A great quote

[GodSaves]

Let's
As you stated, in Chapter 1, Man comes after the plants, BUT
let's look at chapter two again:
from the NIV
Perhaps more clearly without all the Old English
Here we clearly see that the reason God did not create plants before man was because there was no one to work it--Man had not yet been created. After God puts man in teh Garden, he makes all kinds of trees--but in Chapter 1, the trees came first--contradiction shown--don't you believe it literaly?
From what do you base your assertion that verse 8 begins something different? Just looking at it, it appears to be a continuation of verse 7...and the man became a living being. Now the lord God had planted a Garden in the east--again, notice after man is created. To assume that it is a clarification of an earlier account would be reading into the scripture what is not there--that would seem to indicate that it's maybe not so simple as you implied earlier?


We know to read it non-literally because the actual creation--that which is created by God--the earth and the universe itself bear witness. Honestly, you're absolutely right--had science not come about, I would probably not believe this--just as I wouldn't believe the earth was round or that the earth moves around the sun--I would still take those passages literally, too. Becasue science proved long before you were born, and the Christian community came around to changing their fundamental beliefs, you grew up to understand that when the Bible says things about the earth being the center of the universe or the sun moving around the earth, or the pillars that hold up the earth--or any of that--you knew and accept that it is not literal--it is a metaphor--why? Because science proved it long ago.


Are you sure about that? Take for example this:
From the Psalms:
6 Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,
your justice like the great deep.
O LORD , you preserve both man and beast.
7 How priceless is your unfailing love!
Both high and low among men
find refuge in the shadow of your wings.
8 They feast on the abundance of your house;
you give them drink from your river of delights (Psalm 36:6-8)
Where does the Bible come back later and explain that God doesn't really have wings?
The meaning of the Genesis account is to show that God created man and woman and plants and animals. That before any of that existed, He was already there. That Man and Woman were created with a responsiblity to care for God's creation. That Man and Woman were created with the intent to fellowship with God....there are many wonderful meanings

For the same reason that God, His father did--the creation story was there for a reason--Jesus knew then and I'm sure he knows now that the how is inconsequential, it's the who and the why that matter


I have already addressed this, I find it very plain and simple to believe what I do, so no explaination required. Also, I have never, no never said Genesis is written non-literally. I've been discussing the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis.


The same way people understood the nature of the solar system before GAlileo--mistakenly, literally, does this mean we should deny that this part could--just could be non-literal?

Do you really want to use archeaological evidence? Isn't that the word of man? Besides, that has nothing to do with this thread. What's wrong with believing God revealed his creation the same to other primitive peoples?


Please quit asking me to repeat myself over and over again--re-read earlier posts--I believe God's creation


Yes, I have heard that argument before, but I have never made it. Ask someone who has.


I don't put my faith in men--ever--haven't I said that before? Christ lives in my heart--despite the fact that you question how that is possible. The Spirit testifies to me these things--and I believe them. Science cannot, by the way, say that these things DID NOT happen, they can only say that by the laws of physics and biology, they are not normal happenings. Science cannot speak to salvation--it would be fruitless to try--it cannot be proven--if it could--it wouldn't require faith.
AGain, it is not that I do not believe what Genesis says about creation--it is how I believe it. The flood is not part of this thread.


we are in complete agreement. I never doubted God nor do I lack trust in Him, I feel I may even give Him more faith and credit than creationists--my faith is not limited to a literal interpretation


One more time--and this time with feeling--I do not put my faith elsewhere--why is that so difficult for you to hear?


I am glad you do not question my salvation, please believe me when I tell you my faith is secure--you can stop worrying about it. I've been through 2 years of seminary--if that hasn't rattled my faith, nothing will!

already addressed this--it is very plain to me the way I already believe


Agree with this fully


I never said he let it go its merry way.

We'll just have to disagree on that, too--I do not see that physical death came with the fall, but that's another thread, too (one that has been around recently--see my posts there)


but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument--I do not refute creation or any of those other references (except when death came into the world)--you somehow keep getting that mixed up. I refute your interpretation, but respect your right to hold it. What I really refute is your making so many assumptions about me, even after I've clearly said they are not true.


Since I do not believe that archealogical evidence proves evolution, why would I believe that? And since you don't believe archaeological evidence, why would you say it?

God bless to you too.
Tommy

First off, you took my message and made it apply completely to you when it was not. Look at Genesis 2:8 and notice the bold (bold is mine), we will use your NIV, which I believe is not the best for studing the Bible.

"8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

Where did God plant this garden? In Eden. God had already created the plants of the earth, but yet had created the garden in Eden. This is clear to see. Why is this such a contradiction? God created plants then man and then created Eden for man. Why is that hard to understand that you choose to say it is a contradiction?

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat and that sun revolves around the earth. I have read the passages of this sun revolves around the earth claim, it says the sun rises. Now tell me as I know somewhere in your life you have must have said sunrise or the sun rises, did you mean that the sun revolves around the earth? Isn't it a common thing to say even to this day, 'I am going to go watch the sunrise?' This is silly evidence of one trying to say the sun revolves around the earth.

You bring up the Psalms where it says God has wings. Who ever has seen God? Who can testify that He does or does not have have wings? Can you? Have you seen Him personally, not when Jesus was in the image of a man, but God as He really is? Can you bring this argument in when no one has seen God?

Archaeloogical evidence is not mans word but history. And in this case history that adds credance to a literal taking of Genesis. So you believe that archaeology has nothing to do with proving things, whether they be evolutionary or not? If you do then archaeology does have something to do with evolution.

You do refute creation when you say it didn't happen, evolution happened. Why do you believe in evolution? Is it not because science says it happened even though it is a theory without significant proof? You do refute God when you say death happened even though God said it didn't until the fall of man.

I do not explain Genesis, I read it how it is. You explain Genesis with science. Darwin is one of the greatest tools of Satan in my opinion. He presented a theory and many people clinged to it which in turned said there is no need for God so God does not exist. And you believe these peoples theory. I would think this would be a big red light to someone.

Where do you put your faith in the creation of this world? Is it not in ungodly men who said evolution happened and not creation. I am not asking about all of your faith, but your faith in the beginning of our world.

Andreas:

Science is not here to explain spiritual things. I agree. But does it not say that when someone is dead they don't come back to life?

This is what you said:

But when I accept a man's interpretation of the Bible that goes against the evidence we see in God's creation, I feel then that I am putting my faith truly in man.

So first off your faith is in ungodly men who tell you evolution happened. So if you put your faith in the men who wrote the Bible, who were divinly inspired by God Himself, instead of ungodly men, your faith or your trust is in God's worker and not ungodly men. Do you believe the Bible is divinly inspired? Do you believe God would try and trick you? Do you believe God would hide one of His greatest revelations from billions of people? Is the Bible written in code so those in science can help you understand it?

Was it not man who said the earth revolved around the sun all because scripture says the sun rises? So when God said He created man, why do you look at it as if He didn't? Rather that He created some organisms that after millions of years, and repeated changes and deaths, became man.

Look at Genesis 2:8 and tell me if you think that is a contradiction that depicts two creation stories when it clearly says, NIV or KJV, that God created plants in the Garden of Eden. God created plants, fruits, herbs, and such on the earth, then made a special garden called the Garden of Eden for man. Why is this a contradiction? Why is this two creation storys that contradict? God created vegetation for the earth, then created a garden for man specifically.

Is this really your (not necessary you Andreas) mounting evidence that proves evolution is correct?

God Bless

 

[Faith In God]

wow. i'd rep you if i could. very thoughrough response, though some might not agree.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

So first off your faith is in ungodly men who tell you evolution happened. So if you put your faith in the men who wrote the Bible, who were divinly inspired by God Himself, instead of ungodly men, your faith or your trust is in God's worker and not ungodly men. Do you believe the Bible is divinly inspired? Do you believe God would try and trick you? Do you believe God would hide one of His greatest revelations from billions of people? Is the Bible written in code so those in science can help you understand it?

Was it not man who said the earth revolved around the sun all because scripture says the sun rises? So when God said He created man, why do you look at it as if He didn't? Rather that He created some organisms that after millions of years, and repeated changes and deaths, became man.

Look at Genesis 2:8 and tell me if you think that is a contradiction that depicts two creation stories when it clearly says, NIV or KJV, that God created plants in the Garden of Eden. God created plants, fruits, herbs, and such on the earth, then made a special garden called the Garden of Eden for man. Why is this a contradiction? Why is this two creation storys that contradict? God created vegetation for the earth, then created a garden for man specifically.

Is this really your (not necessary you Andreas) mounting evidence that proves evolution is correct?

God Bless

Stop calling them ungodly. You don't know what they believe. You are just guessing that every scientist is an atheist. And I have no clue why you have that stuck in your head, my friend, but get it out.

I don't have faith is science. Science does not require faith, it requires facts and logic. Saying I have faith in science, is like saying I have faith in math.

Do you think that God would reveal the details of atoms to a bunch of uneducated Jews living over 3000 years ago? Do you think that any of them would understand what in the world he was talking about? Well that same thing goes for evolution. God gave the Jews a simple explanation of how they came to be, that held the same model as most creation myths of the time.

Not believing the genesis story to be a literal event has nothing to do with having faith in God or in Moses. It has to do with having discernment. It has to do with understanding that not every verse of the Bible is literal.

 

[herev]

First off, you took my message and made it apply completely to you when it was not. Look at Genesis 2:8 and notice the bold (bold is mine), we will use your NIV, which I believe is not the best for studing the Bible.

"8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

Where did God plant this garden? In Eden. God had already created the plants of the earth, but yet had created the garden in Eden. This is clear to see. Why is this such a contradiction? God created plants then man and then created Eden for man. Why is that hard to understand that you choose to say it is a contradiction?

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat and that sun revolves around the earth. I have read the passages of this sun revolves around the earth claim, it says the sun rises. Now tell me as I know somewhere in your life you have must have said sunrise or the sun rises, did you mean that the sun revolves around the earth? Isn't it a common thing to say even to this day, 'I am going to go watch the sunrise?' This is silly evidence of one trying to say the sun revolves around the earth.

You bring up the Psalms where it says God has wings. Who ever has seen God? Who can testify that He does or does not have have wings? Can you? Have you seen Him personally, not when Jesus was in the image of a man, but God as He really is? Can you bring this argument in when no one has seen God?

Archaeloogical evidence is not mans word but history. And in this case history that adds credance to a literal taking of Genesis. So you believe that archaeology has nothing to do with proving things, whether they be evolutionary or not? If you do then archaeology does have something to do with evolution.

You do refute creation when you say it didn't happen, evolution happened. Why do you believe in evolution? Is it not because science says it happened even though it is a theory without significant proof? You do refute God when you say death happened even though God said it didn't until the fall of man.

I do not explain Genesis, I read it how it is. You explain Genesis with science. Darwin is one of the greatest tools of Satan in my opinion. He presented a theory and many people clinged to it which in turned said there is no need for God so God does not exist. And you believe these peoples theory. I would think this would be a big red light to someone.

Where do you put your faith in the creation of this world? Is it not in ungodly men who said evolution happened and not creation. I am not asking about all of your faith, but your faith in the beginning of our world.

Andreas:

Science is not here to explain spiritual things. I agree. But does it not say that when someone is dead they don't come back to life?

This is what you said:
[/size][/font]

So first off your faith is in ungodly men who tell you evolution happened. So if you put your faith in the men who wrote the Bible, who were divinly inspired by God Himself, instead of ungodly men, your faith or your trust is in God's worker and not ungodly men. Do you believe the Bible is divinly inspired? Do you believe God would try and trick you? Do you believe God would hide one of His greatest revelations from billions of people? Is the Bible written in code so those in science can help you understand it?

Was it not man who said the earth revolved around the sun all because scripture says the sun rises? So when God said He created man, why do you look at it as if He didn't? Rather that He created some organisms that after millions of years, and repeated changes and deaths, became man.

Look at Genesis 2:8 and tell me if you think that is a contradiction that depicts two creation stories when it clearly says, NIV or KJV, that God created plants in the Garden of Eden. God created plants, fruits, herbs, and such on the earth, then made a special garden called the Garden of Eden for man. Why is this a contradiction? Why is this two creation storys that contradict? God created vegetation for the earth, then created a garden for man specifically.

Is this really your (not necessary you Andreas) mounting evidence that proves evolution is correct?

God Bless

this is all I have time for tonight--go back and read the NIV I posted. it says NO shrub, NO plant had yet sprung up--nothing is mentioned of created trees, or any garden until AFTER man is created.

2:5--no shrub, no plant
2:7--man created
2:8--first mention of garden
2:9--first mention of trees
It is a contradiction, to deny it is not in keeping with the high degree of intelligence you have shown so far. Since I do not beleive you are unintelligent, either you missed it, or I completely cannot see what you are saying.
Goodnight

Tommy

 

[GodSaves]

You didn't answer my question on the contradiction.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

You didn't answer my question on the contradiction.

Me?

 

[GodSaves]

this is all I have time for tonight--go back and read the NIV I posted. it says NO shrub, NO plant had yet sprung up--nothing is mentioned of created trees, or any garden until AFTER man is created.

2:5--no shrub, no plant
2:7--man created
2:8--first mention of garden
2:9--first mention of trees
It is a contradiction, to deny it is not in keeping with the high degree of intelligence you have shown so far. Since I do not beleive you are unintelligent, either you missed it, or I completely cannot see what you are saying.
Goodnight

Tommy

OK. Lets look at this one more time and we will even use the NIV.

Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [1] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [2] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [3] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [4] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Look at verse 6. It says streams came up from earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-. These streams came up and watered the plants. IN Genesis 1:11 :

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now you see in verse 11 you see God said let vegetation come forth and in verse 12 it does. I like to garden and when I plant a seed or have a flower I have to water it for it to grow. Now since Genesis chapter 2 is a more in depth view of creation, we see that God created streams that arose from the ground and watered the earth. Show me where it says that these plants and vegetation the land did not produce as it says it did produce in Genesis 1:12.

Now in Genesis 2:8 that seems to be the core of the TE's stance, it clearly talks about the Garden of Eden. See how the NIV uses "Now the LORD God planted..." as if He is doing something more? Verse 9 goes on to tell us what was in the Garden.

We can see in your own post you left out Genesis 2:6 which states the LORD watered the whole surface of the ground. This is the key, and maybe you knew it, that disolves the dispute.

Genesis 2:5 -- no shrub, no plant
Genesis 2:6 -- watered ground and plants grew as Genesis 1:12 states
Genesis 2:7 -- man created
Genesis 2:8 -- Garden of Eden planted
Genesis 2:9 -- What was planted in the Garden of Eden specifically

Denying or leaving out Genesis 2:6 the water of the whole ground, and not recongizing that in Genesis 2:8 it specifically talks about the planting in the Garden called Eden, and not seeing what is written about the plants that were planted in the Garden called Eden is where most create this so called contradiction.

Genesis 2:9, look at the second sentence and you will get the context of the verse in what it is talking about, the Garden of Eden. You see in verse 9 the first sentence talks of trees, the second sentence refers to the Garden of Eden and what tree was in the middle.

This is clear point to be made, keep it in context.

God Bless

 

[GodSaves]

Me?

Yes, you.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Yes, you.

I never mentioned a contradiction.

 

[GodSaves]

Oh. Ok.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But, GodSaves, you stopped before you got to the most significant contradiction of all.

In the first Genesis story (GenA), God makes the animals, and then makes human beings - male and female - all on day six. Correct?

In the second Genesis story (GenB), God makes the man. Then He makes all the animals, and then He makes the woman.

The order is different:

GenA: Animals, man (male and female)
GenB: Man, animals, Woman.

It gets worse. In GenA, God makes the animals, and then makes mankind to rule over them.

In GenB, God makes the Man, then makes the animals to be a companion for him. Only because none of them were suitable does God make the woman instead.

Yes, you can harmonise them if you're a priori committed to complete harmony. If you're not, you can read each on its own terms. It's only the literal messages that contradict.

 

[herev]

But, GodSaves, you stopped before you got to the most significant contradiction of all.

In the first Genesis story (GenA), God makes the animals, and then makes human beings - male and female - all on day six. Correct?

In the second Genesis story (GenB), God makes the man. Then He makes all the animals, and then He makes the woman.

The order is different:

GenA: Animals, man (male and female)
GenB: Man, animals, Woman.

It gets worse. In GenA, God makes the animals, and then makes mankind to rule over them.

In GenB, God makes the Man, then makes the animals to be a companion for him. Only because none of them were suitable does God make the woman instead.

Yes, you can harmonise them if you're a priori committed to complete harmony. If you're not, you can read each on its own terms. It's only the literal messages that contradict.

Well, that was going to be my next point, but Godsaves isn't quite over the other part yet

 

[herev]

First off, you took my message and made it apply completely to you when it was not. Look at Genesis 2:8 and notice the bold (bold is mine), we will use your NIV, which I believe is not the best for studing the Bible.

"8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

Where did God plant this garden? In Eden. God had already created the plants of the earth, but yet had created the garden in Eden. This is clear to see. Why is this such a contradiction? God created plants then man and then created Eden for man. Why is that hard to understand that you choose to say it is a contradiction?

Sorry, as you can see from your post last night, if you don't address it to anyone or to everyone, who knows.
I see the logic of what you are saying, but there is no mention yet in this creation story of when plants were created prior to EDEN. Unless of course you are suggesting that it is one account. This means that the almighty God, making things clear described the creation story by telling in detail what was done on each of the seven days, explained the sabbath, then continued in 2:4-7 as if the first part of the story never happened, then picked up on an in depth ananlysis of one part--man--in one area--Eden. The more you explain, the more difficult and less plain it gets.
Clearly 2:4 either ends or begins a new creation account (or both, depending on how you divide it). In the second one, the order is different. Now that we can see your going to read into the Bible enough to justify that there is no contradiction when it comes to plants--you have to look at the above post--what about the animals? Another clear contradiction.

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat and that sun revolves around the earth. I have read the passages of this sun revolves around the earth claim, it says the sun rises. Now tell me as I know somewhere in your life you have must have said sunrise or the sun rises, did you mean that the sun revolves around the earth? Isn't it a common thing to say even to this day, 'I am going to go watch the sunrise?' This is silly evidence of one trying to say the sun revolves around the earth.

I really don't have time to look all of that up for you--you missed the point entirely. The point is that hundreds of years ago, people read the bible literally and not only said those things, they also labeled anyone who disagreed a heretic--and their actual life was in danger. It was believed at that time (look up galileo and the church for details) that science saying the earth was not the center of the universe was calling God a liar. You and I both know now that this is not the case (er, don't we?). The Bible was taken literaly in places where it shouldn't have been. The fact that it is known now to be a non-literal statement is accepted by nearly everyone. So my point is that just because science says that something (like evolution) NOW and it is taken as contradictory to a literal reading of the Bible, does not mean that it is satanic, deceptive, or lacking in faith to believe that the Bible is not literal.

You bring up the Psalms where it says God has wings. Who ever has seen God? Who can testify that He does or does not have have wings? Can you? Have you seen Him personally, not when Jesus was in the image of a man, but God as He really is? Can you bring this argument in when no one has seen God?

Wow, I feel kinda silly arguing your side of the coin, but here goes. Gen 1:27--"so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Now to look at this literally, God made us look like him, we don't have wings and certainly we could not have evolved over time where we don't have them, so which is it? Do we take Psalms literally or Genesis? Does God have wings or look more like us?

Archaeloogical evidence is not mans word but history. And in this case history that adds credance to a literal taking of Genesis. So you believe that archaeology has nothing to do with proving things, whether they be evolutionary or not? If you do then archaeology does have something to do with evolution.

Archaeology lends credence to theories, but to study archaeology is only to add support, not prove whether or not creation or evolution was how God created. I have never insisted that my beliefs are proven, they are my beliefs. But oddly, several posts back, you were suggesting that to rest on archaeological evidence was to put trust in man, now you use archaeological evidence to support your position?

You do refute creation when you say it didn't happen, evolution happened. Why do you believe in evolution? Is it not because science says it happened even though it is a theory without significant proof? You do refute God when you say death happened even though God said it didn't until the fall of man.

Hang on just a second--I'll be right back.

*herev walks to the window, opens the blinds and sees creation, comes back to computer.*

Nope, I don't refute creation, I just saw it, so I'm pretty sure it happened. I believe in theistic evolution because there is significant evidence, yes.

The death thing is another thread as I suggested, go look it up and revive it if you want to.

I do not explain Genesis, I read it how it is. You explain Genesis with science. Darwin is one of the greatest tools of Satan in my opinion. He presented a theory and many people clinged to it which in turned said there is no need for God so God does not exist. And you believe these peoples theory. I would think this would be a big red light to someone.

It apparently is a big red light to you--and I support your views and your right to them. I do not insult your intelligence for believing it I do not insult your faith for believing it. I do not insult anyone who holds to that theory. The problem is you want everyone to believe it. I am 39, been a Christian since I was 12, spent years and years working in the church as a lay person, teaching in depth Bible studies, have been to seminary for the last two years (have one more to go--yeah!), have been a licensed pastor for the last five years, believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God (really, I do!), believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for me and offers me salvation by grace through faith--and I also have always--always believed in theistic evolution.
Look at it this way. You know how you look at Genesis 1 and 2 and see no contradiction. YOu are amazed when others do--it's so simple to you, why can't they see it all makes so much sense. That's the same for us TE's. We see no contradiction, we are amazed when others do--it's so simple for us, why can't they see it all makes so much sense.
It's in the interpretation, not in the Bible.

Where do you put your faith in the creation of this world? Is it not in ungodly men who said evolution happened and not creation. I am not asking about all of your faith, but your faith in the beginning of our world.

I've answered this already half a dozen times--it's not in men, it's in God and his creation

 

[PaladinValer]

Hi Paladin. I'm not saying you're wrong about this, and I'm certainly not trying to answer for GodSaves, but could you post a source for Darwin's giving credit to God? Everything I've ever read on Darwin points to him gradually descending towards agnosticism. Granted, though, I haven't read nearly all there is to read about him, so I could easily be mistaken. Just curious.

To be honest, I believe it was in his book Origins towards the end. I unfortunately don't have firsthand access to this book (would make an interesting read, I'm sure), but if you do, please check.

 

[GodSaves]

Sorry, as you can see from your post last night, if you don't address it to anyone or to everyone, who knows.
I see the logic of what you are saying, but there is no mention yet in this creation story of when plants were created prior to EDEN. Unless of course you are suggesting that it is one account. This means that the almighty God, making things clear described the creation story by telling in detail what was done on each of the seven days, explained the sabbath, then continued in 2:4-7 as if the first part of the story never happened, then picked up on an in depth ananlysis of one part--man--in one area--Eden. The more you explain, the more difficult and less plain it gets.

No big deal herev. I am suggesting that Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 are one and only account. Genesis chapter 1 is a quick overview of the six days of creation. Would consider Genesis chapter 1 to be very detailed on each aspect of each creation for each day, or do you see it saying what He did on each day? Now, Genesis 2:4-7 does not suggest that the first part of the story never happened. Maybe you missed Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." I used the NIV by the way, just for you. See Genesis 2:2 where it talks about the seventh day, therefore not discarding or saying the previous five days never happened?
Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--..."
Still here it does not discard or give any indication that the previous five days never happened. It rather gets more specific to the accounts of the six day, since it is when man was created.

Soo, what about the animals. This one is actually quite painfully clear that most miss it. Lets first quote this verse of what you call contradiction:

Genesis 2:19 "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."

Notice the bold (which is mine). In language we have something called past tense, since I am sure you are aware of this I won't explain. See how it says God had formed and not God created? This indicates that He already created at this moment when man was made.

Lets cover the verse before verse 18 just in case.

Genesis 2:19 "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him.'"

Now, we all believe, I'm sure, that God is all knowing. So since He is all knowing He knows that the animals are not a suitable creature for him, but rather woman is. But here in God's love He allows Adam to make the choice of seeing if any animal would be a suitable helper. Genesis 2:20, in the last sentence says he didn't find one within the animals. So then God created woman.

Still, no contradiction if we read this literally. Now was this the heaping evidence of contradictions in Genesis that suggests evolution?

Ok lets move on. Another of you claims, and I will even provide you the verse.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Again, have you ever said the sun rises or the sun sets or the sun will rise again? When you did, were you stating that the sun revolves around the earth? I don't think anyone is when they say that, so how can you deduce that the writer here was making this claim? This is an example of a figure of speech, which is understood today and was understood then. You don't really think the people of the past were dumb do you? Is this why archaeologist have found in Nippur at the time of Nimrod, 50,000 tablets that have inscriptions of schools, dictionarys, cyclopaedias, complete works of law, science, religion and literature? (Excavated by University of Pennsylvania under Peters between 1888-1900)
You realize that the author is saying everything is meaningless apart from God?

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

This has been another attempt by one to say that the Bible says the earth is flat. What the person fails to realize is that Psalms are poems. I don't think that I need to explain poems to anyone that they are poetic in nature. This too is silly to try and say a poem is declaring facts instead of expressions. If this is the case lets look at all the american poems and see what we can infer from them. And lastly on this particular verse, earth is used in the meaning of land in distinction from sky and seas, not earth as the planet.

Wow, I feel kinda silly arguing your side of the coin, but here goes. Gen 1:27--"so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Now to look at this literally, God made us look like him, we don't have wings and certainly we could not have evolved over time where we don't have them, so which is it? Do we take Psalms literally or Genesis? Does God have wings or look more like us?

Ok, once again. Tell what God looks like, have you seen Him in His true form? Have you seen Him in all His Glory? Now, again you try to take a poem from Psalms and take it out of its poetic meaning. We can do this with our poems too and say the authors are stating something they aren't. This is silly, bring in an argument when first you and I have never seen God in His true form, and secondly taking a phrase out of a poem and its poetic-ness.

Archaeology lends credence to theories, but to study archaeology is only to add support, not prove whether or not creation or evolution was how God created. I have never insisted that my beliefs are proven, they are my beliefs. But oddly, several posts back, you were suggesting that to rest on archaeological evidence was to put trust in man, now you use archaeological evidence to support your position?

Archaeology shows us history. History is what it is, it shows us what happened and what it might have been like at a particular place and time. It is when men put it together that a problem can arise. But when an archaeologists finds ruins with 50,000 tablets that give credance to the Bible that says something. My faith does not reside on these findings though, it only gives more credance to the Bible for those who are skeptical.

Hang on just a second--I'll be right back.

*herev walks to the window, opens the blinds and sees creation, comes back to computer.*

Nope, I don't refute creation, I just saw it, so I'm pretty sure it happened. I believe in theistic evolution because there is significant evidence, yes.

The death thing is another thread as I suggested, go look it up and revive it if you want to.

So are you telling me that if evolution had never been presented as a theory, and no one knew anything of it, you would still look outside and come to the conclusion that it must be evolution? Well shoot, you should have lived earlier so you could have beaten Darwin to the punch, so to say.
So tell me with this theory of evolution does it change the way you look at the accounts of Genesis that pertains to creation? Did you have to change its meaning a bit, or say that evening and morning weren't really evening and morning but rather billions of years?
Maybe I am going out on a limb, and I apologize if I am wrong, but it seems science is the one that has changed they way you look at Genesis.

Yes, I know how I look at Genesis. I don't need to look to science to rearrange the meaning of Genesis to suit the compromise between man and God. I cannot comprehend this universe being created in six literal days, but with faith I believe it because it is clearly written without contradictions even when read literally.

I tend to think that God is a perfect God and a literal six day creation sure does show His perfection. Yet if you look at evolution and see how many times it seems for it to get it right, that doesn't quite seem like perfection to me.

God Bless

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

To be honest, I believe it was in his book Origins towards the end. I unfortunately don't have firsthand access to this book (would make an interesting read, I'm sure), but if you do, please check.

What are you all looking for? I have the book, and I can check for you.

 

[herev]

[/size][/font]

No big deal herev. I am suggesting that Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 are one and only account. Genesis chapter 1 is a quick overview of the six days of creation. Would consider Genesis chapter 1 to be very detailed on each aspect of each creation for each day, or do you see it saying what He did on each day? Now, Genesis 2:4-7 does not suggest that the first part of the story never happened. Maybe you missed Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." I used the NIV by the way, just for you. See Genesis 2:2 where it talks about the seventh day, therefore not discarding or saying the previous five days never happened?
Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--..."
Still here it does not discard or give any indication that the previous five days never happened. It rather gets more specific to the accounts of the six day, since it is when man was created.

Ok, I'll say you've well thought it out, but I really don't read it that way, if it works for you, again, I'm happy for you--I don't agree. If we keep going on this part, we'll simply reduce the argument to shouting back and forth, is too, is not, is too, is not, etc. I have not tried to convince you that you were wrong, just that I can hold a different belief and still be a faithful, bible believing Christian.

[/size][/font]
Soo, what about the animals. This one is actually quite painfully clear that most miss it. Lets first quote this verse of what you call contradiction:

Genesis 2:19 "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."

Notice the bold (which is mine). In language we have something called past tense, since I am sure you are aware of this I won't explain. See how it says God had formed and not God created? This indicates that He already created at this moment when man was made.

Lets cover the verse before verse 18 just in case.

Genesis 2:19 "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him.'"

Now, we all believe, I'm sure, that God is all knowing. So since He is all knowing He knows that the animals are not a suitable creature for him, but rather woman is. But here in God's love He allows Adam to make the choice of seeing if any animal would be a suitable helper. Genesis 2:20, in the last sentence says he didn't find one within the animals. So then God created woman.

Still, no contradiction if we read this literally. Now was this the heaping evidence of contradictions in Genesis that suggests evolution?

Again, I am not trying to refute your beliefs, I and many others don't read it that way--again, we'll just have to disagree---and that's OK!

[/size][/font]
Ok lets move on. Another of your claims, and I will even provide you the verse.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Again, have you ever said the sun rises or the sun sets or the sun will rise again? When you did, were you stating that the sun revolves around the earth? I don't think anyone is when they say that, so how can you deduce that the writer here was making this claim? This is an example of a figure of speech, which is understood today and was understood then. You don't really think the people of the past were dumb do you? Is this why archaeologist have found in Nippur at the time of Nimrod, 50,000 tablets that have inscriptions of schools, dictionarys, cyclopaedias, complete works of law, science, religion and literature? (Excavated by University of Pennsylvania under Peters between 1888-1900)
You realize that the author is saying everything is meaningless apart from God?

The question was whether or not it is literal. Here is a perfect example. you seem to believe that if I believe something is not literal that it is not truth. This is a good example of why that is not so. There is much truth in the statment (until Jesus returns) that the sun will rise, set, and rise again--but it is not factual. I see the Genesis stories the same way. They contain the truth of God's creation, but are not factual. BEsides, actually most people in that day DID believe that the earth was flat--and they believed it for centuries after.
Remember the issue here. Many centuries before you were born, the church insisted on a literal reading of those verses too! and GAlileo was labeled a heretic for disputing that. Certainly you would agree that at least in that case, the fundamentalists were wrong?

[/size][/font]

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

This has been another attempt by one to say that the Bible says the earth is flat. What the person fails to realize is that Psalms are poems. I don't think that I need to explain poems to anyone that they are poetic in nature. This too is silly to try and say a poem is declaring facts instead of expressions. If this is the case lets look at all the american poems and see what we can infer from them. And lastly on this particular verse, earth is used in the meaning of land in distinction from sky and seas, not earth as the planet.

same thing--no we wouldn't take a poem as literal, nor would we take a parable, a short story, or a metaphor or a simile, nor Genesis 1 and 2's creation stories as literal--that does not mean they have no value, it simply means they are not literal (to TE's)

[/size][/font]
Ok, once again. Tell what God looks like, have you seen Him in His true form? Have you seen Him in all His Glory? Now, again you try to take a poem from Psalms and take it out of its poetic meaning. We can do this with our poems too and say the authors are stating something they aren't. This is silly, bring in an argument when first you and I have never seen God in His true form, and secondly taking a phrase out of a poem and its poetic-ness.

Let's review the thread, you said (and I am paraphrasing) every time a metaphor or parable is used in scripture, it is later explained that it is such and what it means...I said, really, what about this statement that God has wings. You said, well, he might have wings--have you ever seen him--I said, but Genesis 1:27 if read literally would disprove this. I am not, nor have I ever been, suggesting that we should treat the Psalms as literal or take them out of their poetic setting, nor do I think it is wise to take the creation stories out of their writing genre setting. But again, you suggest that God may have wings? Do you not take Genesis 1:27 literally? That would impress me and suprise me!

[/size][/font]

Archaeology shows us history. History is what it is, it shows us what happened and what it might have been like at a particular place and time. It is when men put it together that a problem can arise. But when an archaeologists finds ruins with 50,000 tablets that give credance to the Bible that says something. My faith does not reside on these findings though, it only gives more credance to the Bible for those who are skeptical.

I agree that archaeology shows us history, the difference is I'm open to all findings that are verified as credible--especially those that prove my earlier stances wrong. You, on the other hand, seem only to be interested in archaeology that is interpreted to be in line with a literal interpretation of creation. It's akin to putting your fingers in your ears and humming when you don't want to hear what someone says.

[/size][/font]
So are you telling me that if evolution had never been presented as a theory, and no one knew anything of it, you would still look outside and come to the conclusion that it must be evolution? Well shoot, you should have lived earlier so you could have beaten Darwin to the punch, so to say.

you should go back and read my post again. I did not say that I looked out the window and saw evolution. You said I didn't believe in creation. I said, sure I do, I just looked outside and saw it--I certainly believe in creation, just now the same way you do.

[/size][/font]
So tell me with this theory of evolution does it change the way you look at the accounts of Genesis that pertains to creation? Did you have to change its meaning a bit, or say that evening and morning weren't really evening and morning but rather billions of years?
Maybe I am going out on a limb, and I apologize if I am wrong, but it seems science is the one that has changed they way you look at Genesis.

Yes, it does change it, and to be redundant, it changes it the same way that believing that the earth revolves around the sun changes the way I look at the above text in Ecclesiastes. Why is it ok there, and not ok in Genesis?
But I did not change the meaning a bit, I simply don't believe that the meaning is 24 hour literal days--the meaning is quite clear to me (in my opinion--yours is obviously different).
are you climbing out on a limb by saying science has changed the way I look at the cration accounts? not at all--and that just doesn't bother me! I do believe that God's creation testifies to who God is, and we must take that testimony into account when we read about the creation.

[/size][/font]

Yes, I know how I look at Genesis. I don't need to look to science to rearrange the meaning of Genesis to suit the compromise between man and God

Good for you--I have no problem with that. I see no compromise, either.

[/size][/font]
I cannot comprehend this universe being created in six literal days, but with faith I believe it because it is clearly written without contradictions even when read literally.

you know, oddly enough I can comprehend it. I think my God is so big that nothing in creation surprises me--I think if He had wanted to, he could have snapped his fingers and created everything in ONE LITERAL DAY. But I also believe that for God to snap his fingers and start the ball rolling on something like the Big Bang, knowing that every single molucle would be in place at the exact moment (yes, even billions of years later) and in the exact place necessary to create this earth and every living thing on it--that's phenomenal! Can you imagine the wisdom and power needed to do such a thing--my God is even that Big! I just don't think that God would go to all the trouble to create in six days and then plant evidence to the contrary within his creation--that, my friend makes no sense to me--but if it works for you--Great! God will bless you for it.

[/size][/font]
I tend to think that God is a perfect God and a literal six day creation sure does show His perfection.

I don't tend--I actually believe God is perfect and it wouldn't matter to me if he created all of this in a second, a minute, a week, or billions of years--he's still perfect in my book! I know that bothers you, but I just don't think less of God than you do--or less of His scriptures--I really don't. Can you not simply say, ok brother, we agree on so much, that this is just not worth fighting over any more? In the end, when you and I both get to heaven, we'll laugh about it, probably realizing how wrong we both were--it is, as you have said, inconsequential to my salvation--or yours.

[/size][/font]

Yet if you look at evolution and see how many times it seems for it to get it right, that doesn't quite seem like perfection to me.

God Bless

I don't see it taking many times to get it right, I think God did it right every time.
God bless you too
tommy

 

[GodSaves]

Firstly, I honest did not think we are arguing. I have presented Biblical scripture that shows no conradiction when read literally. This is a bigger issue then just you and I discussing it. This is one of the main parts of the Bible used by ungodly men to prove that the Bible is fallible and is not from God Himself. There is a direct correlation in beliefs between these men and TE's. Not that TE's don't believe in God, but that (at least all of those I have so far run into, maybe or maybe not you) TE's believe that if the Bible is read literally it is fallible.

Men who are out to disprove God come up with some of the silliest things to point out and say the Bible is teaching this or that to discredit it. The sun rise sun set issue; you know that King Solomon wrote this right? King Solomon also wrote Song of Solomon and Proverbs. Look at the writing style of each book and you will see metaphors and figures of speech all over the place. So why would it surprise one if he did the same in Ecclesiastes by saying the sun rises. It is absolutely silly, and I would think you would agree. Now look to the books Moses wrote. Moses was very much straight forward, so why would anyone take a few chapters and just make them allegorical for any reason? Again that is just silly.

You saw in my post of the past tense in Genesis 2:19 which proves that there is no contradiction when read literally like the rest of Moses' books.

I am not here to change your thinking, I am here to present the truth, that Genesis can be taken literally and there will be no contradictions. I still believe that thinking evolution happened is putting too much trust in men, that a theory they created and cannot prove is correct. Creation was not created by man but rather passed down from men to men, which originally came from God Himself. And the Hebrews of the time were quite smart enough to understand such a theory if it was evolution. This was proven by archaeologists with the finding of many of "pre-flood" tablets talking of history, laws, science, and religion. Some of these were found in Kish, by Dr. Langdon, and at UR by Dr. Woolley, and in Fara by Dr. Schmidt.

EDIT:brief comment on this statement:

But again, you suggest that God may have wings? Do you not take Genesis 1:27 literally? That would impress me and suprise me!

I did not suggest that God may have wings. Rather I stated that no man has ever seen God, so therefore no man can debate what God looks like. You know image in Hebrew is Tselem. Tselem means image or likeness or resemblance. Have you ever said to someone or something resembles something or someone else? Did you actually mean that they were exactly alike, in everyway? I doubt it. So yes, I do take Genesis 1:27 literally, because I am sure we bare some resemblance to God, whether it be physical, emotional, mentally, or spiritually. It could be simply that we bare resemblance to God because we can love.

Oh, and just to make it vocal. I not only believe, but know that God is perfect. The Bible told me this and I took it literally. Cheers and keep the faith of salvation and I will see you in heaven!


God Bless

 

[herev]

Firstly, I honest did not think we are arguing. I have presented Biblical scripture that shows no conradiction when read literally. This is a bigger issue then just you and I discussing it. This is one of the main parts of the Bible used by ungodly men to prove that the Bible is fallible and is not from God Himself. There is a direct correlation in beliefs between these men and TE's. Not that TE's don't believe in God, but that (at least all of those I have so far run into, maybe or maybe not you) TE's believe that if the Bible is read literally it is fallible.

Men who are out to disprove God come up with some of the silliest things to point out and say the Bible is teaching this or that to discredit it. The sun rise sun set issue; you know that King Solomon wrote this right? King Solomon also wrote Song of Solomon and Proverbs. Look at the writing style of each book and you will see metaphors and figures of speech all over the place. So why would it surprise one if he did the same in Ecclesiastes by saying the sun rises. It is absolutely silly, and I would think you would agree. Now look to the books Moses wrote. Moses was very much straight forward, so why would anyone take a few chapters and just make them allegorical for any reason? Again that is just silly.

You saw in my post of the past tense in Genesis 2:19 which proves that there is no contradiction when read literally like the rest of Moses' books.

I am not here to change your thinking, I am here to present the truth, that Genesis can be taken literally and there will be no contradictions. I still believe that thinking evolution happened is putting too much trust in men, that a theory they created and cannot prove is correct. Creation was not created by man but rather passed down from men to men, which originally came from God Himself. And the Hebrews of the time were quite smart enough to understand such a theory if it was evolution. This was proven by archaeologists with the finding of many of "pre-flood" tablets talking of history, laws, science, and religion. Some of these were found in Kish, by Dr. Langdon, and at UR by Dr. Woolley, and in Fara by Dr. Schmidt.

EDIT:brief comment on this statement:
[/size][/font]
I did not suggest that God may have wings. Rather I stated that no man has ever seen God, so therefore no man can debate what God looks like. You know image in Hebrew is Tselem. Tselem means image or likeness or resemblance. Have you ever said to someone or something resembles something or someone else? Did you actually mean that they were exactly alike, in everyway? I doubt it. So yes, I do take Genesis 1:27 literally, because I am sure we bare some resemblance to God, whether it be physical, emotional, mentally, or spiritually. It could be simply that we bare resemblance to God because we can love.

Oh, and just to make it vocal. I not only believe, but know that God is perfect. The Bible told me this and I took it literally. Cheers and keep the faith of salvation and I will see you in heaven!


God Bless

God bless

 

[herev]

I did not suggest that God may have wings. Rather I stated that no man has ever seen God, so therefore no man can debate what God looks like. You know image in Hebrew is Tselem. Tselem means image or likeness or resemblance. Have you ever said to someone or something resembles something or someone else? Did you actually mean that they were exactly alike, in everyway? I doubt it. So yes, I do take Genesis 1:27 literally, because I am sure we bare some resemblance to God, whether it be physical, emotional, mentally, or spiritually. It could be simply that we bare resemblance to God because we can love.

I know you won't see it this way, but--If it is ok to "read" into the word "image" to make it make sense in light of your theology (which, of course, I believe you are doing), then why not read into the word "day" in the first chapter as well? Why is it that in Genesis 1, you can read into a word so that it makes logical sense for your beliefs and I can't do the same with another word in the same chapter?
Tommy