Creationism is NOT Biblical

yeshuasavedme · Dec 20, 2008

Assyrian said:
The Hebrew does not call Isaac Abraham's only begotten son. But the point is irrelevant..

Oh yes it does in fact -and the point is relevant in that the first "only begotten" son of God of the human being kind is dead, and not the only begotten son of YHWH.
There is a second Son who is the "Firstborn" of all the earth, the only begotten Son of God [of the human being kind], and He is the Foundation Stone of the New Man race of human beings; which race is made for the Glory to indwell; which Glory the first son, Adam, lost.

Israel is the name of the second and "only begotten Son" -Isaiah 49. We call Him Salvation/Jesus [Hebrew "Howshea"], but the Father called His name "Israel" [Isaiah 49]. He gave that name to Jacob as a sign of the adoption into His New Name, which was to come. The adoption pertains to the seed of Jacob, to all called "Israel". And Gentiles can be adopted into that name because the Atonement is for all born lost in Adam. Israel [the nation] received the signs/oracles of the adoption into that New Name, which is the Name of the second and only begotten Son of God of the human being kind. And He alone is the "Mighty God" of all the earth, adn the Everlasting Father of the"elect" human being race. He is the second human being and the Kinsman who ransomed what the brother to his human nature lost.
He calls the nation of Israel; "My people, called by My name", after Jacob received that name from Him, who is YHWH of hosts [as Hosea 12:3-5 states].

The Hebrew word used in Genesis translates to the Greek as "monogenes", which is translated in English to "only begotten".
Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [Septuagint monogenēs] [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=11&v=17&t=KJV#conc/17
Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten/ monogenēs [son],

Assyrian said:
Adam was God creation not his literal son. The creation of Adam involved neither God having sex or a virgin birth.

The creation of the body of flesh of the second human being son of God in the womb of the virgin was the same "new creation" kind of miracle as the forming of the body of the first human being son of God, Adam, from the dust of the earth, formed full grown.
In the womb of a virgin, the New Man body was prepared for the Living Spirit from heaven to dwell in; and He donned that prepared body of flesh just as one dresses himself in a garment.
Adam, the first son of God of the human being kind was made a living soul, but the New Man, the second Man, is YHWH from heaven. He is come in that garment of flesh which was prepared in the womb of a virgin, and He is the only created Kinsman/Redeemer -the brother, for Adam. He is come in flesh to do the duty of Kinsman to the "barren widow", which is to "marry her" and raise up the godly seed =sons of God, for the Glory to indwell and to ransom the lost inheritance for the seed to inherit in the New Man name.

In Isaiah 59, YHWH sees the iniquity and injustice of earth and sees no intercessor [no living "ish"] for Adam, so YHWH Himself puts on the garments of Kinsman to Adam and comes as the second "Ish" of earth, as a brother to Adam. In the Hebrew, the word Ga'al is translated as redeemer and as kinsman. It is the Kinsman, only, who can legally redeem the lost/sold property and raise up heirs for it by marrying the barren widow.
In Revelation 19, John sees the same Kinsman, come in the very same garments of second creation "Ish" of earth, which garments He dressed Himself in, to come as Kinsman/Redeemer to ransom the earth. He died in those garments and rose in those garments and conquered sin and death in those garments. When He returns in those garments He comes as the Judge/God of all the earth, which He ransomed with His Perfect, Kinsman, blood.

Isa 59: ...15 So truth fails,
And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.

Then YHWH saw it, and it displeased Him
That there was no justice.

Isa 59:16 He saw that there was no ish, [Adam is the first "ish of the human being kind]
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation/Yeshua for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.

Isa 59:17 For He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, [Kinsman graments, to avenge and judge]
And was clad with zeal as a cloak.
Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay,
Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies;
The coastlands He will fully repay.
Isa 59:19 So shall they fear
The name of YHWH from the west,
And His glory from the rising of the sun;
When the enemy comes in like a flood,
The Spirit of YHWH will lift up a standard against him.

Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer/Kinsman/ga'al will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,"
Says YHWH.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. [that name is YHWH]
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a garment baptized in blood/death: and his name is called The Word of God.

HuntingMan · Jan 3, 2009

huldah153 said:
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.

And 5 Bible scholars could be named who say otherwise....that doesnt really mean anything.

Old earth contradicts the Scriptures
by WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This article is just to briefly cover a point or two from Gods word to show that old earth theory is contradictory to the bibles account 'as written'.
This article is making no claims about interpretation of 'scientific' evidence, but solely about the wording of Genesis in Gods account

Supporting Evidence
The bible does not show that the earth is millions of years old
The Hebrew word for 'day' can mean long ages unless it is further defined by the surrounding context....'an evening and a morning' is that context.
Especially when a 'day' is very clearly defined in Genesis itself.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Gen 1:3-5 KJV)

Click to expand...

We have a planet called earth and we have a source of light.
We have a dark side of this planet earth and a light side, separated by God into 'day' and Night'
All that is needed now for an evening and a morning is rotation.
An evening and a morning show fairly conclusively that we are talking about a single earth rotation day.

There was a man named Adam made on the 6th day of creation.
This mans genealogy can be show all the way up to Christ in the scriptures, even with many of the lifespans given in exact years.

Scripture does not support that the earth has been here for even millions of years, let alone billions.

2.0
The 'light'.

Scripture shows that the sun was created on day 4 of the creation week.

And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(Gen 1:16-19 MKJV)

Click to expand...

Plantlife, however, was created on day 3.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(Gen 1:11-13 MKJV)

Click to expand...

Since we know factually that plant life, all life on this planet for the most part, REQUIRES the energy and light given from our sun to exist, the logical assumption is that this light set into place with the words 'let their be light' MUST have been equivalent TO the sun to keep this plant life alive until the sun was put into place on day 4.

3.0
Things we infer from the text;

-the 'light' mimicked the sun...which the evidence supports conclusively since there was plant life being supported before the suns creation on day 4.

-the earth rotated ....which the evidence supports conclusively since this 'evening and morning' are spoken of in the same exact manner both BEFORE the sun was created on day 4 and AFTER the sun was created on day 4.

We see that the situation was the same both BEFORE the sun was created and AFTER it was created. There was 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' and plant life existed, leaving no other logical conclusion that can be inferred from the texts OTHER than this light created before the sun MUST have been similar to our sun.

4.0
The man Adam

Man was created on the 6th day of creation.
God rested on the 7th day.

Here in Genesis 1 we see the creation of this man and woman.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ............. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(Gen 1:27-31 KJV)

Click to expand...

And here in Genesis 2 we see more detail added to about this man and woman who were created from the dust of the earth and then put into the garden.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(Gen 2:7-8 KJV)

Click to expand...

We know that Adam was the first 'man' because that is exactly what scripture confirms.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1Co 15:45 KJV)

Click to expand...

The man Adam and his wife Eve were created on the 6th day of creation.
This man Adam lived to be 930 years old.

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died.

Click to expand...

If the creation days were not single earth rotation days, then Adam would have had to have been older than scripture accounts for.
If the creation days were even a decade long, then Adam would be ten years older than he was, thus scriptures account of his lifespan is false.

yeshuasavedme · Jan 3, 2009

HuntingMan said:
And 5 Bible scholars could be named who say otherwise....

that doesnt really mean anything.Since we know factually that plant life, all life on this planet for the most part, REQUIRES the energy and light given from our sun to exist, the logical assumption is that this light set into place with the words 'let their be light' MUST have been equivalent TO the sun to keep this plant life alive until the sun was put into place on day 4.

3.0
Things we infer from the text;

-the 'light' mimicked the sun...which the evidence supports conclusively since there was plant life being supported before the suns creation on day 4.

-the earth rotated ....which the evidence supports conclusively since this 'evening and morning' are spoken of in the same exact manner both BEFORE the sun was created on day 4 and AFTER the sun was created on day 4.

We see that the situation was the same both BEFORE the sun was created and AFTER it was created. There was 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' and plant life existed, leaving no other logical conclusion that can be inferred from the texts OTHER than this light created before the sun MUST have been similar to our sun.

The light was created on day one, to divide the 24 hour day into an evening and a morning -a night and a day ="one day". And it is the same light which is still with us as it was int he beginning of creation. We see it coming forth at dawn every morning, and then the sun rises and we see the 'fire' of that light, which the sun gathers in, refracted back out from the sun, and so the sun rules the "day =the light". Then we see the light of day one following after the setting sun, which rules it. We call it twilight.
The sun is not the created light, it is only a created candlebra which gathers in the created light of day one and refracts it back out, and nothing in the heavens of God's creation is hidden from the heat, or fire, that it rules and refracts out to all the heaven as it runs it course on it's pathway from one end of the heaven to the other.
That is what the Scripture teaches us about the sun and the light of creation which is still here. Even if the sun is hid, the light of day one is not banished, but travels its course around the set, fixed earth on its daily orbit.
The earth is not a planet, biblically speaking, for it does not wander, as planets do. It is the sun which rises and sets on its daily orbit around the globe.

marlowe007 · Jan 3, 2009

This thread isn't about whether or not 'day' means 24 hours.

The question was whether there were other humans on the earth before the time of Adam and Eve.

Personally, I can't bring myself to believe that our God who is the same yesterday, today and forever would sanction incest one day and then change His muddled mind the next.

yeshuasavedme · Jan 3, 2009

marlowe007 said:
This thread isn't about whether or not 'day' means 24 hours.

The question was whether there were other humans on the earth before the time of Adam and Eve.

Personally, I can't bring myself to believe that our God who is the same yesterday, today and forever would sanction incest one day and then change His muddled mind the next.

Obviously your god is not my God, for my God has no muddled mind. Adam married his own rib; how much closer than that can you get?
After that, the souls born from the male and female Adam persons married and mated with their siblings and continued to marry and mate with their siblings in the one Adam kind; and marrying siblings continued in many nations even after Moses said not to, for Israelites, because of the corruption of the genetic information of Adam as he continues to devolve and degenerate.

marlowe007 · Jan 5, 2009

yeshuasavedme said:
Adam married his own rib; how much closer than that can you get?

As a non-literalist Christian, I'm not quite sure how to interpret that passage, but I think this poem explains it best;

Woman was created from the rib of man.
She was not made from a part of his head to top him,
nor was she made from his feet to be trampled on.
She was created out of his side to equal him,
under his arm to be protected by him
and near his heart to be loved.

davec375 · Jul 7, 2009

There is a remote possibility that there were races and civilizations born from the 6th day and perhaps had been around for thousands of years and that Genesis 2:7-25 is an account of an Eighth day creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

I am not a proponent of scientific origins.

Now before everyone tars and feathers or labels me a racist. Of the latter, I am guiltless and innocent of the charge.

But the definition of Ha-adam is "ruddy". This could allude to "blushes", "blushing"; or "blood in the face". It has been speculated that Abraham and Isaac are the progenitors of Celti-Saxon ancestry (the Lost Tribes of Israel).

Look up Celt, Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon history. Wikipedia though not a reliable source has a nice overview. Can't post em because I can't post links yet.

This is just speculation and by no means meant to stir any controversy or cause a riot.

marlowe007 · Jul 9, 2009

davec375 said:
There is a remote possibility that there were races and civilizations born from the 6th day and perhaps had been around for thousands of years and that Genesis 2:7-25 is an account of an Eighth day creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

I am not a proponent of scientific origins.

Now before everyone tars and feathers or labels me a racist. Of the latter, I am guiltless and innocent of the charge.

But the definition of Ha-adam is "ruddy". This could allude to "blushes", "blushing"; or "blood in the face". It has been speculated that Abraham and Isaac are the progenitors of Celti-Saxon ancestry (the Lost Tribes of Israel).

Look up Celt, Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon history. Wikipedia though not a reliable source has a nice overview. Can't post em because I can't post links yet.

This is just speculation and by no means meant to stir any controversy or cause a riot.

There have always been groups wanting to confine Adam to "us" and to exclude "them". In this connection, the ancient Israelites and their later Jewish, Christian and Muslim successors have been neither unique nor uniquely guilty.

I don't believe in a literal Adam anymore, even though Christ and the NT authors probably did.

Creationism is NOT Biblical

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran

More options

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member

More options

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran

More options

marlowe007

Veteran

More options

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran

More options

marlowe007

Veteran

More options

davec375

Junior Member

More options

marlowe007

Veteran

More options

Similar threads

Creationism is NOT Biblical

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Junior Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency