Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[BobRyan]

http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

"Neanderthal (mitochondrial) DNA
The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997).

Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.

However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

Conclusion
Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."

True! As I already said, Neanderthals branched off the human tree

Humans.

Its the evol-storytelling-timeline that is the bit of "fiction" they toss in.

 

[Starcrystal]

Why are people so afraid to think for themselves?

Why are we so afraid to reason with God?

If we take things literally, what took God six days to create in a moment flees from his face.

Why time?

It seems people would rather reason, and debate with people while all along avoiding the source, perhaps maybe the price to do so is to steep.

I used to have a statement in my profile that said
"God created all in a short time, outside of time"

Consider that "time' as humans perceive it is based on the movements of celestial bodies, the rising and setting of sun and moon, then later by time devices such as sundials, clocks, watches..we became literally enslaved by the concept of 'time'.

During creation the celestial bodies were just being formed so time could not exist as we know it. I do not think it could even be measured by todays standards. The very fabric of space was different, and we would have to consider things like time dilation in special relativity.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I used to have a statement in my profile that said
"God created all in a short time, outside of time"

Consider that "time' as humans perceive it is based on the movements of celestial bodies, the rising and setting of sun and moon, then later by time devices such as sundials, clocks, watches..we became literally enslaved by the concept of 'time'.

During creation the celestial bodies were just being formed so time could not exist as we know it. I do not think it could even be measured by todays standards. The very fabric of space was different, and we would have to consider things like time dilation in special relativity.

Well, lets look at an objective thing like the earth's orbit around the sun. Regardless of subjective time for angels in heaven, earth has actually traveled around the sun in its annual orbit over 4 billion times.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

"Neanderthal (mitochondrial) DNA
The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997).

Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.

However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

Conclusion
Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."



Humans.

Its the evol-storytelling-timeline that is the bit of "fiction" they toss in.

If it is your contention that Neandertals were actually direct descendants of Adam and Eve . . . how many generations from Adam and Eve do you believe they were? Less than a hundred? Less than 50?

 

[BobRyan]

So, in another thread, there's an off-topic discussion and I'd like to move it here.

It saddens me how many Christians think so highly of Man and his science that they think that we know better than God. Some people seek to allegorize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and say that God was speaking figuratively and that He didn't really mean what He said in Genesis.

Okay, fine.

But you wanna tell me why God, in Exodus 20:9-11 would tell Moses straight upfront that He created the Earth and everything on it in 6 days?

Here's the text for reference (KJV):



God straight up says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".

God said this, to Moses, directly. He wasn't using allegory, He wasn't playing around, He said "Since I worked 6 days and rested the 7th, you're going to work 6 days and rest on the 7th also." (paraphrased).

So.... you either believe God or you don't.

If you're going to say that God created Life on Earth over millions of years, then that forces you to call Him a liar in Exodus 20:11. If you're going to say that God was telling the truth, that means Man is a liar.

I leave you with Paul's opinion on that:

Romans 3:4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Amen!

Yet how - interesting that affirming the 10 commandments - the Ex 20:11 statement on the 7 day creation week, the Genesis 1-2 statement on God as creator -- the entire baseline context for man , the fall of man, the Gospel... is considered "Controversial" among Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

If it is your contention that Neandertals were actually direct descendants of Adam and Eve . . . how many generations from Adam and Eve do you believe they were? Less than a hundred? Less than 50?

how many generations to pygmies?

how many generation between a wolf and a poodle?

How many generation between wolf and Chihuahua ??

 

[BobRyan]

Well, lets look at an objective thing like the earth's orbit around the sun. Regardless of subjective time for angels in heaven, earth has actually traveled around the sun in its annual orbit over 4 billion times.

Who was counting?

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament. All major
tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in different ways, correct?

The bible tells us that water covered the surface of the deep and then 7 days later we had all life on earth, the sun, the moon, an atmosphere, dry land... But how long was it that we just had "water covering the surface of the deep?" can't say for sure.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I used to have a statement in my profile that said
"God created all in a short time, outside of time"

Consider that "time' as humans perceive it is based on the movements of celestial bodies, the rising and setting of sun and moon, then later by time devices such as sundials, clocks, watches..we became literally enslaved by the concept of 'time'.

During creation the celestial bodies were just being formed so time could not exist as we know it. I do not think it could even be measured by todays standards. The very fabric of space was different, and we would have to consider things like time dilation in special relativity.

God's word disagrees with your timeless claim because a day was always a dayGen 1:5 And God called the Light, Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (yom)

Gen 1:5 And God called the Light, Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament, Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen 1:23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made, and lo, it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen2:2-3 For in the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and the seventh day he rested from all his work, which he had made.
3 So God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made.

Exodus 20:11
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.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and in the seventh day he ceased and rested.

Paslm 33:
4 For the word of the Lord is right and true;he is faithful in all he does.
5 The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;he commanded, and it stood firm.

A careful examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather's day...”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it's used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

The truth is that many of the old-earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. But we must not let the stubborn close-mindedness of some scientists influence how we read the Bible. According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Who was counting?

The atoms of Uranium and other radioactive elements.

The continents as they moved around the globe due to plate tectonics

The pulse of ice ages coming and going

The replacement of geological ages one after the other

The building of the Hawaiian chain of mountains and the seamounts that have sunk below the waters and are no longer islands

The slowing of the earth's rotation over the eons

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God's word disagrees with your timeless claim because a day was always a dayGen 1:5 And God called the Light, Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (yom)

Gen 1:5 And God called the Light, Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament, Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen 1:23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made, and lo, it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen2:2-3 For in the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and the seventh day he rested from all his work, which he had made.
3 So God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made.

Exodus 20:11
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.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and in the seventh day he ceased and rested.

Paslm 33:
4 For the word of the Lord is right and true;he is faithful in all he does.
5 The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;he commanded, and it stood firm.

A careful examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather's day...”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it's used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

The truth is that many of the old-earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. But we must not let the stubborn close-mindedness of some scientists influence how we read the Bible. According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow.

So the literal meaning of the word is a regular diurnal day . . . . but that does not mean we cannot interpret the passage in a non-literal fashion. Especially since we know that, literally, the earth is over 4 billion years in age. If we hold to the literal and hold to 6000 years more or less . . . we are holding that the Bible is in error.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

how many generations to pygmies?

how many generation between a wolf and a poodle?

How many generation between wolf and Chihuahua ??

Those are also wonderful questions to pin you down with as to fitting into your time frame versus reality. Please, feel free to share.

 

[4x4toy]

So the literal meaning of the word is a regular diurnal day . . . . but that does not mean we cannot interpret the passage in a non-literal fashion. Especially since we know that, literally, the earth is over 4 billion years in age. If we hold to the literal and hold to 6000 years more or less . . . we are holding that the Bible is in error.

 

[BobRyan]

Those are also wonderful questions to pin you down with as to fitting into your time frame versus reality. .

In "reality" you have nothing like a historian video clock of the last 50,000 years or 50 million or 4 billion years. And we all know it.

Where just supposed to "not notice"?

We are Christians - and God has a record of it -- but you have "your guesswork" that you place against the Word of God - as if this is supposed to be "convincing"?? Really?? seriously??

All this because you like to imagine that "a bacteria will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time filled with improbable just-so stories - that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science" -- ??

In fact that sort of "religion" is not at all compelling when put up against the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, lets look at an objective thing like the earth's orbit around the sun. Regardless of subjective time for angels in heaven, earth has actually traveled around the sun in its annual orbit over 4 billion times.

Who was counting?

The atoms of Uranium and other radioactive elements.

What exactly did they count?

no wait! "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science because there is no way of putting them to the test"???

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Who was counting?



What exactly did they count?

no wait! "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science because there is no way of putting them to the test"???

You surely know by now what we have discovered about how radioactive decay of atoms can be used to measure the passing of time. The actual counting is, of course, done by God who determines His time to "pop" another atom, we merely acknowledge His constancy in doing what He does.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

So the literal meaning of the word is a regular diurnal day . . . . but that does not mean we cannot interpret the passage in a non-literal fashion. Especially since we know that, literally, the earth is over 4 billion years in age. If we hold to the literal and hold to 6000 years more or less . . . we are holding that the Bible is in error.

You may believe that fallacy but then again the bible disagrees with you too. You in fact believe in scientism a man's pagan religion. If God created Adam and Eve as fully functioning adults God could also create the universe of a certain age also. But then again you'd have to admit God can do anything.

1 Corinthians 1:27-281599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world, to confound the mighty things,

28 And vile things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.

I hope one day people would stop attempting to shoehorn their pagan beliefs like scientism into God's word and instead take God at His word. How many times must man alter man's created religion of "evolution" to fit a belief system it just isn't meant to agree on. I believe what God said He did and obviously their are those that don't. To prove my point when fossils are formed the flesh and bone is replaced with minerals so ask yourself where did those minerals come from knowing they had to be carried by an underground water flow and how old were they to begin with when they were deposited? Yes logical questions to a fallacious belief that can never be proven by science because no one ever observed "evolution" nor dinosaurs nor one kind changing into another kind. The fact s you have absolutely no "empirical evidence" because again no one ever OBSERVED "evolution".

em·pir·i·cal
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Scientific theory - a way in which scientist or individuals seek to explain "broadly" regularities existing in objects and certain events. They are both posited and observed by the researcher. The researcher contends what he finds based upon "empirical" laws or evidence. In order to explain these events the researcher is guided by three principles, careful observation, reporting of regularities or non regularities, and finally systematic explanation (theories).

Nature is objective whether we want to believe it or not. Science is a methodology applied to nature by fallible, prejudiced humans.

 

[4x4toy]

Polonium Halos frozen instantly in granite at Creation , new formed volcanic rock where we have year and dates dating millions of years old by your methods , Mary Schwitzers and many other dinosaur soft tissue and blood found intact proving recent life and not close to 200 million years , the 'simple' cell that never existed , a single cell that is more complex than you could ever begin to explain , a big bang that goes against all explainable science , the fact that we form from reproduction to maturity then continue downhill to physical death , abiogenesis that is as ridiculous as those who believe it could happen , male and female plant life interdependent with male and female animal life and many symbiotic relationships necessary for their existence , instincts that defy explanation in natural terms , three times the water in Earths crust than in the oceans .. Paul , what is it you think you have that you think we are missing ? What do you have that we would leave what Gods Word says to us .. If you are that much more intelligent ,good for you . Just like you have your understanding has it ever occurred to you we are more than comfortable with ours both scientifically and spiritually . You have nothing . I quoted your post #1011 with no reply because sometimes I just want to be amused at absurdity ..

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Polonium Halos frozen instantly in granite at Creation , new formed volcanic rock where we have year and dates dating millions of years old by your methods , Mary Schwitzers and many other dinosaur soft tissue and blood found intact proving recent life and not close to 200 million years , the 'simple' cell that never existed , a single cell that is more complex than you could ever begin to explain , a big bang that goes against all explainable science , the fact that we form from reproduction to maturity then continue downhill to physical death , abiogenesis that is as ridiculous as those who believe it could happen , male and female plant life interdependent with male and female animal life and many symbiotic relationships necessary for their existence , instincts that defy explanation in natural terms , three times the water in Earths crust than in the oceans .. Paul , what is it you think you have that you think we are missing ? What do you have that we would leave what Gods Word says to us .. If you are that much more intelligent ,good for you . Just like you have your understanding has it ever occurred to you we are more than comfortable with ours both scientifically and spiritually . You have nothing . I quoted your post #1011 with no reply because sometimes I just want to be amused at absurdity ..

All those special pleadings and cherry picked arguments have been well refuted time and again. The anamolous radioactive dates are always dependent on fining very tiny, tiny amounts of the relevant decay products when zero was expected; this is a contamination issue, not an age discrepancy issue. The current complex cells are not the first life which would have been far simpler. Calling abiogenesis ridiculous bears no more weight than calling creation ridiculous (which I won't do). Today's complex sexual differentiation is no more an argument against evolution than any other complex parts of current living things. Why is water in the crust an argument against anything, anyway?

To you, scripture proves science wrong, just as it did to Martin Luther, who famously told the world to not believe that upstart Copernicus who, contrary to scripture, asserted the earth rotates rather than the sun moving across the sky.

You are following the steps of Martin Luther. He was a great man, and I hope you accomplish good as he did, but he did make that same mistake you are making.

 

[4x4toy]

All those special pleadings and cherry picked arguments have been well refuted time and again. The anamolous radioactive dates are always dependent on fining very tiny, tiny amounts of the relevant decay products when zero was expected; this is a contamination issue, not an age discrepancy issue. The current complex cells are not the first life which would have been far simpler. Calling abiogenesis ridiculous bears no more weight than calling creation ridiculous (which I won't do). Today's complex sexual differentiation is no more an argument against evolution than any other complex parts of current living things. Why is water in the crust an argument against anything, anyway?

To you, scripture proves science wrong, just as it did to Martin Luther, who famously told the world to not believe that upstart Copernicus who, contrary to scripture, asserted the earth rotates rather than the sun moving across the sky.

You are following the steps of Martin Luther. He was a great man, and I hope you accomplish good as he did, but he did make that same mistake you are making.

Says you , I happen to be very interested in science , what gives you and yours the right to belly up to the trough and claim it apart from God . I laid out some points refuting your science . Concerning water , I've heard 'where did the water for the flood come from forever from you folks .. I couldn't care less about Martin Luther or Dawkins or Krauss
... God fine tuned every thing in Creation and I give him full glory and credit , why do you insist he share it with chance .. You have nothing ..