). You don't see that in other mythological accounts. They normally start with the chaos, but Genesis reveals material creation in the first 2 verses and then goes on to describe the organization.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
People like this have cherry picked the parts of the bible that they will hold as truth.

The parts of the bible that they hold dear are those of the gospel and the life of Jesus.
None of the bible has more miraculous and supernatural events than the times recorded in the bible that deal with Christ and his life... From His miraculous virgin birth, to baffling the religious leaders at age 12, to turning water to wine, walking on water, feeding more than 5000 people with two fish and a couple of buns... and having 12 buckets of left overs.... to replacing the ear of one of his arresting soldiers....

All of these miraculous event.... taken as solid gospel truth...


Why?

Simple, their eternal life depends on it.

Take anything out of the bible that does not negate their salvation, directly, and they can guffaw... at it.. They can call it a parable, a metaphor, an allegory or poem... Due to the simple fact that the eternal home of their soul does not depend on it... in their eyes.

Therefore, they can then take the assumptions, speculations and ramblings of mere mortal men and women to be more truthful and believable than the Words of our creator.

Sad.. but more common than I would have ever thought.

Yeah, but the problem is, Genesis provides the context of the Gospel. Without the creation and fall, there's no need for Christ to come. And Revelation reveals the culmination of the Fall and the Gospel. Taking a way the foundation of the Gospel is risky business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0