Young Earth Creationist gathering!

Originally posted by JohnR7
In fact if your looking at the actual length of the day, then each day in creation would be half as long as the day before it.

What evidence do you have of this?

With idea conditions things develop and grow VERY fast. With less than ideal conditions, then things grow and develop VERY slow.

Please provide three examples -- three pairs of objects, one fast growing raised in good conditions and the other slow growing and raised in poor conditions. Please include the age of each.


You wouldn't just be talking out your keister again, would you?
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
61
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by JohnR7
Really, that is the same thing as people who have studied the Bible very little, think they know more about it, than people who have spent a lifetime to study it.

What amazes me is that you have one opinion of the Bible based on a life time or even the combination of three life times worth of work. Then the infidel comes along and puts about 5 mins. worth of effort into it and his opinion is suppose to be better than the Bible experts opinion.

But infidels can only peddle their infidel opinions to other infidels. But we seek to bring people out of the darkness of ignorance into the true and the living light of God.

You’re being defensive and patronising. You seem reluctant to allow others to analyse your views critically. If you participate in this forum, then that is the expectation.

I'd invite you to this Thread to discuss your interpretations of the passage in question. That will give us a better understanding of each others view and also allow others to consider which most accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. In that thread, I want to confine the discussion to using the internal evidence of Scripture only to support the interpretation given.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Why would God say "I will create you a helper" then bother looking at all the animals he had created, before going on to create a helper. If he says that he will create one, why does he then immediately in the next verse contradict himself by looking at thinks he already had created?

Because the writer was trying to convey that everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Rize
Gensis 1 is plants, animals, mankind just as you said.

Gensis 2 is not Adam, plants, animals Eve.  It is Adam, Eden, Eve.

Originally posted by Rize
Don't forget that God could have created additional copies of each creature (a "second" creation) for this purpose.

I respectfully disagree.

Gen 1 is plants, animals, mankind.

Gen 2 is STILL plants, animals, mankind.

If you read the NIV, this becomes glaringly apparent and all seeming contradictions are laid to rest.  I like to use Scripture (Gen 1) to interpret Scripture (Gen 2).
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Rize
An interesting theory, but it's still speculation (and not really helpful since the two can be reconciled).

Sure the explaination of why there are two stories is speculation, especially in my hands. But many traditional views of Genesis are also speculation, with little textual argument to support them.

However, if the creation stories did divurge in that manner, what about the rest of the material?  Why just the creation?

There is evidence in other places of seperate text being put together, it's just for this thread we have concentrated on cosmogony.

I found these links interesting.
Reading the Torah
Literary history of the Pentateuch
Documentary Hypothesis

Originally posted by Clue:
You did a very commendable job in posting all the different translations. But I will stick with the position that in Hebrew, the tense of a verb is determined by context. Using that (and how Genesis 1 has already clearly laid out the sequence of creation), I think the NIV translation is the more accurate one.

See post #56 and the subsequent discussion in which I specifically show what the context of the passage is and why the NIV's translation makes no sense.

Originally posted by JohnR7:
What amazes me is that you have one opinion of the Bible based on a life time or even the combination of three life times worth of work. Then the infidel comes along and puts about 5 mins. worth of effort into it and his opinion is suppose to be better than the Bible experts opinion.

Nice rhetoric too bad none of it is true. My posts was the culmination of hours of work. I am not posting my opinion over Bible experts, unless you consider the translators of the NIV to be bible experts whereas the translators of the NASB to not be. As L'Antra has pointed out, the mass number of Bible translations in multiple languages translate it differently than the NIV. The only argument I have seen as to why the NIV choses the pluperfect is to use Genesis 1 as the context. However, to do that is to ignore the immediate context of of Genesis 2:18-2:22.

But infidels can only peddle their infidel opinions to other infidels. But we seek to bring people out of the darkness of ignorance into the true and the living light of God.

What part of the "true and living light of God" requires Genesis 2:19 be traslanted in the pluperfect? Are you becoming an NIV-onlyist? Everything I have stated her, I have run past my Christian (and UMC) wife. So don't go around and say it is an infidelic opinon, unless you want to do her a disservice.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by clue
Because the writer was trying to convey that everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam.

What in the text leads you to this conclusion? I don't see an "up to this point" or anything similar in that passage?

If you read the NIV, this becomes glaringly apparent and all seeming contradictions are laid to rest. I like to use Scripture (Gen 1) to interpret Scripture (Gen 2).

But you can't use Genesis 1 to interpret Genesis 2, since Genesis 2 was not written with Genesis 1 in mind. In fact, Genesis 2 appears to be older than Genesis 1.

Like I said before, you can't use the assumption that there is no contradiction to prove that there isn't a contradiction. Both myths must be interpreted on their own and then compared to see if there are conflicts.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Speaking of the contradiction about the order of creation, they say that Genesis 2:19 has been mistranslated. However, they use circular logic to prove that there is not contradiction. In other words,
[*]Assume Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not contradict.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.  Sounds like good advice to me.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
[*]Therefore, Genesis 2:19 must be translated in the pluperfect and not perfect tense.

And let's not forget the TINY rule that in Hebrew, verb tense is determined by context.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
[*]Thus Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not contradict.

Exactly.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
But that doesn't work. You can't use what your trying to prove to prove itself.

In this instance, you perfectly can.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Okay here is the issue, compare the Genesis 2:19 in the NASB and the NIV translations.

NASB: Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and (2) brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

This discrepency is because for the most part the tense of the verbs in Biblical Hebrew must be infered from context. There are no grammatical markers to distinguish between "formed" and "had formed."

Exactly!

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
However, AiG and the translators of the NIV have actually taken the passage out of its oringal context and placed it in another one, i.e. Genesis 1.

That's just your say so.  Using your logic, it can be translated 'had formed' without further contention.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Of course, such a move is ludicrous since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different authors and different histories.

Controversial claim.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
AIG dismisses the Documentary Hypothesis, which was a (the?) major discovery in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship, by calling it "anti-christian" and simply asserting that Moses is the only writter. In other words, they don't even address the evidence that the documentary hypothesis offers.

That's just your say so.  Could it be that AiG dismisses this hypothesis because: 

Did Moses really write Genesis?  

1.  Rabbinic Jewist tradition claimed that Moses was the writer?
2.  The Pentateuch and rest of the Old Testament claimed that Moses was the writer?
3.  Jesus himself claimed that Moses was the writer?
4.  John and Paul claimed that Moses was the writer?

These are a more reliable source to me than the people who proposed the documentary hypothesis just 250 years ago.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Now what is the actual context of Genesis 2:19? You just have to look at Genesis 2:18-2:21.

As I have already written in an earlier post, God was trying to explain everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam.  God was saying "Man is lonely.  I'm going to make a companion for him.  What about the animals, you ask?  Why can't they be his companions?  Well, I made them already.  And I brought them to Adam.  And he liked them and named them and all.  But there just wasn't one of them that was suitable to be his one and only.  So, I put him to sleep, and made a woman for him."
 
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
Originally posted by clue
In this instance, you perfectly can.

In no instance can you use something to prove itself, because all you have proved is that you have no proof all.

That's just your say so.  Using your logic, it can be translated 'had formed' without further contention.

Except that they disagrees with Genesis 2:18-22.

Controversial claim.

Umm. The documentary hypothesis is not a controversial claim. It is the concensus of modern biblical scholarship.


That's just your say so.  Could it be that AiG dismisses this hypothesis because: 

Did Moses really write Genesis?  

1.  Rabbinic Jewist tradition claimed that Moses was the writer?
2.  The Pentateuch and rest of the Old Testament claimed that Moses was the writer?
3.  Jesus himself claimed that Moses was the writer?
4.  John and Paul claimed that Moses was the writer?

Read AiG's statement again. They dismiss the Documentary Hypothesis with the following.

Thus the documentary hypothesis undermines the authenticity of the Genesis Creation/Fall/Flood accounts, as well as the whole patriarchal history of Israel. It presupposes that the whole of the Old Testament is one gigantic literary fraud, and calls into question not only the integrity of Moses, but also the trustworthiness/divinity of Jesus (see point 5 below). No wonder the critics have embraced it so warmly!

In other words, "the DH must be false or we'd be wrong." Sounds like pride to me. The 1-4 that you referenced is their argument that Moses had to be the writter, after they'd established, in their mind, that that there was only one.

These are a more reliable source to me than the people who proposed the documentary hypothesis just 250 years ago.

If that is true then you're not a biblical literalist, since the literal Biblical Hebrew clearly indicates multiple authorship.

For some Christian views about resolving New Testament claims of "Mosaic" authoriship, with the knowledge that multiple authors contributed to the Pentateuch please read this thread.

As I have already written in an earlier post, God was trying to explain everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam.

I don't see an "up to this point" in the text, or anything similar. What textual evidence in Genesis 2 leads you to this conclusion?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Micaiah
You’re being defensive and patronising. 

I thought we were on the same team. Are you a christian? Is your name written in the Lamb's book of life? Do you plan to go up to be with Jesus when He returns for us at the rapture?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Really? You wouldn't happen to have a copy of the scientific paper that confirms the existance of "Adam," the "Garden of Eden," and the "6000 years ago." If you can't, then science says no such thing.

Science usually has a transition period from 10,000 to 6,000 years ago. This is because of the theory of evolution. Where they can not accept that modern man happened on the scene in so short of a period of time.

They say that stone age man evolved into modern man. That cultivated flowers evolved out of wild flowers. That domesticated animals evolved out of wild animals and so forth.

The time frame is about the same though. Their proof for evolution is that wild animals can be tamed, so they use this as proof that the wild animals were domesticated. There say there is evidence that stone age man planted some seeds here and there. They use this as proof that man evolved into a farmer.

As for cultivated flowers and food, they say that everything grows wild some where, so this is proof that man just took the wild flowers and other plants and cultivated them.
 
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
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

EPHRIAM777

A REAL NICE GUY..!
Dec 6, 2002
448
2
PHILLY
✟620.00
Originally posted by Rize [/i]
Eph: perhaps you should read that as it is presented.  A vision given to Jeremiah about invaders being a tool of God's justice upon the unrepentant Jews. i.e., it has nothing to do with creation.

Eph writes...

...As far as I know God didn't write it or present it in ENGLISH..

Plus...why or how you go off track and "conclude" somehow that I ever said anything about "invaders"...ect ect or "tools of God"...ect ect is beyond me...Maybe you just got done watching a Star Wars movie or something..?

Either way..lets try to stick to the BIBLE and not bleed in your late nite Star Trek episodes OK..?? LOL

JERIMIAH says what it does..!

.He was taken BACKWARDS in time...just as JOHN was taken forwards in time to Revelations days and wrote the book of Revelation....by visions of seeing the future..Jerimaih was taken backwards in time..and gave a discription of the Earth prior to Gen 1:3..!

Look at JER 4 please..verses 23 thru 28...Jerimiah sees the earth and IT was "without form and void"..AND there was NO light...That means it's prior to GEN 1:3..Verse 25 says there were no ADAM'S on the earth..(( in english it says "no man"..but in the original Hebrew it says no ADAM..literally no Adam or descendants of Adam on the planet..)..

BIRDS in that same verse isn't speaking of LITERAL birds that WE know of....the kind that lay eggs and fly and make nests..!

The english translators looked at the verse IN Hebrew and it said.."creautres covered with WINGS waving to and fro in the Air above"....Now they looked at that and decided that it must mean "birds" so they wrote the word birds into that verse..and they were wrong to DO that...!

They forgot to read or consider verses that teach OTHER things mentioned in Gods word ALSO can have wings... read 2 CRON 3:12:13 for one example..Or verses like ISAIAH 6:2..!

OK.?...See what I mean here..?

Something that has "wings" doesn't mean it MUST a bird..it could be speaking of a SERAPHIM like Isaiah 6:2 speaks of..OR a creature like Ezekiel 1:5:8 speaks of....The point is it doesn't have to be birds..!

PLUS along with the fact that there is NO light..and no "Adam'es" on the planet..AND Jerimiah uses the same words as GEN 1:2 does...It's a look / quick glimpse back in time...!

Jerimiah goes on to add that there are "meeting places of inteligent beings" on the planet...The KJV in english wrote that as "cities"...But cities are something that MEN build....A "meeting place of inteligent beings"..doesn't have to be built by men..it could have been built by ANGLES..their pretty smart and inteligent too...!

See you read that in ENGLISH...and you assume that it's speaking of MEN..Humans.....Not so in the Hebrew...!
 
Upvote 0