Creationism is NOT Biblical

[huldah153]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

 

[Mallon]

Hmmm... I don't know that I would say Creationism (capital C) isn't biblical. It is rooted, for the most part, in a straightforward, literalist retelling of the biblical creation story. Of course, there are gaps in the story that need to be accounted for by appealing to non-biblical, ad hoc explanations, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Creationism isn't biblical. I do think it is a simple misinterpretation of the intent of Genesis, however... which can lead to non-biblical theology such as the idea that natural -- even random -- phenomena occur apart from God. Now that's unbiblical!

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

No need for that. Appealling to numbers is a logical fallacy. I'm sure you could find a few Bible scholars who disagree with you, too.

 

[Terral]

Hi Huldah:

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

What happens when a bible thumper like me is a Creationist ‘and’ a Theistic Evolutionist? Maybe in your universe I have many disagreements with myself. :0)

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Cain joined the sixth day people of Genesis 1:26-28 that have been around for millions of years. My post on the differences between the sixth and seventh day races is here.

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

First off all, ‘Creationists’ believe all kinds of things and oftentimes argue among themselves about everything from Genesis to Revelation. People will continue arguing over Genesis 1-4 and the rest of Scripture, because ‘the truth’ of Scripture has eluded men from the very beginning. When the guy knowing everything about Scripture (Acts 3:22-23) actually shows up to begin speaking ‘the truth’ about God’s Living Word again, then he will stand in a wilderness of people refusing to believe. Adam and Eve began their human existence in Genesis 3:21-24 when the Lord God put them in coats of ‘skins’ (Gen. 3:21). Adam (Gen 2:7) and then Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:20-22) were ‘heavenly’ beings until 'the fall' that ends Genesis 3 where Adam’s 930 (Gen. 5:5) year lifetime begins this timeline (far left).

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era.

Atypical? :0) Lordy. Harping about ‘creationists’ is not making an evolution case for anything in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Scripture says, “In the beginning GOD CREATED the Heaven and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1. Therefore, beginning your evolution argument in Genesis 4 makes very little sense to this Creationist/Evolutionist. God started creating life on this planet way back in Genesis 1:20 in the waters, just like Science says (Science and Technology, Time Magazine article).

Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

Who cares? God still created the prehistoric people on the ‘sixth day’ (Gen. 1:26-28) and the Lord God (Christ) formed Adam on the ‘seventh day’ after God rested in Genesis 2:1-3. Haggling over when Seth and his sons were born is meaningless to the Creationist/Evolutionist debate about the origins of this universe and planet earth. Science dates primitive man on this planet some 4 million years ago (link), which obviously does not fit into your Seth timeline; because Adam is a seventh day man . . . :0)

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom.

Eve is mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20), because she (helper on right) represents ‘the earth’ (like this) in the same way that Adam represents ‘the heavens’ and all the angels of this universe; but only after she was taken from his side in Genesis 2:20-22. The heavens of Genesis 1:6-8 existed LONG AGO and the earth (the visible universe) was formed out of water and by water (2Peter 3:5). The "Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A Myth" (my thread). Adam is the “man of the earth,” or the ‘man’ formed to represent the perfect/mature ‘Eth Erets (The Earth = in blue) of Genesis 1:1/Jn 1:3. The waters above the expanse represent the ‘spirit’ of this universe and the waters below the expanse represent the ‘earth/body’ of this universe, so that rejoined together they become married and ‘heaven’ (Gen. 1:8) is the only begotten of that holy union (bottom of diagram).

The Lord God of Genesis 2 formed Adam with Eve and her seed IN him, just like the heavens, heaven and earth are all one and the same thing in Genesis 1:1. Then the Lord God pierced Adam to remove Eve (water witness helper) and her seed (blood witness) from his side in the same operation that God performed on His Son in John 19:34 ‘and’ in the same way the visible universe was taken from the side of ‘Eth Erets to give us the heavens, heaven and earth of "This Creation" (diagram) of today. The angels represent the ‘heavens Adam greater half’ of men incarnating in this ‘earth Eve lesser half’ visible universe, which makes Eve the “mother of ALL the living” to even include the little green men flying around in their spaceships representing the cousins of the sixth day people where Cain’s wife originated. "IN Adam ALL die" (1Cor. 15:22) the very same way, because he (Gen. 2:7) mirrors 'Eth Erets of Genesis 1:1, or this entire universe with the heavens, heaven and earth all included.

Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

Eve is the mother of ALL THE LIVING in this entire universe, because she (Noah, Moses, Sarah, Bathsheba) represents the entire visible universe like Adam (Joshua, Abraham, David, Elijah, John the Baptist, Prophet of Acts 3:22-23) represents all the angels of the heavens. There was no man to till the heavenly ground, because Adam was formed for the Garden (Gen. 2:8) and the Garden was formed for the singularity ‘man of this universe.’ The Garden is also a heavenly habitation (far left) from which Adam and Eve were driven out to begin their human existence at the end of Genesis 3 (the fall). The Promised Land of Genesis 15:18 and the Kingdom of Ezekiel 47-48 (diagram) represent the ‘earthly’ water witness visible helper habitation for MEN with greater half ‘angels’ occupying the invisible heavens on the other side of the two veils (lower right in the New Heavens). If you turn the pages of Scripture back to Revelation 21:1+, then you will see a restored ‘heavenly’ dwelling with rivers and the tree of life (Rev 22:2, 14) like Adam had in the Garden (Gen. 2:9+10) in the beginning.

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

Basing your Genesis explanations on what your interpretation “does not mean” leaves the door wide open for just about everything. When Scripture/Paul says (Rom 5:12) that through one man sin came into the ‘world’ (kosmos = #2889), then God is talking about sin entering the ‘righteous branch’ that began with Adam, Eve, Seth down to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, David and so forth. “Kosmos” is very similar to the Hebrew term “Erets” (#776), which can mean the entire universe, the visible universe (Eve half), the early formations of the universe (Gen. 1:6-13), our local earth (Gen. 1:15-19), the ‘land’ of the heavenly garden (Gen. 2:8+), the visible water witness ‘ground’ of the garden (Gen. 3:23+), the people of the land, or a handful of dirt (earth). :0) My "Erets Shift" post is here. Therefore, merely assuming that ‘kosoms’ in Romans 5:12 is referring to ‘the universe’ or even this ‘planet Earth’ is going to provide the wrong interpretation every time.

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

And they have just as much right to be wrong as you. :0) There are over 2000 denominations of professing Christians in the USA alone and about that many ways of interpreting Scripture ‘and’ there is only one ‘the truth.’ Anyone can go back to Genesis 1:1 and see that God created the Heaven and the Earth. Right? :0) Therefore, nothing could begin the evolution process to keep up with a changing environment and changing predator/prey scenarios, until God got the ball rolling in the beginning. For you to sit there and say that Creationism is not Biblical is to say "God" is not Biblical, because He is the One doing the "creating" before anything in this universe had the opportunity to evolve one way or the other . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[artybloke]

You know, if all the energy and imagination that is used to create incredibly complicated "explanations" for why Genesis still turns out to be factually correct despite bearing no relation with the real world of physical evidence, were put into something useful:

We might already have solved world poverty, globing warming, brought about peace in the Middle East and started a colony on Mars by now.

Half the reason why I say that the accounts of creation in Genesis are fictional/poetic is because it's just so much simply than tying yourself in the most ridiculous interpretative knots in order to make the stories "factual."

 

[huldah153]

What happens when a bible thumper like me is a Creationist ‘and’ a Theistic Evolutionist? Maybe in your universe I have many disagreements with myself. :0)

The two are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned, hence why there are forums dedicated to such vehemently opposing views. Creationists like Ham and Hovind go out of their way to disassociate themselves with the Darwinian paradigm.

Cain joined the sixth day people of Genesis 1:26-28 that have been around for millions of years. My post on the differences between the sixth and seventh day races is here.

Huh? What do you mean Mongols have no beards? Every known depiction of Genghis Khan makes a mockery of that statement.

First off all, ‘Creationists’ believe all kinds of things and oftentimes argue among themselves about everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Every young-earth creationist organization I have ever known, from AIG to ICR, promotes this sort of non-Biblical explanation. I wasn't setting up a strawman.

Atypical? :0) Lordy. Harping about ‘creationists’ is not making an evolution case for anything in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. Scripture says, “In the beginning GOD CREATED the Heaven and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1. Therefore, beginning your evolution argument in Genesis 4 makes very little sense to this Creationist/Evolutionist.

Yet Genesis 4 challenges the creationist dogma that all men are descended from Adam. Therefore, if, like me, you're an evolutionist who takes Adam as an historical figure, the belief that human types have existed for hundreds of thousands of years would not conflict with the Bible.

Who cares? God still created the prehistoric people on the ‘sixth day’ (Gen. 1:26-28) and the Lord God (Christ) formed Adam on the ‘seventh day’ after God rested in Genesis 2:1-3.

Cro-Magnons are classified as 'prehistoric people' -- yet they had a larger brain capacity than modern man. 'Primitive' is a pejorative term used to describe a superior lifestyle.

Eve is mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20), because she (helper on right) represents ‘the earth’

Kind of like Gaia, the Greek goddess.

The Lord God of Genesis 2 formed Adam with Eve and her seed IN him, just like the heavens, heaven and earth are all one and the same thing in Genesis 1:1.

So, Adam and Eve were supernaturally created, but everyone and everything else evolved naturally?

Incidentally, I interpret Genesis 2:7 as 'God evolved man of the earth's bacteria'.

The Garden is also a heavenly habitation (far left) from which Adam and Eve were driven out to begin their human existence at the end of Genesis 3 (the fall)

The fact that Genesis 4:16 says "Nod, East of Eden" connotes that the Garden was a physical, as opposed to spiritual, habitation.

God is talking about sin entering the ‘righteous branch’ that began with Adam, Eve, Seth down to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, David and so forth.

Obviously, Adam and Eve were not righteous. They only needed one commandment to break.

For you to sit there and say that Creationism is not Biblical is to say "God" is not Biblical, because He is the One doing the "creating" before anything in this universe had the opportunity to evolve one way or the other

Creationism is full of lies, and lies are of Satan. Nowhere does the Bible state the age of the earth, and for any creationist to say otherwise, is a server of falsehood.

 

[redghost]

Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

Aren't you just pitting your speculation against theirs?

IMHO it would help everybody to take a step back from Genesis,
glean the "big picture" truths God is teaching, and agree to
disagree on the minute specifics of the passage. Not everything
in God's Word is easy to understand and this is one case
IMHO.

 

[Mallon]

The two are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned, hence why there are forums dedicated to such vehemently opposing views.

I guess that depends on how you define creationism. I consider myself a creationist because I believe in creation, and I subscribe to evolution. I think it's time Christians who accept evolution take back the word "creationist". Belief in creation is not exclusive to YECs or OECs.

 

[Terral]

Hi Huldah:

The two are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned, hence why there are forums dedicated to such vehemently opposing views. Creationists like Ham and Hovind go out of their way to disassociate themselves with the Darwinian paradigm.

I suppose what Ham and Hovind think means something to someone. BTW, your mere assertion that “Creationism Is NOT Biblical” is the hypothesis under attack here . . .

Huh? What do you mean Mongols have no beards? Every known depiction of Genghis Khan makes a mockery of that statement.

Who said one thing about Mongols? Oh yeah, you. :0) Many people cannot count from the sixth day (Gen. 1:24-31) to the ‘seventh day’ (Gen. 2:1-4+), so welcome to their party . . .

Every young-earth creationist organization I have ever known, from AIG to ICR, promotes this sort of non-Biblical explanation. I wasn't setting up a strawman.

If your thesis says “Creationism Is NOT Biblical,” then I want to see claims, evidence and conclusions for making that case. Rambling aimlessly about AIG and ICR and ‘straw man’ (two words partner) arguments does nothing to prop up any case for anything. Your OP theory is preposterous. Period . . .

Yet Genesis 4 challenges the creationist dogma that all men are descended from Adam.

All men were descended from Adam, because he is the ‘man of the earth’ representing the ‘Eth Erets of Genesis 1:1 (in blue). That is the reason Scripture says “IN Adam ALL die” in the first place. 1Cor. 15:22. The difference is that the ‘gods’ (Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34) from God’s Infinite Realm (far left) only started incarnating on this earth as ‘her seed’ and ‘your seed’ (Gen. 3:15) part of Adam’s earthly ‘incarnation’ that actually began in Genesis 3:21-24. Also, the fact that you want to hold up the dogma of any ‘creationist,’ to then attack their foolishness, adds nothing to the bogus hypothesis you are attempting to pawn off in the OP of this thread. Anyone trying to make a “Creationism Is NOT Biblical” case starting in Genesis 4 (heh) has many problems and hurdles to pass before even beginning to make an argument for ANYTHING.

Therefore, if, like me, you're an evolutionist who takes Adam as an historical figure, the belief that human types have existed for hundreds of thousands of years would not conflict with the Bible.

As already said in Post #3, I am a Creationist ‘and’ a Theistic Evolutionist, because God created the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1) and life on this earth has been evolving for millions and millions of years. However, for you to sit there and say “Creationism Is NOT Biblical” is like saying “Fire Is Not Hot,” or “Grass Is Not Green.”

Cro-Magnons are classified as 'prehistoric people' -- yet they had a larger brain capacity than modern man. 'Primitive' is a pejorative term used to describe a superior lifestyle.

The point is that prehistoric people were created by “God” in Genesis 1:26-28 ‘and’ Adam is a ‘seventh day’ man formed by the “Lord God” (Christ) in Genesis 2:7. Are there any Cro-Magnon people mentioned in your Bible? No. However, there are people that God did create over in Genesis 1:26-28 on the ‘sixth day’ that obviously lived on this earth ‘before’ the Lord God formed Adam on this seventh day in Genesis 2. The sixth day races EVOLVED, but these seventh day people have only been incarnating on this earth for a mere 6000 years; which means the sons of Noah have not had that much time to evolve in such a short period. My point is that Scripture says 'exactly' what Creation is saying, but only if you interpret God’s Living Word correctly.

Kind of like Gaia, the Greek goddess.

No. Like in the spirit of Mother Nature (Wiki). :0)

So, Adam and Eve were supernaturally created, but everyone and everything else evolved naturally?

God placed the seeds of all life in the waters of Genesis 1:20 billions of years ago for prehistoric men (native inhabitants of the land) to begin showing up about 4 million years ago on the ‘sixth day.’ That is where the ancestors of Cain’s wife originated. The Lord God (Christ) formed Adam (Gen. 2:7), then Eve (Gen. 2:20-22) as heavenly beings (like those of Rev. 21:1+), until He gave them coats of human skins in Genesis 3:21. No. There is nothing supernatural about the Lord God forming Adam and Eve, because the Lord God is our Lord Jesus Christ. :0) The only way these operations could be called ‘supernatural’ is if Christ were a mere man. :0)

Incidentally, I interpret Genesis 2:7 as 'God evolved man of the earth's bacteria'.

LOL! And by your ‘Reps’ we can see folks around here will buy just about anything, so long as the substance has nothing to do with ‘the truth.’ :0)

The fact that Genesis 4:16 says "Nod, East of Eden" connotes that the Garden was a physical, as opposed to spiritual, habitation.

The fall took place in Genesis 3:21-24, which means the ‘man’ (Gen. 2:7) and the ‘garden’ (Gen. 2:8) fell at the very same time. This is the ‘Tabernacle of David’ (Acts 15:16-18) that has fallen (far left and restored at far right), because David is just one ‘skin’ for our father Adam like Elijah and John the Baptist and the coming "prophet." :0)

Obviously, Adam and Eve were not righteous. They only needed one commandment to break.

Adam had the heavenly existence for thousands and thousands and thousands of years ‘before’ Eve was ever taken from his side in Genesis 2:20-22. Adam and Eve (the Earth) were subjected to futility IN HOPE (Rom. 8:20-22) of something that is MUCH greater than words can begin to describe.

Creationism is full of lies, and lies are of Satan.

For you to join this CF.com Forum and say, “Creationism Is NOT Biblical” definitely takes brass and is definitely A LIE. The very first words of Scripture say, “In the beginning God created . . .”, So obviously the Bible teaches that God created something. :0) Your first problem is that the OP thesis is based upon something that is NOT, which renders the entire exercise foolishness at the start. You are trolling for unsuspecting Creationists to fall into your trap, so we can endure more of the same nonsense rising up out of the belly of the OP of this thread. Right? :0) Of course . . . The great part about being a real Creationist/Evolutionist is that both theories are true and people on both sides of the debate are half right ‘and’ my job is to show each just how right their interpretations can be when properly aligned with ‘the truth’ of God’s Living Word. 2Tim. 3:16-17.

Nowhere does the Bible state the age of the earth, and for any creationist to say otherwise, is a server of falsehood.

Science and God are saying the same things, so the first reconstitution days of Genesis 1 (Gen. 1:3-31) equal just about 13:73 billion years (Wiki) give or take. However, we should all realize that God has been in the “Creator” business for an Infinite amount of time, so 14 billion years makes this universe a very young creation from God’s Infinite Perspective. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[artybloke]

Aren't you just pitting your speculation against theirs?

IMHO it would help everybody to take a step back from Genesis,
glean the "big picture" truths God is teaching, and agree to
disagree on the minute specifics of the passage. Not everything
in God's Word is easy to understand and this is one case
IMHO.

You might as well talk to the wind, mate. They're not listening. It's like talking to Trekkies and conspiracy theory nuts.

 

[Chesterton]

Every young-earth creationist organization I have ever known, from AIG to ICR...

What a waste of 700 billion dollars...

 

[huldah153]

Who said one thing about Mongols? Oh yeah, you. :0)

The link you provided, said...

A Dr. Pickering states (here) in his Races of Men, that “The Mongolian is pre-eminently a beardless race, the chin often remaining perfectly smooth, even to extreme age.” However, I am sure you can find examples of Mongolians that are exceptions to this rule too. The fact is that many beardless races are upon this earth and they are numbered among the sixth day people of Genesis 1:26-28 that have been around for millions of years. This “Comparative Psychology of Man” (link) draws comparisons between the beardless and bearded races:

Incidentally, your views are rather similar to those "British Israelite" nutjobs who say that Adam wasn't the first man, but the first white man.

You might as well talk to the wind, mate. They're not listening. It's like talking to Trekkies and conspiracy theory nuts.

I've never seen Star Trek in my whole life.

 

[Terral]

Hi Huldah:

The link you provided, said...


Incidentally, your views are rather similar to those "British Israelite" nutjobs who say that Adam wasn't the first man, but the first white man.


I've never seen Star Trek in my whole life.

Well, I guess this proves beyond all doubt that "Creationism Is NOT Biblical . . ." . . .

Terral

 

[Merlin]

It only shows many people try to fit creationism into their own belief box, rather than accepting what is actually written.

 

[artybloke]

As the motto of the Royal Society has it, "Take no-one's word for it":

even if it's capitalised and some folk think it's come straight from God...

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

Because they don't.

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

Paul names Adam, he does not imply anything.

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

I have Paul, Luke and Jesus Christ who clearly considered Adam and Eve our first parents. TE is not Biblical, it's secular.

 

[busterdog]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7289362

Why cherry pick what is "biblical?" Many secular scholars, or at least non YECs scholars accept that the Bible is completely deadpan serious about what the surface text says in Genesis. Dont take my word for it, check the thread.

What the secular scholar says is that the Bible demands to be accepted literally and exactly as written on its face.

Now, you simply raise an inference suggesting error.

You do understand the difference, I hope between a direct statement of fact and and inference? It is ironic that in the face of that obvious dichotomy, you choose to decide what is "biblical" and what isnt?

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by huldah153

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.
​

Because they don't.

Who don't what?

Hi Mark, I'm afraid these one liners don't really do a good job for you. Lets see what subject and verb your response could refer to.

Huldah said 1) Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally...
Mark: Because they don't.
Do you mean Creationists don't accuse TE of not taking the bible literally?

2) ...Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally...
Mark: Because they don't.
Do you mean TEs don't take the bible literally? Well we don't, parts of it anyway. Neither do creationists. Which is Hulda's point.

3) ...while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.
Mark: Because they don't.
Or do you mean Creationists don't read Genesis as it is?

Paul names Adam, he does not imply anything.

I have Paul, Luke and Jesus Christ who clearly considered Adam and Eve our first parents. TE is not Biblical, it's secular.

First you say Paul simply names Adam and does not imply anything.
Then you claim Paul, Luke and Jesus imply Adam and Eve were our first parents.

 

[huldah153]

I have Paul, Luke and Jesus Christ who clearly considered Adam and Eve our first parents. TE is not Biblical, it's secular.

I have no qualms about the fact that Christ said male and female were made at the beginning. When does the Bible say the beginning was? Genesis 1:1, when God made the heaven and the earth. There's no mention of Adam and Eve in this verse.

And Luke's Genealogy does not imply that Adam was the first man, but only the first in a succession.

 

[busterdog]

I have no qualms about the fact that Christ said male and female were made at the beginning. When does the Bible say the beginning was? Genesis 1:1, when God made the heaven and the earth. There's no mention of Adam and Eve in this verse.

And Luke's Genealogy does not imply that Adam was the first man, but only the first in a succession.

Sexual reproduction came well after the creation of life according to evolution. It doesnt say Adam, but it is not consistent with evolution.

Now, we all know that you can loosely interpret so that this portion of the Gospel is no problem. However, the question at hand is whether creationism is biblical. Since only creationism is consistent with the most likely reading of the text, as opposed to a very loose reading, creationism would be biblical.

 

[Assyrian]

Sexual reproduction came well after the creation of life according to evolution. It doesnt say Adam, but it is not consistent with evolution.

If we take from the beginning of creation as Gen 1:1, then creationists have an worse fit, Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning of Creation, but on day six at the end of the creation. In contrast if we are trying to place the origin of sexual reproduction in Genesis 1, it would fit in somewhere from the Spirit of God brooded over the waters in verse one, and the creation of plants on day three.

I don't actually think it is talking about the beginning of the creation of the world, the creation of the world simply isn't the context Jesus was talking about. He was talking about God making human beings. This is how Matthew read it Matt 19:4 ...he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. Not the creation of the world, the creation of people. And as any biologist will tell you, human beings have always been male and female.

Now, we all know that you can loosely interpret so that this portion of the Gospel is no problem.

I don't think it is even a question of 'loose interpretation'. What is needed is to understand what Jesus was talking about and how he was using the passage in Genesis, and above all not to force the passage to say things it simply does not, or read you understanding of Genesis into what Jesus is saying.

I have lost track of the number of times Creationists claim that Jesus took Adam and Eve literally, or as Mark put it Jesus "clearly considered Adam and Eve our first parents". Jesus never even mentioned Adam and Eve, let alone told us we should take them literally or that they were the parent of the human race. He wasn't even teaching about the creation, he was talking about divorce. Jesus did treat Genesis as the authoritative word of God, but we see him here treating the Genesis as an allegorical lesson in God's plan for marriage now, rather than making any comment about how literal the passage is.

However, the question at hand is whether creationism is biblical. Since only creationism is consistent with the most likely reading of the text, as opposed to a very loose reading, creationism would be biblical.

Well Creationists certainly read things into Jesus statement that simply aren't here, so that is hardly consistent with the most likely reading of the text. The plain reading of Genesis 2 is that Adam was formed before there were plants, then God made animals and birds, and then Eve. The Creationist interpretation of that chapter has to completely change the order of events in a very simple narrative. Back in the OP the simplest reading of Gen 4&5 is that Seth and the other brothers and sisters, were born after Cain killed Abel, fled out of fear of unnamed strangers, got married had children, and built a city. Again that does not fit the Creationist view so the plain meaning of the text has to change to accommodate what they think the passage should mean.

I would agree with Mallon's initial post, I would not call Creationism unbiblical as such, it is an interpretation of Genesis that has deep roots in church history, not the only reading of Genesis, but certainly a reasonable reading of the text, at least before we learned about geology, since then it is no more reasonable to hold it, than that other ancient literalist mistake geocentrism. I do agree though that the avid defence of Creationism has led them into to some very unbiblical and even anti-Creation views.