Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[ZNP]

Just curious. I really don't.

You are asking a yes or no question and it is hardly that simple. Yes, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis is figurative but accurate description. No, I do not agree with virtually any conservative Christian interpretation, they have the entire geology wrong. Instead I believe the first verse discusses the creation -- in the beginning God created the heavens and Earth. That is it. Then there is a gap indicating the fall of Satan -- "and the earth became waste and void". How long was that gap, not even discussed. But from that point on the entire Bible is about man, and the world we inhabit. Man has only been on earth for less than 1% of Earth's history, so trying to make Genesis 1:3- to the end be about the creation of the Earth is the error. It isn't, there are many errors. Instead, I would say it depicts the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age. If you look at the waters covering the Earth as the ice, then the book does an accurate depiction of what man saw at that time.

 

[summerville]

You are asking a yes or no question and it is hardly that simple. Yes, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis is figurative but accurate description. No, I do not agree with virtually any conservative Christian interpretation, they have the entire geology wrong. Instead I believe the first verse discusses the creation -- in the beginning God created the heavens and Earth. That is it. Then there is a gap indicating the fall of Satan -- "and the earth became waste and void". How long was that gap, not even discussed. But from that point on the entire Bible is about man, and the world we inhabit. Man has only been on earth for less than 1% of Earth's history, so trying to make Genesis 1:3- to the end be about the creation of the Earth is the error. It isn't, there are many errors. Instead, I would say it depicts the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age. If you look at the waters covering the Earth as the ice, then the book does an accurate depiction of what man saw at that time.

During the Ice Age the earth wasn't "covered in ice".

 

[coffee4u]

The Seventh-Day Adventists re-interpreted Scripture to be a literal history in all parts. So that's a huge change. Even 1500 years ago, Christians knew it wasn't literal history.

And what does that have to do with the King James Version of the Bible?

I just posted the entire chapter from the KJV, guess what, it still says 6 days. I get my belief directly from the Bible not from some Seven-day Adventists who I don't know and frankly don't care about.

You are entitled to view that verse as figurative and I am entitled to view it as literal. Why is that so hard to understand?
What you don't get to do is point at me and say I get that belief from the Adventists when I already explained I get that from the plain reading of scripture. That is both untrue and offensive. Maybe there are some people around who get their beliefs from the Catholics or Adventists or someone else, but I am not one of them, thank you very much.

 

[ZNP]

During the Ice Age the earth wasn't "covered in ice".

Try quoting Genesis and then we can discuss.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry landEarth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

At the end of the ice age the waters under the heavens were gathered into one place. Prior to that you had ocean and glaciers. Once the glaciers melted the land did appear. There is nothing here that says this process is finished (glaciers are still receding).

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

This is the verse that is really off geologically speaking. Grass was one of the very last plants to appear in the fossil record. Way after fish, reptiles and birds appeared. However, grass would be the first thing to appear as the glaciers recede and the land appears.

 

[LoG]

And what does that have to do with the King James Version of the Bible?

I just posted the entire chapter from the KJV, guess what, it still says 6 days. I get my belief directly from the Bible not from some Seven-day Adventists who I don't know and frankly don't care about.

Whenever you do say "God created the heavens and Earth in six days" you are actually quoting the Koran which says that.

The Bible says:
Exo_20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo_31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

It is a misquote made very often by YEC's

 

[LoG]

This is the verse that is really off geologically speaking. Grass was one of the very last plants to appear in the fossil record. Way after fish, reptiles and birds appeared. However, grass would be the first thing to appear as the glaciers recede and the land appears.

If as you say (and which i agree with) that the Genesis 1 is a recreative event, then the grass is simply restarted from the grass that was there before the ice age.

 

[The Barbarian]

And what does that have to do with the King James Version of the Bible?

It has to do with the Seventh-Day Adventist invention of YE creationism, and their revision of scripture.

I just posted the entire chapter from the KJV, guess what, it still says 6 days.

As you know, the text itself shows that it's figurative, since one cannot have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

I get my belief directly from the Bible

Filtered through the revision of the Adventists.

You are entitled to view that verse as figurative and I am entitled to view it as literal.

Of course. In fact God doesn't care if you want to make it into a literal history. That won't determine your eternal home.

But it's worth knowing where that new doctrine came from.

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century brought rejection of evolution. Its leaders explained an ancient Earth through belief in the gap or in the day-age interpretation of Genesis.[34] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[35] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[36] Price became popular with fundamentalists for his opposition to evolution, though they continued to believe in an ancient Earth.[34]

In the 1950s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, and other scientists,[37] Ramm influenced Christian organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.

Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[38]

This became the foundation of a new generation of young Earth creationist believers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint.
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't take everything as an absolute literal, but I do believe Adam and Eve were very real people whom God created.

That's pretty clear in the text; a person can be real, and still be in an allegorical story.

 

[summerville]

Try quoting Genesis and then we can discuss.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry landEarth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

At the end of the ice age the waters under the heavens were gathered into one place. Prior to that you had ocean and glaciers. Once the glaciers melted the land did appear. There is nothing here that says this process is finished (glaciers are still receding).

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

This is the verse that is really off geologically speaking. Grass was one of the very last plants to appear in the fossil record. Way after fish, reptiles and birds appeared. However, grass would be the first thing to appear as the glaciers recede and the land appears.

As the last ice age began to end 10,000 years ago the glaciers began to slowly retreat and the Arabian Peninsula which had been a verdant savanna with shallow lakes became more arid. There was NEVER ice all over the world or an glacial changes so dramatic that they caused flooding

 

[The Barbarian]

As the last ice age began to end 10,000 years ago the glaciers began to slowly retreat and the Arabian Peninsula which had been a verdant savanna with shallow lakes became more arid. There was NEVER ice all over the world or an glacial changes so dramatic that they caused flooding

The ice covered the northern tier of states, but south of central Missouri, there was no glaciation.

 

[ZNP]

If as you say (and which i agree with) that the Genesis 1 is a recreative event, then the grass is simply restarted from the grass that was there before the ice age.

The creation of the grass was in verse 1, there is no explanation, but yes, by this verse it is not the creation of grass but letting the grass come forth now that the ice is no longer covering it.

 

[summerville]

The ice covered the northern tier of states, but south of central Missouri, there was no glaciation.

Thanks.. I just know more about the geology of Arabia than about the US.. Although I do know about the Ogallalla aquifer

 

[ZNP]

The ice covered the northern tier of states, but south of central Missouri, there was no glaciation.

Good point, but that does not contradict Genesis.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

During the ice age the water was in two places, when the glaciers retreated the water was gathered into one place. When the ice retreated the dry land appeared. There is no contradiction.

 

[The Barbarian]

During the ice age the water was in two places, when the glaciers retreated the water was gathered into one place.

When the ice retreated the dry land appeared.

See above. Lots of dry land back then. The polar ice is still there, just a little smaller than it was. Still two places.

 

[coffee4u]

It has to do with the Seventh-Day Adventist invention of YE creationism, and their revision of scripture.



As you know, the text itself shows that it's figurative, since one cannot have mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.



Filtered through the revision of the Adventists.



Of course. In fact God doesn't care if you want to make it into a literal history. That won't determine your eternal home.

But it's worth knowing where that new doctrine came from.

The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century brought rejection of evolution. Its leaders explained an ancient Earth through belief in the gap or in the day-age interpretation of Genesis.[34] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist, wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great Flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based on reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[35] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[36] Price became popular with fundamentalists for his opposition to evolution, though they continued to believe in an ancient Earth.[34]

In the 1950s, Price's work came under severe criticism, particularly by Bernard Ramm in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Together with J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist and in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, and other scientists,[37] Ramm influenced Christian organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in not supporting flood geology.

Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year, reviving pre-uniformitarian arguments. Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[38]

This became the foundation of a new generation of young Earth creationist believers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint.
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

You sir and going on ignore because you are rude and as an older lady I do not have to put up with being insulted. At your age, you should have learnt some manners. I do not now or have I ever listened to the Adventists. Good day to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks.. I just know more about the geology of Arabia than about the US.. Although I do know about the Ogallalla aquifer

What do you think of the speculation that the same interruption of dry air out of Asia that is greening North Africa, might also make the Arabian Penninsula less dry?

The big concern with the Ogallalla Aquifer is that we're drawing water out of it faster than it can recharge. And warmer climate with less snowpack melting in the mountains means slower recharge than before. I don't see that ending well.

 

[summerville]

Good point, but that does not contradict Genesis.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

During the ice age the water was in two places, when the glaciers retreated the water was gathered into one place. When the ice retreated the dry land appeared. There is no contradiction.

Much too early for the book of Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

You sir and going on ignore because you are rude and as an older lady I do not have to put up with being insulted.

Probably a bad idea for you to accuse me of false witness, then. If you're rude like that, it's hard for people to sympathize.

At your age, you should have learnt some manners.

Well, you know how churlish old barbarians are...

I do not now or have I ever listened to the Adventists.

I'm just showing you that they invented YE creationism.

Good day to you.

You too. May God bless and keep you.

 

[summerville]

What do you think of the speculation that the same interruption of dry air out of Asia that is greening North Africa, might also make the Arabian Penninsula less dry?

The big concern with the Ogallalla Aquifer is that we're drawing water out of it faster than it can recharge. And warmer climate with less snowpack melting in the mountains means slower recharge than before. I don't see that ending well.

I don't know anything about the greening of North Africa. Saudi Arabia uses fossil water so they have built 300 recharge dams.

 

[ZNP]

See above. Lots of dry land back then. The polar ice is still there, just a little smaller than it was. Still two places.

See Genesis 1:9, nothing says there wasn't.