How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mean there wasn't any cross over.

No, there isn't any crossover, there isn't any crossover between science and the bible. When Genesis was written, there was no science to cross over with.

What many fail to understand but the board of indoctrination and education understands fully is that without integration of God in the understanding of our world, all forms of religion will die. That is why there is such a hard push to seperate the church from anything the state deems sacred. "Education" is that primary battle ground, because if you take God out of school and ogical through then what need will anyone have to seek out and study theology?

Before the avengers movie how many people knew the name of thor's hammer? why should they science has killed the asgardians as gods.

Again why turn a blind eye to what so many kids are being forced to choose between God or an education.

No-one is forced to choose between God and education. Children are however sometime put in the position of having to choose between learning and the poorly-informed beliefs of their parents.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made them.

5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Before rain, the earth was watered by springs from the earth.


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



A "soul" is not something one possesses, it is what you are a living being, a person ... and man became a living person by the breath of God.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7, NKJV).

Scripture gives us a simple equation for understanding the nature of humans:
Body (dust of the ground; the earth's elements) plus
Breath of life ("spirit" of life from God) equals
A living person (a soul).
I do not understand the point you are trying to make with the bible references. could you rephrase.. point out my error and then explain how you see me being wrong. by just pasting a passage only has me read the same verse I have already seen 1000 times before. (i'm not seeing it the way you do)

Nowhere does the Bible speak of the soul as an immortal entity capable of living apart from our body. Neither does it speak of the spirit as an entity which can exist independent of our physical nature. We are not made of independent parts temporarily connected, but of body, soul, and spirit in one indivisible whole.
never said it did. I have no idea what makes you think I am talking about that.

The one "thing" science and christian teachings agree on lies in the cosmos ... and that is:

The universe started suddenly ... and people should explore/move into the science(s) in those areas. Astrophysics, cosmology etc.

People can and do debate earthly "theories" until the cows come home ... but ultimately both know and agree the beginning of life originated in the cosmos.
?????

So? in your world View as a Christian is God not able to use what we identify as science to make things happen?

If so why would science be something that needs to be separated from God? If God is real 'science' is mans understanding of how God uses the universe to his end goals.

Or is God a perpetual enigma/wizard which must always be cloaked in magic and mystery?
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, I see. That is interesting. You base it on whether Elohim or Yahweh is being used in the text. I didn't see that coming. Very interesting.
I mention it in the OP

That the "word" is refered to as "the word" because that is what YHWH was to the jews. "The word of God."

This also helps out the understanding of other passages as well as in Heb 4:
12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.

12: For the Son/Jesus of God is active and sharper than any two edged sword...

Jesus is our judge and will rightly divide our soul and spirit and discern our thoughts and intent of our heart.

Just kinda reinforces the idea of the word being the word Yahweh
 
  • Agree
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
For the Son/Jesus of God is active and sharper than any two edged sword...

Jesus is our judge and will rightly divide our soul and spirit and discern our thoughts and intent of our heart.

Just kinda reinforces the idea of the word being the word Yahweh

I like the way you're interpreting "word" in these NT passages. I think that is very helpful. But, again, I had not drawn a connection between Word and YHWH. I am still trying to take in the possible implications. Very interesting.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, there isn't any crossover, there isn't any crossover between science and the bible. When Genesis was written, there was no science to cross over with.
but science exist now and if Genesis is God's truth then science should indeed support it. Truth is truth and genesis was truth before science. if Science is truth then again it should be supported by genesis, which again it certainly can do. Meaning you can have your full faith as it is popularly taught and again not have to deny anything science teaches. Do you understand that concept? With this theory we just took the primary conflict between God and education away without compromising either!

How can you possible see a problem there?



No-one is forced to choose between God and education. Children are however sometime put in the position of having to choose between learning and the poorly-informed beliefs of their parents.
My primary outreach/ministry is dealing with collage kids who have gone to school and desperately trying to hold on to their faith. "School" makes religion/God a fool's errand. it pits the 'educated' against the foolish and bigoted ways of bronze age sheppards. Schools are not only a repository of facts but the teacher of popular culture and modern morality. Schools are shaping the direction of this country. and it is actively trying to seek out and destroythe worship of God to make this happen.

If you do not think there is a battle between modern morality and God, just ask yourself if 25 years ago Gay marriage and gay adoptions would ever happen? would transexual males be allowed to compete with real female athletes? would these makes also be allowed to share bathrooms and shower spaces..
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
but science exist now and if Genesis is God's truth then science should indeed support it. Truth is truth and genesis was truth before science. if Science is truth then again it should be supported by genesis, which again it certainly can do. Meaning you can have your full faith as it is popularly taught and again not have to deny anything science teaches. Do you understand that concept? With this theory we just took the primary conflict between God and education away without compromising either!

How can you possible see a problem there?




My primary outreach/ministry is dealing with collage kids who have gone to school and desperately trying to hold on to their faith. "School" makes religion/God a fool's errand. it pits the 'educated' against the foolish and bigoted ways of bronze age sheppards. Schools are not only a repository of facts but the teacher of popular culture and modern morality. Schools are shaping the direction of this country. and it is actively trying to seek out and destroythe worship of God to make this happen.

If you do not think there is a battle between modern morality and God, just ask yourself if 25 years ago Gay marriage and gay adoptions would ever happen? would transexual males be allowed to compete with real female athletes? would these makes also be allowed to share bathrooms and shower spaces..

The only way to understand what you are missing here is to learn more about how and why the Genesis account was written. There are plenty of resources for that.

If someone finds that they are struggling in their faith because they are getting a education then that person has been badly let down by their faith community. There is no excuse for holding on to patently false notions about texts like the Genesis narrative, beliefs which are all about church tradition and nothing to do with an actual understanding of the text.

The church has no business being heavily involved in what secular government does. A church that takes political sides to such a degree that the church and the political party are essentially the same thing is no longer a church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I like the way you're interpreting "word" in these NT passages. I think that is very helpful. But, again, I had not drawn a connection between Word and YHWH. I am still trying to take in the possible implications. Very interesting.
To be honest it was something I was taught along time ago I have not really look too far into it.

I know the jews hold Yahweh to be the personal name of God, and traditionally that is supposed to be seperate from God the son.

However John 1:1 labels the Word of God which again is what the Jews referred to as "yhwh" as being Christ incarnate.

The theory I am bring fourth is not completely dependant on the who of God did what, but more on the fact there are two things happening at the same time.

If it is all the father fine if it is all the son that is ok too. I just want people to understand that during day one and day two adam (man with a soul) was made part from day 6 man as chapter two explains everything with in the chapter happens between day 2 and day 3 of the normal creation narrative.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,703.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do not understand the point you are trying to make with the bible references. could you rephrase.. point out my error and then explain how you see me being wrong. by just pasting a passage only has me read the same verse I have already seen 1000 times before. (i'm not seeing it the way you do)

never said it did. I have no idea what makes you think I am talking about that.

?????

So? in your world View as a Christian is God not able to use what we identify as science to make things happen?

If so why would science be something that needs to be separated from God? If God is real 'science' is mans understanding of how God uses the universe to his end goals.

Or is God a perpetual enigma/wizard which must always be cloaked in magic and mystery?

well ... miscommunication going on here no doubt.

Really, it's the premise of your OP

How to assimilate all of evolutionary theory into a literal 7 day creation without changing anything

evolution theory teaches life began out in the cosmos and this turned into that (evolved) over billions of years.

God says He created everything fully formed.

the two (evolution/creation) are mutually exclusive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The only way to understand what you are missing here is to learn more about how and why the Genesis account was written. There are plenty of resources for that.

If someone finds that they are struggling in their faith because they are getting a education then that person has been badly let down by their faith community. There is no excuse for holding on to patently false notions about texts like the Genesis narrative, beliefs which are all about church tradition and nothing to do with an actual understanding of the text.

The church has no business being heavily involved in what secular government does. A church that takes political sides to such a degree that the church and the political party are essentially the same thing is no longer a church.
I asked a very specific question which in turn gives you licenses to fill in those theological blanks. if you wish to be apart o the discussion. I even gave you a contextual error to resolve that would contradict your assessment completely yet it seems your best efforts are to try and show case my apparent lack of the very specific training needed to understand your very specific take on genesis.

Which to me has always been apart of the problem with most exegetical work. One has to be an expert to read the bible. Nothing can be discerned from a off the shelf reading. one has to know the right people to know the trick to try and understand when a word say "x" it means Y..

How about this.. The theory in the OP needs none of that and it does not contradict itself with any sort of explanation.

The church in this country has a role and always had a role in government from the beginning. it is the 'progressive' european thought that God should be absent in government.

Here are historical examples of how God and religion has shaped the united states:
 
Upvote 0

PaulCyp1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 4, 2018
1,075
849
78
Massachusetts
✟239,255.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It isn't a problem for the majority of Christians. Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". As a result of that divine guarantee of truth, the teaching of that one Church (which includes well over half of all Christians) never conflicts with any natural truth revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth.
In Protestantism on the other hand, untruth is rampant, as shown by the fact that the teaching of each denomination conflicts with the teaching of the others, and truth cannot conflict with truth. Therefore it is no surprise that the teaching of many Protestant denominations also conflicts with natural truths clearly revealed by science.
 
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

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even so the narritive in the passage places the evens of Chapter 2 between day 2 and day 3 of the previous account of creation. IE everything happening in chapter two where framed out by the two evens mentioned in verse 4 and 5.
So you see chapter 3 happening with in what days after chapter 2?
what/where in the passage does it say day 6 man was ever inserted into the garden? I I pointed out to you the passage tells us everything in chapter two including the creation of man with a soul happened between day two and three. You are not arguing me here it is plainly spelled out in the text.
So God made an error or Man with a soul was made specifically for the garden day twoish, and man on day six was left to 'evolve outside the garden.

I am asking what if you read the word toledot in Gen 2:4 as not "generation" as it relates to groups of men/geneologies but "course of History as it relates to creation" (the third defination of Toledot in the Strongs: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Then toledot simple reads:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

I have shown a natural break between gen 2 and 3. If you do not see a break here aside from traditional beliefs I would like to explain why you think chapter 2 and three are connected.
You have separate books here between Gen 1 and Gen 2:5. Putting Gen 2 inside Gen 1 is one way to try to put the pieces together, in this case by rendering erets as earth rather than land. How you render it is going to change how you place it, I render it as land.

I'm still trying to figure it out, by combining science, Ancient Near Eastern culture, and the particulars of the text. I think there is a gap, but I'm not sure where to place it between the two I listed. I think the book for Gen 2 is drawing upon material already known. The book begins it's new content at the point where God plants a Garden, and places man in it. You can see the text shift from a compression of events drawing on another text to the uncompressed part of the story at this juncture. Because it's compressed we can't tell where this is in time. V5 seems to be a reference to agriculture which began around 10,000 BC and which appeared to be a a key component of the region success and history. But we have skeletons that go back well over 200,000 years giving us a huge gap. So I see the placing of the man in the land of Eden being near 10,000 bc (Gen 2:8). The Sumerian king list seems to do the same when you convert their numerical system from 60 based to 10.

Regarding the toledot in Gen 2:4. It is clearly looking back at Gen 1, not Gen 2. The pronoun "these" used in the toledot has to refer to Gen 1 as there is no preparation of Heaven and Earth in Gen 2. There are no chapter breaks here, these are books hemed together and we have to find the seams. Even though the tradional view places this forward, I think it's got to look backwards as a closing of Gen 1.

This is a hard text in Hebrew, the "Easy to Read Version" ERV is not a good translation to work these things out in. As far as Eden not being on Earth. How could it be anywhere else with the Tigris, Euphrates in it, and given it has geographical references like Cush and Assyria?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
well ... miscommunication going on here no doubt.

Really, it's the premise of your OP
then in your words what is the premise of the OP?

evolution theory teaches life began out in the cosmos and this turned into that (evolved) over billions of years.
So? is God not apart of the Cosmos? or is the Cosmos not apart of creation?

God says He created everything fully formed.
where? Book chapter and verse.
So you do understand whom ever wrote the book of genesis has no way of classifying animals into the genius and species you are doing when you say they were complete. meaning there was no word for a bird let alone a specific species. so we get winged creatures which means everything from a fly to a bat to a bird to a pterodactyl.
look it up for yourself.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Your default way of classifying animals did not happen till 5000+ years after this was written.

So again there was and still is no way of saying that your birds where the birds of adam and eve. that is a religious tradition that is not reflected in the bible in anyway shape or form.

Remember I only promised you would not have to change anything the bible said. I did not say your traditional beliefs where not subject to be changed.

There in lies the problem most of us do not know where our traditional beliefs begin and where the bible ends.

the two (evolution/creation) are mutually exclusive.
please explain, how so?

IE why do they need to be?

God is the creator Evolution explain how things where created. how is one different from the other?
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even so the narritive in the passage places the evens of Chapter 2 between day 2 and day 3 of the previous account of creation. IE everything happening in chapter two where framed out by the two evens mentioned in verse 4 and 5.
So you see chapter 3 happening with in what days after chapter 2?
what/where in the passage does it say day 6 man was ever inserted into the garden? I I pointed out to you the passage tells us everything in chapter two including the creation of man with a soul happened between day two and three. You are not arguing me here it is plainly spelled out in the text.
So God made an error or Man with a soul was made specifically for the garden day twoish, and man on day six was left to 'evolve outside the garden.

I am asking what if you read the word toledot in Gen 2:4 as not "generation" as it relates to groups of men/geneologies but "course of History as it relates to creation" (the third defination of Toledot in the Strongs: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Then toledot simple reads:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

I have shown a natural break between gen 2 and 3. If you do not see a break here aside from traditional beliefs I would like to explain why you think chapter 2 and three are connected.
About a year ago I set to read the text and see whether or not it conflicts with science. It's not finished but here is what I have so far if it can help. Drive
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The church in this country has a role and always had a role in government from the beginning. it is the 'progressive' european thought that God should be absent in government.

Here are historical examples of how God and religion has shaped the united states:

The bible couldn’t be clearer on the separation of church and state, Christians should ‘have nothing to do with civilian affairs’. In the early church, roles within the state apparatus and membership of the church were seen as incompatible. How unclear is ‘my kingdom is not of this world?’. Any deep involvement in politics is inseparable from a long string of ethical compromises, as can be plainly seen in church support for the current US administration.

Which to me has always been apart of the problem with most exegetical work. One has to be an expert to read the bible. Nothing can be discerned from a off the shelf reading. one has to know the right people to know the trick to try and understand when a word say "x" it means Y..

Not at all, it’s just a question of looking into the context of the time etc. John H Walton’s writings on it are a good place to start.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,703.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
then in your words what is the premise of the OP?

So? is God not apart of the Cosmos? or is the Cosmos not apart of creation?

where? Book chapter and verse.
So you do understand whom ever wrote the book of genesis has no way of classifying animals into the genius and species you are doing when you say they were complete. meaning there was no word for a bird let alone a specific species. so we get winged creatures which means everything from a fly to a bat to a bird to a pterodactyl.
look it up for yourself.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Your default way of classifying animals did not happen till 5000+ years after this was written.

So again there was and still is no way of saying that your birds where the birds of adam and eve. that is a religious tradition that is not reflected in the bible in anyway shape or form.

Remember I only promised you would not have to change anything the bible said. I did not say your traditional beliefs where not subject to be changed.

There in lies the problem most of us do not know where our traditional beliefs begin and where the bible ends.


please explain, how so?

IE why do they need to be?

God is the creator Evolution explain how things where created. how is one different from the other?

Macroevolution is the change from one distinct species to another.

Where does God talk about macro evolution in His Word?

Christians do affirm micro evolution ... life produces after their kind and is biblically supported.
 
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

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anything in the way of what is written in the bible or theory. what will have to change is the idea of how genesis is written. Common sense changes like for one when written there where no chapter and verse dentations. Everyone can agree on this. in That Chapter 2 does not start a second narrative. Chapter 2:1 begins the 7th day of the Father's creation. (As in the hebrew Elohim was the creator in chapter 1 to chapter 2:4 which is the seven days.

Which means chapter 2:5 begins not a second narrative but a Different part of creation where Yahweh (the word of John 1:1) the word being YHWH (which the where not to speak in whom John identifies as Jesus) Yahweh begins his creation on the day Elohim created dry land. (on day 2) and completes everything in chapter two just before God created the rain on day three.

How do I know? it says so right here:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

Remember everything before this point describes the 7th day or end of Elohim's 7days of creation, so by what is literally on page said here this new creation started on the day there was dry land... and what was being created here in chapter 2 ended before the rains.

So what was created by Yahweh/the word? Adam Eve the garden and everything in it.

So adam and eve and the garden of eden was created starting sometime literal day two and was complete some time literal day 3.

Which brings us to chapter three. Now understand Chapter 3 does not take place the next day after the garden was complete. if it had then they would have been expelled outside, before the rest of the Elohim's creation was complete meaning if chapter 3 was meant to be sequential to chapter two (next day) the expulsion of Adam and eve from the garden would have happened day 4 of the father's/elohim's creation.

Which allows us to say there is no time line between the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of Chapter 3. Yes it could have been several days later or a week month year or a million years or 20 billion years or how ever long Science says we need for evolution to happen.

How could Adam and eve lived so long? Remember they had access to the tree of life. They could eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However they did have access to the tree of life.

This theory goes a long way in to also dispelling alot of the other supposes contradictions and clears up the genealogies.
In that it explains to whom the sons and daughters of Adam married. It explain where the city of Nod came from that cain fled too. Because outside of the garden a version of mae made to simply look like God was created mature grow develop "evolve". We know little to nothing about this man other than God charged him to multiply and fill the world. Then we have Adam and Adam's people who where created not only in God's image but was breathe into him a living soul. Something day 6 man (evolved man) did not have. which meant all of Adam's progeny down to noah had souls and where living next to man without a soul. Which would explain the level of evil this world was awashed in that triggered the flood. Thus ensuring only men with souls populated the earth. This also squares up all of the geneologies and the YEC position in that it was about 6000 years from the point of the exodus from the garden that man with a living soul was introduced to this world. (Not that the world is only 6000 years old, but man with a soul upon Adam's arrival outside the Garden 6000 years had past.

Now the only thing I can possible see as possible no go here is Gen 5 and it's traditional reading. in that Adam only lived 930 year on this earth..

But I have two issues with that. one "on this earth" being the first. 1 was the garden on this earth? If so where is it? and then if it where to be of this earth then why was Adam and eve expelled to this earth where God curse the ground because of him. "and /he will have to work hard all your life for the food the ground produces."

There is a clear separation between life in the garden and life on this earth.

Two my second objection was What God said about the tree of knowledge. 3 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Now unless God is a liar.. They did died that very day. IE the immortal being who lived in the garden for how ever long it took to place a fossil record in the ground did die and were born into this world this earth a physical vessel who could toil and suffer like they never experienced before..

The fact that God was concerned about them eating for the tree of life kinda shows they where no longer meant to share that same space/relationship they once had pre knowledge of sin.


So to recap.

This whole theory is based on one simple idea. there is no time line between Genesis 2 and genesis 3. Because of that you can put the 7 day creation in it's trai7 day creationtional complete form at the dawn of the creation of this world. and then accept all of what science has to say if your professor demands it or if you simply need to reconcile the fossil record with conventional mainstream scientific means and place the exodus of Adam and Eve @ or around 6000 years ago just like the bible says.

Thoughts objections Ideas?

I post this because I would like to do a video on this subject and was wondering if anyone could help me produce something like this.
I think this could help to bridge the 'scientific gap' atheists and really now all higher learning institutions are forcing onto our children almost making them choose between God and a passing grade.

This will allow a student to have and accept both a literal 7 day creation and whatever science has to say.
The seven day creation makes much more sense than the big bang sludge theory. There is also another theory, seven days is a marker for creation. After all, this story is told to those who had no clue of science. God created science. It would take many generations after to uncover it. God has released information as He promised He would. Lets not box His creation within a couple of pages meant to edify those at that time. There is more to the story for a more mature mind.
Blessings
 
  • Agree
Reactions: drich0150
Upvote 0

NothingNew

New Member
Sep 9, 2019
2
0
Akron
✟7,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
How could Adam and eve lived so long? Remember they had access to the tree of life. They could eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However they did have access to the tree of life.

Like the Tree of Knowledge of Good an Evil caused it's full effect after a one-time use, I think there is reason to believe the Tree of Life would also work similarly, therefore Adam and Eve never partook in its fruit. This is the reason God wanted to prevent them from eating it in Genesis 3:22-24

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Also, Adams offspring, who never ate from the tree of life, lived just as long if not longer than he did. It seems people just lived longer in the early days of creation.
 
Upvote 0

NothingNew

New Member
Sep 9, 2019
2
0
Akron
✟7,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
I post this because I would like to do a video on this subject and was wondering if anyone could help me produce something like this.
I think this could help to bridge the 'scientific gap' atheists and really now all higher learning institutions are forcing onto our children almost making them choose between God and a passing grade.

This will allow a student to have and accept both a literal 7 day creation and whatever science has to say.

Before evolutionary and early earth scientific theories came into existence, I doubt there were too many questions or objections among Christians as to whether the Genesis account of creation was literal. This question of literary analysis has become increasingly popular in modern conversation of the Bible and is frequently employed to make the Word fit into another piece of seemingly contradictory knowledge we have learned from another source. And that's the problem:

Our way to approach the Word of God as a source of knowledge, must supersede all other sources which may compete with it. It is not necessary for the words and ideas of the Bible to cohere with all other sources which may exist now or in the future. In other words, there is no reason for us to hold the words we read in any other book or article with the same level of truth as the words we read in the Bible.

If you were to read a scientific article which tells how the beginning of the world happened and seems contrary to the words of scripture, you may seek to find how it coheres with the Word of God, however this is not necessary.

This is quite a bit different than how we think about reading two separate passages in scripture which seem contradictory to one another: we must approach both passages as being true since both are the Word of God, and at that point we may endeavor to understand how both are true simultaneously.

But there is no reason for us to accept second-hand scientific research as truth in the same way that we accept the Bible as truth (and I say this as a person who believes in much of early earth scientific theory). For everything you think you know about early earth science and evolutionary theory, most of us have not actually done the research first hand, and are therefore simply trusting what other people say as reliable and accurate. I'm not saying we must deny science, or that scientific pursuit is contrary to Biblical pursuit, but simply that scientific theory does not start with the same assumptions that we must start with when approaching the Bible, namely that the Words of the Bible must be true, while the words in a scientific journal may be true.

Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discover how the Genesis account of creation fits in with the scientific account, although we may still attempt to do so. We know at least the Genesis account is true.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have separate books here between Gen 1 and Gen 2:5. Putting Gen 2 inside Gen 1 is one way to try to put the pieces together, in this case by rendering erets as earth rather than land. How you render it is going to change how you place it, I render it as land.
without the context this statement was made I can only say my theory has no concern in how erets is rendered. I do however state the chapter and verse denotations are in error and use genesis 1:1 to 2:4 as an example that shows one narrative being wrongly divided. This is primarily to show there is no continuity/time line between chapters. That is my only effort here.

I'm still trying to figure it out, by combining science, Ancient Near Eastern culture, and the particulars of the text. I think there is a gap, but I'm not sure where to place it between the two I listed.[/quote] There is a traditional Hebrew story telling/historical teaching style at play here. one is to give a condensed out line of a happening or event from beginning to end, then then for a specific moment they will identify a time span in the original outline, and say this happened between here and here as to frame out sequentuially and to give greater detail.

Gen1:1- gen2:4 is said out line of all of creation of this world. Now moving forward Gen 2:5 to the end of the chapter is a specific telling of Adam the garden and everything in it.

The next division is gen 3. there isn't a time frame with in the creation narrative that this story/fall of man takes place in the larger creation outline.
I think the book for Gen 2 is drawing upon material already known.
agree that would be gen 1 verse 5 and 6 tells us everything that follows happens with in these two points of time. Dry land/earth and just before it rains. Meaning everything in gen 2 :6 and after to the end of the chapter starts after dry land/earth on day 2 and everything in gen 2 is completed by mid day 3 just before the rains came.

This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (day 2) This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.(mid day 3)

So at the beginning of the chapter 2 narrative we have two book ends which places the content of chapter two between these two points in time of the larger 7 day creation.
The book begins it's new content at the point where God plants a Garden, and places man in it.
Got that. my point is when this happened.

You can see the text shift from a compression of events drawing on another text to the uncompressed part of the story at this juncture.
something I allude to in the OP but yes.

Because it's compressed we can't tell where this is in time.
If you are looking for a roman calendar date no... but if you can use the "day one when God creates light and dark, then yes you can. Everything in chapter 2 (aside from day seven's events) happen between day 2 and 3.

V5 seems to be a reference to agriculture which began around 10,000 BC and which appeared to be a a key component of the region success and history.
Again no. chapter two v5 say this all happens well before there were fields because there was no rain and there where no people to tend to the crop/before agriculture.

But we have skeletons that go back well over 200,000 years giving us a huge gap. So I see the placing of the man in the land of Eden being near 10,000 bc (Gen 2:8). The Sumerian king list seems to do the same when you convert their numerical system from 60 based to 10.
again what happens in the garden is apart from the 7 day narrative. everything in the garden was fast tracked to fit between day two and day three.

Regarding the toledot in Gen 2:4. It is clearly looking back at Gen 1, not Gen 2.
so says the OP

The pronoun "these" used in the toledot has to refer to Gen 1 as there is no preparation of Heaven and Earth in Gen 2. There are no chapter breaks here, these are books hemed together and we have to find the seams. Even though the traditional view places this forward, I think it's got to look backwards as a closing of Gen 1.
is this not what I have been saying from my first post?
What is it do you think My position here is?

This is a hard text in Hebrew, the "Easy to Read Version" ERV is not a good translation to work these things out in.
it is a tool, like any other it may not be a finishing tool but here's the thing that help even the pretentious. it's communicating in an active dialect. any questioning of the passage can always be looked up, but here again it forces the reader to take a live dialect look at the passage and this often times will uncloud mysteries interpretations of a dead dialect will often leave behind.

The easy to read if often considered a humble mans version as many pretenses have to be dropped or intentionally added to include denominationally specific material. This translations and many like it force a return to study, because often time passages will not have specific denominational slants we can often put on words and phrases used in a dead dialect version of scripture.

The point? the bible is useless to you and those in whom you try and help if it can only be view through denominationally specific lenses. You should be able to pick up and use any version of the HOLY BIBLE with a good lexicon and concordance to back it up.

As far as Eden not being on Earth. How could it be anywhere else with the Tigris, Euphrates in it, and given it has geographical references like Cush and Assyria?
At that time the tigris was not known by that name, the river was so named when the greeks took over the region. Tigris - Wikipedia
The same is true with the euphraties river. it was also known by another name then.
Euphrates - Wikipedia
The Ancient Greek form Euphrátēs (Ancient Greek: Εὐφράτης, as if from Greek εὖ "good" and ϕράζω "I announce or declare") was adapted from Old Persian Ufrātu,[1] itself from Elamite ú-ip-ra-tu-iš. The Elamite name is ultimately derived from a name spelt in cuneiform as , which read as Sumerian language is "Buranuna" and read as Akkadian language is "Purattu"; many cuneiform signs have a Sumerian pronunciation and an Akkadian pronunciation, taken from a Sumerian word and an Akkadian word that mean the same. In Akkadian the river was called Purattu,[2] which has been perpetuated in Semitic languages (cf. Syriac P(ə)rāṯ, Arabic al-Furāt) and in other nearby languages of the time (cf. Hurrian Puranti, Sabarian Uruttu). The Elamite, Akkadian, and possibly Sumerian forms are suggested to be from an unrecorded substrate language.[3] Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov suggest the Proto-Sumerian *burudu "copper" (Sumerian urudu) as an origin, with an explanation that Euphrates was the river by which the copper ore was transported in rafts, since Mesopotamia was the center of copper metallurgy during the period.[4]

The fact that the bible list two other unknown rivers would indicate that river system framed out the garden is else where
 
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

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point? the bible is useless to you and those in whom you try and help if it can only be view through denominationally specific lenses. You should be able to pick up and use any version of the HOLY BIBLE with a good lexicon and concordance to back it up.


At that time the tigris was not known by that name, the river was so named when the greeks took over the region. Tigris - Wikipedia
The same is true with the euphraties river. it was also known by another name then.
Euphrates - Wikipedia
The Ancient Greek form Euphrátēs (Ancient Greek: Εὐφράτης, as if from Greek εὖ "good" and ϕράζω "I announce or declare") was adapted from Old Persian Ufrātu,[1] itself from Elamite ú-ip-ra-tu-iš. The Elamite name is ultimately derived from a name spelt in cuneiform as , which read as Sumerian language is "Buranuna" and read as Akkadian language is "Purattu"; many cuneiform signs have a Sumerian pronunciation and an Akkadian pronunciation, taken from a Sumerian word and an Akkadian word that mean the same. In Akkadian the river was called Purattu,[2] which has been perpetuated in Semitic languages (cf. Syriac P(ə)rāṯ, Arabic al-Furāt) and in other nearby languages of the time (cf. Hurrian Puranti, Sabarian Uruttu). The Elamite, Akkadian, and possibly Sumerian forms are suggested to be from an unrecorded substrate language.[3] Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov suggest the Proto-Sumerian *burudu "copper" (Sumerian urudu) as an origin, with an explanation that Euphrates was the river by which the copper ore was transported in rafts, since Mesopotamia was the center of copper metallurgy during the period.[4]

The fact that the bible list two other unknown rivers would indicate that river system framed out the garden is else where
I think it was before 10,000 BC, so that would be before agriculture.

I don't know how you fit all of the events in the garden between days 2 and 3 when man isn't created till day 6. It also requires rendering Erets as earth rather than land to tie it to Gen 1.

The ERV is not a version for serious inquiry into a text. The purpose of that version is to be easy to read for people who use sign language, not to be true to the Hebrew structure or vocabulary. It is not a "humble man's version" it is a version that is rendered down to the vocabulary available in sign language for people whose first language is sign language.

I understand putting a gap between Gen 2 and Gen 3, but it's a stretch to make that more than Adams lifetime of 900 and some years. You try and overcome this limitation by placing Eden as not on earth. But the discription of Eden refers to actual places on earth for reference. I understand that these are modern names for ancient places. But they are still ancient places on earth. So if Eden is not on earth why does the author use earthly locations to pinpoint it's geographical location?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.