The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

Firstlightdawn said:

Yes, I have a problem drifting. But it is interesting that Edwin H. Colbert led the landmark Coelophysis excavations at Ghost Ranch in the 1940s. He used those discoveries to argue for continental drift long before the idea gained mainstream acceptance. He showed that Coelophysis‑type dinosaurs appeared on multiple continents, supporting the reality of a once‑connected Pangaea.

Click to expand...

Alfred Wegener, about 1912, first proposed the theory, based on the way continents fit, the way mountain ranges lined up, land the way fossils like Lystrosaurus showed up in rocks on different continents. The theory wasn't accepted, because Wegener couldn't show an mechanism by which continental crust would cut through denser oceanic crust. Then, when mid-oceanic ridges were discovered, it become clear how things happened. Continental drift gave way to plate tectonics.

The Barbarian said:

Alfred Wegener, about 1912, first proposed the theory, based on the way continents fit, the way mountain ranges lined up, land the way fossils like Lystrosaurus showed up in rocks on different continents. The theory wasn't accepted, because Wegener couldn't show an mechanism by which continental crust would cut through denser oceanic crust. Then, when mid-oceanic ridges were discovered, it become clear how things happened. Continental drift gave way to plate tectonics.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember 60 years ago they did not know if it was true or not.

Vance said:

So, where do you fit in?

Click to expand...

[ Please acknowledge this statement before responding to my answer, as this is not a theological teaching of mine... It is merely an answer to a question.... However weird it may seem to some. ]


I don't "fit in."

None of these "labels" reflect Scripture in its original language and etymologies.

I tend to consume only what IS said, not what I think it means. It's quite helpful, and eye-opening to ask God to reveal what of it I can, or should, know. (Yes, I understand that some people get triggered when I mention that God teaches me one-on-one, but Scripture says we're asked to do this, so I do... if you can't conceive of that, take it before God, debate Him.)

Etymology, the study of linguistics and word origins is important.

For instance, the English "Earth" has only been used to reference the planet for only the past 900 years. In ancient Hebrew, it was a reference to inhabitable dry land, and was read and understood as meaning, land, "the Land," territory, region, country, etc. It simply doesn't mean 'the planet earth.'

Heaven... We all have different interpretations, and most are closely linked. But what of the original meaning of the word? The word is "shamayim." Keep in mind, one should automatically recognize the Hebrew word for water, "mayim." What is the prefix, sha, mean? To simplify the detailed research explanation, it indicates a "pairing," a "division," or "separation."

"Separated waters..." Clouds. (This includes all we "see" when looking that direction.)

"Create" is a unique word, in that it is only used when adding something living to something that is non-living.

The man was "created," the woman was "made/fashioned" out of the man, who was already living. Originally, the woman existed withing the body of the "man." So, creation isn't the process of bringing something into existence, it's only used when nonliving material is given life. The word create is formed by the pairing of the Hebrew word for "son," and A(leph), the first Hebrew letter that depicts God, Father, or leader.

Creation is God placing himself into a nonliving environment.

Genesis 1:1 is a heading, some may say "title " it merely lets the reader know what the following scroll is about. In this case, it is an account of when God SEPARATED the WATER to expose dry land, EARTH. 1:2 is the actual beginning of the narrative...

Warning: Paraphrase to follow!
If you trigger easily, do not read.

1:2 At first, (upon arrival), the ground was underwater, had no visual beauty, was dark, a planet covered in water.


Just from knowing what IS said, removing the narrative dogmas of what is NOT said, it's not unreasonable to see that the planet was here, before He created (brought life to) earth, (dry, inhabitable land) and heaven, (the separated waters from below)

Thank you for this topic, thank you for providing a format that is safe and protected by godly, loving, understanding non judgemental reactions of unclean spirits... (hopefully)

Wilb6487 said:

The man was "created," the woman was "made/fashioned" out of the man, who was already living.

Click to expand...

I do not see any contradiction between the Bible and Science. Even though Science goes back to when pond scum became male and female. Jesus said Mark 10 6 "However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Firstlightdawn said:

I do not see any contradiction between the Bible and Science. Even though Science goes back to when pond scum became male and female. Jesus said Mark 10 6 "However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Click to expand...

I agree. Valid science parallels and supports Scripture.

It is an interesting parallel that science says males came first, females much later.

And, even though evolution is the dominant narrative, science shows that mankind actually began abruptly, but has traced back to a single female... Aptly named "Mitochondrial Eve."

Wilb6487 said:

Aptly named "Mitochondrial Eve."

Click to expand...

There is an interesting book written by Swamidass that talks about the generations we read about in Genesis. This explains why there was exactly 4,000 years from Abraham to Jesus and why Jesus was sent to the Lost Sheep of Isreal. Also this explains why the time of the gentiles will be exactly 2,000 years. This is the covenant structure.

Genetic ancestry and genealogical ancestry are not the same thing.

Firstlightdawn said:

Genetic ancestry and genealogical ancestry are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I see many well-meaning students of Scripture getting hung up on the word "generation" regarding Jesus' prophecy of the end times. It is my view that the word generation was not referring to the lifespan of a human, but rather an undisclosed "era" of conflict, which is at, or about, 2000 years.

Firstlightdawn said:

exactly 4,000 years from Abraham to Jesus

Click to expand...

I'm not following your timeframe here, but I do know that from Adam to Jesus exceeded 4000 years.

I've been working on a timeline of biblical chronology, which puts most OT books, and chapters within some books, as skewed and mixed up as the bulk of theological interpretation.

Firstlightdawn said:

exactly 4,000 years

Click to expand...

Firstlightdawn said:

exactly 2,000 years

Click to expand...

I used to see this 4000/2000 pattern; however, I have dismissed the idea of "exactly."

Your point is valid, regardless of accuracy. The switchover to the Gregorian calendar certainly created a disruption in comparing the biblical calendar with the system we are most oriented to.

Many people consider the creation of Adam as the start of the 4000 years, some count from the time of Seth's birth, some to Noah, and perhaps, "from Abraham" deserves a deeper look into how God set this pattern in history.

Thanks for that. I'll look into it, casually, at first, but I'll be able to determine the validity of that when I compare it to the patterns created by the years documented in the family generations and years mentioned in Scripture.