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

[The Barbarian]

First of all, before you come up with yet more permutations of saying I am redefining words, you should perhaps consider that if I hadn't noticed the first 1800 times then saying it again is a waste of time.

I'm a very patient guy. Often, repetition is a good teaching practice. "Morning" and "evening" are not the same as day and night, and if your idea depends on that, it indicates a logical difficulty.

And God did not say creation was perfect. He said it was "very good", which does not mean "perfect."

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I'm a very patient guy. Often, repetition is a good teaching practice. "Morning" and "evening" are not the same as day and night, and if your idea depends on that, it indicates a logical difficulty.

And God did not say creation was perfect. He said it was "very good", which does not mean "perfect."

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Did you read the whole thing carefully? I specifically said (well, typed) that day and night are not the same as evening and morning, but it would be strange of God to define 'morning' and 'evening' by the position of the sun itself, and day and night by the light that we now get from the sun, but was previously created on day 1. Morning and evening are often defined by the position of the sun but the sun has existed throughout human history, but if the sun disappeared and was replaced by another source of light that made no difference to life on earth I doubt we would stop using the words 'evening and 'morning' so I don't see why such a difference should mean those words wouldn't apply in the past.

As for the 'very good' and not 'perfect', this article explains it well: Creation perfect - creation.com Please read the whole thing carefully.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you read the whole thing carefully? I specifically said (well, typed) that day and night are not the same as evening and morning, but it would be strange of God to define 'morning' and 'evening' by the position of the sun itself, and day and night by the light that we now get from the sun, but was previously created on day 1.

It's one of the reasons we know that Genesis is not literal. If it makes no sense as a literal description, then that's a very good indication that it isn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

As for the 'very good' and not 'perfect', this article explains it well:

I think Genesis does it very well, without man's addition or subtraction. I'll go with His description: "Very good."

 

[Gbob]

Just curious. I really don't.

I do, but not in the way anyone else believes. I will post in a new thread one of the most amazing things I have found about Eden.

 

[The Barbarian]

Name of the thread?

 

[Gbob]

Name of the thread?

took me a while to figure out how the picture system works here but the thread is "How to make the Bible and Science Match...

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I think Genesis does it very well, without man's addition or subtraction. I'll go with His description: "Very good."

Perhaps you would benefit from this explanation of exegesis and eisegesis: Be an exegete - Adam4d.com
The article I linked explained why the use of 'very good' and not 'perfect' is consistent with creation being perfect before the fall. You have done nothing but repeat what you already said, which makes me wonder if you are even considering anything I say or link. Forgive me for saying this if you already have, but actually reading the article instead of assuming what it will contain will definitely help for this discussion to be productive.

 

[The Barbarian]

I get that you believe that they are the same. But they mean different things.

It is true that something perfect is always "very good." But it is not true that something very good is always perfect, and we should not assume that it is.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I get that you believe that they are the same. But they mean different things.

It is true that something perfect is always "very good." But it is not true that something very good is always perfect, and we should not assume that it is.

Stop putting words into my mouth!!! I haven't said anything whatsoever that implies I think they're the same.

Anyway, your claim works against you because if something perfect is always very good, then you cannot use the words 'very good' as conclusive proof that something isn't perfect! And even if it wasn't perfect, very good still rules out evolutionary syncretism, which implies death before the fall. Jesus wept at Lazarus's grave even though he was about to resurrect him, and 1 Corinthians 15:26 'the last enemy to be destroyed is death' which clearly shows what God thinks about death.

Uniformitarian dogma is irreconcilable with the Bible. In fact, there are several processes that would point to a maximum age far younger then the alleged age of the earth if you granted the same assumptions used by purported dating methods such as radiometric dating, so uniformitarianism is inconsistent.

 

[The Barbarian]

Anyway, your claim works against you because if something perfect is always very good, then you cannot use the words 'very good' as conclusive proof that something isn't perfect!

Nor can we say that calling something "very good" means that it's perfect. Door swings both ways. I believe God said what He meant.

When God looked at His creation, He described it as "very good." Why not just accept it?

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Nor can we say that calling something "very good" means that it's perfect. Door swings both ways. I believe God said what He meant.

When God looked at His creation, He described it as "very good." Why not just accept it?

Creation perfect - creation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Words have specific meanings. And those meanings beat anyone's revisions.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Words have specific meanings. And those meanings beat anyone's revisions.

Cosmic and universal death from Adam's fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19-23a - creation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Cosmic and universal death from Adam's fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19-23a - creation.com

Words have specific meanings. And those meanings beat anyone's eisegesis. The difference is, your guys are adding their own ideas into the text.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Words have specific meanings. And those meanings beat anyone's eisegesis. The difference is, your guys are adding their own ideas into the text.

Unless you want this discussion to be pointless, perhaps you could read the articles I link?

Textual evidence Genesis is historical
Genesis as ancient historical narrative - creation.com
Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history - creation.com
Paul on the Fall
Cosmic and universal death from Adam's fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19-23a - creation.com
Why Genesis doesn't use the Hebrew word translated perfect
Creation perfect - creation.com
Biblical age of the universe
How does the Bible teach 6000-years - creation.com

 

[Radagast]

Unless you want this discussion to be pointless, perhaps you could read the articles I link?

Perhaps you could do us the courtesy of extracting the relevant points?

 

[Brightmoon]

Uniformitarian dogma is irreconcilable with the Bible. In fact, there are several processes that would point to a maximum age far younger then the alleged age of the earth if you granted the same assumptions used by purported dating methods such as radiometric dating, so uniformitarianism is inconsistent.

Creationists have had their misinformation about the age of the earth corrected so many times at this point that most scientists and disinterested people think that they’re deliberately lying at this point. I’m Christian and that’s my opinion as well. Even if we didn’t have the radiodating techniques that we do,the geological layers themselves point to extreme age . It’s simply takes time for the layers form , it takes time to erode away and time to change the mineral composition of a layer due to heat , pressure , other mechanical changes and chemical changes.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Creationists have had their misinformation about the age of the earth corrected so many times at this point that most scientists and disinterested people think that they’re deliberately lying at this point. I’m Christian and that’s my opinion as well. Even if we didn’t have the radiodating techniques that we do,the geological layers themselves point to extreme age . It’s simply takes time for the layers form , it takes time to erode away and time to change the mineral composition of a layer due to heat , pressure , other mechanical changes and chemical changes.

Dating methods are uncertain because they rely on assumptions that you can't know unless you have observed it since it began. How dating methods work - creation.com
Noah's flood would form layers quickly. Too late too type more sorry

 

[klutedavid]

Dating methods are uncertain because they rely on assumptions that you can't know unless you have observed it since it began. How dating methods work - creation.com
Noah's flood would form layers quickly. Too late too type more sorry

Old towns that are researched in archaeology, provide a very accurate insight into human settlement. Especially the era or time frame that the settlement was occupied.

Here is one of those towns.

Tell es-Sultan is the oldest part of Jericho and is often called the oldest town on earth. Early hunter-gatherers settled in Tell es-Sultan around 9000 BCE and continued to fortify and expand the site. By 7000 BCE, Tell es-Sultan was a large fortified town – it was around this time that the Wall and Tower of Jericho were built to protect the settlement.
(oldest.org/culture/archaeological-sites)

It's not difficult to see that Jericho is far older than six thousand years. I doubt whether any Biblical archaeologist would disagree with the dating of Jericho.