Creation Questions

LightBearer · Sep 17, 2002

The word ´adha·mah' is translated ground, soil, or land. ´Adha·mah' refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earths visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). ´Adha·mah' seems to be related etymologically to the word ´a·dham', the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.Ge 2:7.

The Hebrew word adam is translated Adam. In addition to being a name, it means and is rendered man or earthling man, either one man or mankind in general on earth. (Gen. 1:26; 6:7; 7:21; 9:6; 1 Sam. 15:29) The word adam is related to another Hebrew word, adamah, which means earth or ground.

Basically then, the name Adam means of the earth, literally. God seems to have choosen this method for creating Adam so that he and all his offspring would have an affinity with our planet, not only being born here but of the very substance of it. This is our home and we feel bound to it. Astronaughts who have looked back from space have said similar to Dorothy of The Wizard of Oz there is no place like home.

And so, as in the words of the Psalmist. As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, But the earth he has given to the sons of men. Psalm 115:16.

Hank · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by TheBear
ooops!

My 'thin air' was a slang for 'nothing'. Sorry for the confusion.

Are you saying the Biblical word 'dust', means 'atom' or 'electron'?

long winded answer:

Electron no, more like elements. Keep in mind Europa thinks they are the cradle for knowledge, such as elements and such. Alexandra, Egypt had a Uni when Europe used to live in swamp lands. Most people assume we just now know stuff. Did old Egypt know the atom? I don't know. Just why dust and not, say, mud? Would mud not be closer resembling shapes of living things? Yet we read, dust. We can also read that Jacobs family grew in Egypt for four hundred years. It took our scientists four hundred years from absolute stupidity to genius. Who can say Egyptians were less intelligent? And I don't see anywhere where Jews where forbidden to use scientific knowledge from Egypt. So in short, dust as in atoms or at least elements, since Genesis was written in Moses' time.

p.s. I just find the first chapter of Genesis intriguing. It gives a sequence on creation no scientist least of which myself, could argue against.

Stormy · Sep 17, 2002

according to the Bible the days were literal 24 hr periods

I do not see it that way.

The sun and the moon were not given until the third day. They were given to man so that he might be mindful of his time. God is outside of time.

Stormy · Sep 17, 2002

I can not accept the standard theory of evolution.

It opens more questions than it answers.

Chloe · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by TheBear
Chloe,

I aopologize for the misunderstanding. Your final thought in that post was,

"Why exactly do you have a problem with creation?"

That question falsely assumes I have a problem with creation. I don't.

Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.

John

I assumed you had problems (meaning you don't believe it) with the biblical account of creation because of your questions, if I was wrong, I sincerely apologize.

Chloe · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by seebs
So, in the entirety of Hebrew writings, the word has never once been used in a metaphorical sense? There is nothing in the Bible which is put in simpler terms to make it approachable, or to get an important point across in terms of comprehensible statements?

Weird.

 

Notice I stated in Genesis.  I was referring to the account of creation, not every occurence of the word "day" in the bible.

Chloe · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by Stormy
I do not see it that way.

The sun and the moon were not given until the third day. They were given to man so that he might be mindful of his time. God is outside of time.

 

Actually, according to the Bible it was the fourth day when God created the sun and moon.

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.  So the evening and the morning were the first day.(Genesis 1:3-5)

 

Sky · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by Chloe
 

Actually, according to the Bible it was the fourth day when God created the sun and moon.

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.  So the evening and the morning were the first day.(Genesis 1:3-5)

 

And why can't this be symbolic? This doesn't prove a literal six-day creation.

zyzychyn · Sep 17, 2002

Why would he use the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" if it didn't refer to literal days?

Theory - a broad generalization that explains a body of facts or phenomena.

I don't accept the theory of evolution because I think there are too many holes in it.

At any rate, "4 billion years" isn't a definite fact. It's a figure gotten from radiometric dating, which is far from a perfect way of dating objects. It's been wrong on the ages of known objects; why should we assume it's right for this?

Duane Morse · Sep 17, 2002

In the case of the light of the first "day" it could be referring to the cause being the morning and the effect being the evening. The time it takes to complete the transaction.

zyzychyn · Sep 17, 2002

Could you clarify that, please?

Soul_Searcher · Sep 17, 2002

With the snap of His fingers, with a blink of an eye, with the mere thought, God could have created everything, all at once, in an instant. Yet, scripture clearly shows a timeline. Why?

Because the writer had no concept of instant, therefore he put it into a context he could understand. "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." If all was darkness, then God created light, wouldn't the darkness have disappeared? What caused it? One needs something solid to cast a shadow of darkness. We have days because of the rotation of the earth. As there was no earth, no shadow, how could there be a 'day'?

Actually, only Gen 1 has a timeline, because Gen 2:4 states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." Taking it literally, Gen 2 states God did it all in one day.

Why was there a sequence of events? What does this imply?

Click to expand...

It implies the writer had a rudimentary inderstanding of the order of creation. It is a very logical order, as opposed to creation in Gen 2, which is backwards: Man first, plants and animals next.

Adam was created from the dust. Why was this method used? What does it mean?

Click to expand...

I agree with Hank on this one. The 'dust' represents the elements that make up our atomic structure. Again, a crude but wonderful understanding. Yet in Gen one we have, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." No dust involved, just God creating as only God can...from what we would deem 'nothing'.

Were all living things created from dust, or out of thin air?

Click to expand...

It depends on whether you're reading Gen 1 or Gen 2. All things in Gen 2 were created out of 'dust' or 'ground'. All things in Gen 1 were out of 'thin air' as you say. I think it's two ways of saying the same thing, given that these were written 1000's of years ago.

And, if He created everything else out of 'thin air', why not man? What does this mean to you?

Click to expand...

I guess I need you to define 'everything else' Coach. In Gen 1, first there was God. In Gen 2(which really starts with verse 4), God creates Earth, though it seems to be there quickly, as he causes the waters (mists) to rise up.

For all the 6 day literalists, exactly how many hours and minutes did it take God to create the universe, the earth, vegitation, animals and man?

Click to expand...

I can't touch this one because, obviously, I'm not a literalist.

Let's kick it around.

Click to expand...

Vinatieri lines it up. There's the snap, the kick... IT'S GOOD! IT'S GOOD! THE PATRIOTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL!!

 

Pete Harcoff · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by zyzychyn
At any rate, "4 billion years" isn't a definite fact. It's a figure gotten from radiometric dating, which is far from a perfect way of dating objects. It's been wrong on the ages of known objects; why should we assume it's right for this? [/B]

Radiometric dating is actually very consistant, when done properly. Some creationist organizations, unfortunately, like to pick on specific instances of faulty radiometric dating to "disprove" the whole methodology of dating ancient objects (never mind whether or not these "disproofs" were dated properly or even valid).

Sky · Sep 17, 2002

True.

zyzychyn · Sep 17, 2002

There are other ways to date the earth, besides radiometric dating, and they don't point to 4 billion years...

Sky · Sep 17, 2002

What other ways? I don't know of any (valid) other ways of dating the earth.

Pete Harcoff · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by zyzychyn
There are other ways to date the earth, besides radiometric dating, and they don't point to 4 billion years...

The oldest known rocks found on Earth are about 3.6 billion years old (I think -- someone else had a good post on this; I'll try to dig it up).

Yes, there are different methods for dating various objects and features of planet Earth. But you must remember to look at the context of what you are dating and the method being used.

For example, ice core dating is only good at telling us approx. how long a particular ice formation has existed. Tree ring dating is only good at telling us how long a tree lived. And carbon dating can tell us how long something has been dead (up to about 50 000 years or so).

The point is, there is a lot of evidence that the Earth is older than the YEC stance of 6000 - 10 000 years. I still find it mystifying that there are people who would rather believe an age for the Earth based on an interpretation of the Bible, rather than looking at the actual Earth itself.

seebs · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by zyzychyn
There are other ways to date the earth, besides radiometric dating, and they don't point to 4 billion years...

The only way I know of to date the earth that doesn't point to 4 billion years is "human memory". Everything else that gives a number at all gives a very, very, large number. The only thing missing is written history going back more than ~5-10 thousand years, and we have a plausible explanation for that.

Sky · Sep 18, 2002

The earth IS billions of years old.

Sinai · Sep 18, 2002

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Does Genesis specifically state that people have souls?

From a biblical perspective, it's not as much that people "have" souls as it is that we are souls that are currently in a rather frail temporal body.

Creation Questions

Veteran

has the Right to be wrong

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

The whole Bible is the Whole Word of God

The whole Bible is the Whole Word of God

The whole Bible is the Whole Word of God

Well-Known Member

LotR ROCKS!

Well-Known Member

LotR ROCKS!

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

LotR ROCKS!

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads