Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Aman777 said:

Please list the living animals which came from the ground. You cannot either Scripturally, scientifically, historically nor genetically. Prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

Cattle, creeping things and the beasts of the Earth. Genesis 1:24-25.

Now tell me again that there's no Scriptural support.

Kylie said:

Cattle, creeping things and the beasts of the Earth. Genesis 1:24-25.

Now tell me again that there's no Scriptural support.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget humans. Adam was made from dust, and Eve was made from bone.

Aman777 said:

Mathematically, each of God's Days is best understood as an Age. Each Age is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time.
...
The problem is NOT with Science, but with the ancient interpretation of Genesis which falsely assumes that each Day is only 24 hours in man's time.

Click to expand...

OK, so as I said, we can't take it literally. Whoever wrote Genesis knew what a day was, and a year, but instead of using the usual terms for very long periods, or actually writing the number of years or eons, etc., they (without explanation) used a non-literal meaning of 'day'.

Seven days is literally a week, not ~32 billion years.

There really is no reason to think that the original author thought "day" meant anything other than "day" here. The text mentions seven days and means seven days.

But I also don't think the intent was a play-by-play in a literalistic sense. In poetry words can retain their direct sense without necessarily being intended in a literal and wooden way.

"My love for you is like a red rose." (I'm stealing this example from N.T. Wright) is a poetic statement, the rose here is just a rose, but the use of simile is understood since the idea of the rose is being used in comparison to the love of the poet for their beloved.

So the days of creation are days, in the plain sense; but being used in a poetical narrative for a purpose beyond the mere "this day, then that day" sense. This is why I think the Framework Hypothesis makes the most sense of the text.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

There really is no reason to think that the original author thought "day" meant anything other than "day" here. The text mentions seven days and means seven days.

But I also don't think the intent was a play-by-play in a literalistic sense. In poetry words can retain their direct sense without necessarily being intended in a literal and wooden way.

"My love for you is like a red rose." (I'm stealing this example from N.T. Wright) is a poetic statement, the rose here is just a rose, but the use of simile is understood since the idea of the rose is being used in comparison to the love of the poet for their beloved.

So the days of creation are days, in the plain sense; but being used in a poetical narrative for a purpose beyond the mere "this day, then that day" sense. This is why I think the Framework Hypothesis makes the most sense of the text.

Click to expand...

Quite - either it's literal and a day is just a day, or it isn't literal and a day can mean any suitable poetic interval.

pitabread said:

Except for all the unsupported assertions that you keep making up that are in no way supported by science, history or genetics.

But you're right, aside from basically everything, they do agree.

Click to expand...

Please be more specific and give us an example of "unsupported assertions" i keep making. Unless, of course, you can't think of any.

Bungle_Bear said:

You claimed there are almost 4000 rivers in Texas. I pointed out that there are only 15 rivers in Texas. Who was being deceitful?

I notice that you have, once again, changed your claim - Adam's Earth had 4 rivers -> Adam's Earth had 4 streams -> Adam's Earth had 4 rivers. If your argument is irrefutable, why do you flip flop around so much when the pressure is on?

Click to expand...

A flat earth doesn't require as many rivers nor were they as deep as found on planet Earth. I don't flip flop around since I support what I write with the agreement of Scripture, science, history, genetics, and math while some TRY give a bamboozle explanation for everything. Either show us that the rivers on Adam's Earth were as deep as on the present Earth or you have NOTHING to support your own personal opinion. Here's the Hebrew word for rivers as used in Genesis:

נָהַר nâhar, naw-har'; a primitive root; to sparkle, i.e. (figuratively) be cheerful; hence (from the sheen of a running stream) to flow, i.e. (figuratively) assemble:—flow (together), be lightened.

A river in Scripture and Hebrew means a sparkling moving body of water. You are hereby refuted. Try again?

Bungle_Bear said:

Genesis 1:24

Click to expand...

Gen 1:24 ¶And God (Trinity) said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after His kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after His kind: and it was so.

Click on the link and go find KJV of Scripture or remain in confusion. Your version eliminates Jesus from His own Creation.

Bungle_Bear said:

So much dishonesty, so little content.

Click to expand...

Once again, you confirm Scripture.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Kylie said:

Cattle, creeping things and the beasts of the Earth. Genesis 1:24-25.

Now tell me again that there's no Scriptural support.

Click to expand...

Since you are using an altered version of Scripture which has been changed from its original meaning, I don't accept your version. Find yourself an older version like this from the less altered King James. Your version does NOT agree with the KJV.

Gen 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

His kind? Their kind? Yes. His kind are the common ancestors and thus subject to death. Their kind is God the Trinity's kind which are ETERNAL. Unless you understand the difference between God and Lord God, you will NEVER understand the story of the Creation, since God the Father and God the Son have different roles in the perfect outcome of the 7th Day/Age.

46AND2 said:

Let's not forget humans. Adam was made from dust, and Eve was made from bone.

Click to expand...

Humans were a Special Creation, formed on the 3rd Day Genesis 2:7 by the Hands of Jesus, with a mind and perfect body like that of God. When Adam sinned, he found himself in a body like the sons of God, who were prehistoric people who were created from water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Adam was later "created" by God the Trinity on the present 6th Day, along with Eve. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 This means that Adam was born again Spiritually at the same time Eve was born again Spiritually and it was AFTER Cain killed Abel.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

OK, so as I said, we can't take it literally. Whoever wrote Genesis knew what a day was, and a year, but instead of using the usual terms for very long periods, or actually writing the number of years or eons, etc., they (without explanation) used a non-literal meaning of 'day'.

Seven days is literally a week, not ~32 billion years.

Click to expand...

God his His Truth in Genesis from those who do not believe Him and reject His Truth. Otherwise, Heaven would be filled with riff raff.

ViaCrucis said:

There really is no reason to think that the original author thought "day" meant anything other than "day" here. The text mentions seven days and means seven days.

Click to expand...

1. The Hebrew word for "Day" is YOWM and means a period of time. It is used in Scripture for 12 and 24 hours, a lifetime and for Eternity.
2. The prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 happens AFTER Jesus returns to Earth.
3. Today, we live at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. He will continue until Jesus returns to Earth.
4. There will be NO funeral homes at the end of the present 6th Day/Age because:
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
5. God will NOT rest from ALL of His work of creating mankind in Christ, until the end of the present 6th Day. Genesis 2:1-3

Aman777 said:

Please be more specific and give us an example of "unsupported assertions" i keep making. Unless, of course, you can't think of any.

Click to expand...

We've already had this discussion several times.

For example, everything you claim about "Adam's world/firmament/whatever" has no scientific support nor even any apparent Biblical support.

It seems to be little more than an invention of your fervent imagination. Even other creationists don't agree with you.

Aman777 said:

Humans were a Special Creation, formed on the 3rd Day Genesis 2:7 by the Hands of Jesus, with a mind and perfect body like that of God. When Adam sinned, he found himself in a body like the sons of God, who were prehistoric people who were created from water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Adam was later "created" by God the Trinity on the present 6th Day, along with Eve. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 This means that Adam was born again Spiritually at the same time Eve was born again Spiritually and it was AFTER Cain killed Abel.

Click to expand...

I thought you said your view was entirely consistent with science, cause this...is...not. even. close.

Aman777 said:

A flat earth doesn't require as many rivers nor were they as deep as found on planet Earth. I don't flip flop around since I support what I write with the agreement of Scripture, science, history, genetics, and math while some TRY give a bamboozle explanation for everything. Either show us that the rivers on Adam's Earth were as deep as on the present Earth or you have NOTHING to support your own personal opinion. Here's the Hebrew word for rivers as used in Genesis:

נָהַר nâhar, naw-har'; a primitive root; to sparkle, i.e. (figuratively) be cheerful; hence (from the sheen of a running stream) to flow, i.e. (figuratively) assemble:—flow (together), be lightened.

A river in Scripture and Hebrew means a sparkling moving body of water. You are hereby refuted. Try again?

Click to expand...

You're now moving from numbers of rivers to their depths yet still claim not to be flip flopping around?

Aman777 said:

Gen 1:24 ¶And God (Trinity) said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after His kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after His kind: and it was so.

Click on the link and go find KJV of Scripture or remain in confusion. Your version eliminates Jesus from His own Creation.

Click to expand...

Repeat after me: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth"

We don't need any more than that to refute your claim.

Aman777 said:

Since you are using an altered version of Scripture which has been changed from its original meaning, I don't accept your version. Find yourself an older version like this from the less altered King James. Your version does NOT agree with the KJV.

Gen 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

His kind? Their kind? Yes. His kind are the common ancestors and thus subject to death. Their kind is God the Trinity's kind which are ETERNAL. Unless you understand the difference between God and Lord God, you will NEVER understand the story of the Creation, since God the Father and God the Son have different roles in the perfect outcome of the 7th Day/Age.

Click to expand...

Care to provide support for this interpretation? Because it seems to me that you are just clinging to some little thing in the text that will give you some justification to make your claim.

I've heard it said that a person will deny a truth he doesn't want to believe in, no matter how much evidence he is given, yet he will cling to a mistaken belief he wants to believe in, provided he has the least amount of support for it.

And it seems to me that's what you are doing. You are finding some little thing and clinging to that as proof your interpretation is correct.

Aman777 said:

A flat earth doesn't require as many rivers nor were they as deep as found on planet Earth. I don't flip flop around since I support what I write with the agreement of Scripture, science, history, genetics, and math while some TRY give a bamboozle explanation for everything. Either show us that the rivers on Adam's Earth were as deep as on the present Earth or you have NOTHING to support your own personal opinion. Here's the Hebrew word for rivers as used in Genesis:

נָהַר nâhar, naw-har'; a primitive root; to sparkle, i.e. (figuratively) be cheerful; hence (from the sheen of a running stream) to flow, i.e. (figuratively) assemble:—flow (together), be lightened.

A river in Scripture and Hebrew means a sparkling moving body of water. You are hereby refuted. Try again?

Click to expand...

Do you really want to play word games? Please provide the hebrew words used for "His", "Their", "Its" and "Her" kinds.

Aman777 said:

Gen 1:24 ¶And God (Trinity) said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after His kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after His kind: and it was so.

Click on the link and go find KJV of Scripture or remain in confusion. Your version eliminates Jesus from His own Creation.

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I'm nothing more than a complete noob when it comes to things like this, but decided to do my best at examining the grammar and syntax here.

There's no pronouns in the text. The word is לְמִינָהּ l'mynah. The word myn means "kind" or "sort", the lamed prefix makes the word prepositional, "of" or "to", and the suffix heh functions similar to the English suffix -ward. Hence the translation "after its kind" or "after their kind" or "after his kind". The pronoun is added in translation for the ease of English speakers.

Whatever gobbledy-nonsense butchering of the text you're trying to accomplish here is, and always has been, beyond absurd.

The only reason I'm even bothering responding to this post is to maybe provide some semblance of reason.

-CryptoLutheran