Genesis Is the understanding the of Ancient Hebrews.It doesn't have to be scientific.

[dougangel]

Not having a belief is a belief. Can you get your head round that.
Doing nothing is doing something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not having a belief is a belief. Can you get your head round that.
Doing nothing is doing something.

Not playing football is a competitive sport! ... Oh wait, ... it isn't.

 

[dougangel]

Not playing football is a competitive sport! ... Oh wait, ... it isn't.

Well your logics wrong because you have chosen a sub-category for your example.

 

[Aman777]

"Aman777, 1. Here is when Adam was formed Scripturally:

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Day in this instance refers to a time period. The time period is 6 days. It speaks of that "generation" or history.

The first Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The plants, herbs and Trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

Yes...plants of the field.

7 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.

See, on the 3rd Day, the Day the first Earth was made, before the plants, herbs and rain, the Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) "formed" man. Just to be absolutely sure, read the next verses:

There was only one earth made.

UnScriptural, since Adam's firmament which God called "Heaven" was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 At the beginning of the 3rd Day, the Day Adam's Earth was made, God made other Heavens (plural). This agrees with the rest of the Bible which shows that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:6 and that our world will be burned. ll Peter 3:10

After these two worlds are totally destroyed, ALL Christians will live with Jesus in the THIRD Heaven/firmament of ll Cor 12:2 or the New Heaven and New Earth of Rev 21:1 which will be forever. IOW, God made THREE Heavens and the last will never be destroyed.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

-57:>>The plants here are plants of the garden..NOT OF THE FIELD.

Didn't you notice the "EVERY Tree"?

The Trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

-57:>>Yes the trees of the field...not the trees of the garden.

Didn't you notice that Gen 2:5 tells us this Day was before the plants herbs and rain, when man was made?

2. Adam and Eve were "created" by God (Trinity) on the 6th Day. Gen 1:27 AND Gen 5:1-2 Can you see the difference between being "created" by God the Trinity and being "formed" by the Lord God? Gen 2:7

-57:>>No. Adam was created by being formed from the dust.

Not so, since Adam was "formed" by Jesus and it takes the AGREEMENT of the Trinity (God) to create. Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:1-2 EVERYTIME God (Trinity) creates, it is an ETERNAL Creation.

3. God created and brought forth "every living creature that moveth" on the FIFTH Day. Gen 1:21 The sons of God (prehistoric people) had their origin in the water according to Science AND Scripture because they "moveth". Lucy was the first to walk upright. God's Truth, Science and History AGREE. Amen?

-57:>>This false concept contradicts Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. If Lucy type people were not in Adams progeny they would not have felt the effect of original sin. They would no need a savior.

The sons of God (prehistoric people) were NOT Adam's progeny UNTIL they married and produced children with one of Adam's descendants. Gen 6:4 shows that this happened on Adam's Earth and THEN it happened again (and also after that) when Noah's grandsons, like Cain, had NO other Humans to marry on the present Earth. They married and produced today's Humans with the prehistoric people who were made from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

That is WHY today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's Gen 3:22 AND we also inherited the DNA and ERVs of the prehistoric people who had been on our Earth for MILLIONS of years BEFORE the Ark arrived.

In the last days, Science will be willingly ignorant of this Fact because it totally DESTROYS the False Theory of Evolution, which assumes that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes on Planet Earth. It's because Godless men REJECTED God's Truth of the Flood which shows that Adam's entire firmament/Heaven was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

God calls these scientists the "Scoffers" of the last days. Are you a Scoffer of the last days or do you believe that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood AND that our world will be burned as Peter tells us? Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Oh boy.
I have to search the web to see where Aman777 is getting this "theology" from. Talk about being way out in right field.

You won't find it on the web but you can find it in Gen 5:1-2 which was AFTER Adam's fall and AFTER Cain killed Abel. Here are the verses with my comments:

Gen 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim-Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God (God is an invisible Spirit) made He him; Gen 5:2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam, (mankind) in the day when they were created.

This verse is speaking of the present 6th Day/Age when God created Adam and Eve Spiritually. Adam was "formed" on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:7 and Eve was built from Adam's RIB on the present 6th Day. Gen 2:22 BOTH were created by the Trinity Spiritually and Eternally on this Day of Salvation, the present 6th Day. ALL Christians are born again Spiritually TODAY, until the entire HOST of Heaven (Christians) is complete. Gen 2:1 Amen?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but there could not have been. A single person cannot have genetic confirmation on his own. That takes a population. And now you are showing your ignorance. At the very most one gene could have only 10 alleles in a population of 5, and this is very very unlikely. Can you not see that a large population could have many more alleles than just five people?

So the single 'common' ancestor theory is false, that thousands of humans evolved compatibly at the same time? Also wouldn't widespread incest severely limit genetic diversity among humans?

Also, almost every source I read reveals that that particular science is still unsettled, including genetic history. Why do you think your knowledge is the latest and best?

What you are doing right now is grasping at straws. You are making terribly ignorant wishful claims to defend the Noah story. And that is only one piece of information that tells us that there was no Noah's Ark. Geology told us that there was no world wide flood over 200 years ago. It would take over 5 miles of water to drown the Earth. Where did the water come from? Where did it go to?

The bible says that the present day 'families' of the earth descended from Noah's group, not those drowned in the flood. There is no way for science to know what the population of the earth was in Noah's time.

Geology told you that there was no flood as it is traditionally interpreted, yet virtually all the earth shows evidence of recent flooding. Noah's flood would be pretty recent and the evidence very vulnerable to weathering and other events, like more flooding. Uniform evidence isn't possible.

There was no reason for the flood to overtop Mt. Everest. There was no one living up there, and nothing up there was 'corrupted' by man. Civilization probably hadn't reached the 'tree line' in Noah's day.

Plenty of water for a flood to cover all the hills. The word for hills was mistranslated into mountains by overzealous scholars who allowed church tradition to color their judgment, just as artists through the years have mistakenly rendered the flood as a tsunami and the ark as a ship, neither of which is biblical. People lived on the low ground not on the high mountain slopes.

The water came in from the seas, and returned to the seas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well your logics wrong because you have chosen a sub-category for your example.

As you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the single 'common' ancestor theory is false, that thousands of humans evolved compatibly at the same time? Also wouldn't widespread incest severely limit genetic diversity among humans?

The single common ancestor goes back to the first cell, not to our human ancestors. You may have misunderstood the idea of "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve". Even when those two were alive there were still many thousands of other human beings.

Also, almost every source I read reveals that that particular science is still unsettled, including genetic history. Why do you think your knowledge is the latest and best?

"Unsettled" does not mean that it is of no use. There may be some arguments about the details but it still rules out the flood.

The bible says that the present day 'families' of the earth descended from Noah's group, not those drowned in the flood. There is no way for science to know what the population of the earth was in Noah's time.

But that does not matter. Noah et al still had to have far less genetic diversity than we know has always existed because there would have been far too few of them.

Geology told you that there was no flood as it is traditionally interpreted, yet virtually all the earth shows evidence of recent flooding. Noah's flood would be pretty recent and the evidence very vulnerable to weathering and other events, like more flooding. Uniform evidence isn't possible.

No, there is no such evidence for a recent flood. You do not seem to understand the nature of evidence.

There was no reason for the flood to overtop Mt. Everest. There was no one living up there, and nothing up there was 'corrupted' by man. Civilization probably hadn't reached the 'tree line' in Noah's day.

Didn't the Noah's story still require all of the mountains of the world to be covered? Why do you think that people could not have climbed as the water rose? They would have no problem at all climbing Mt. Everest if the sea level was rising.

Plenty of water for a flood to cover all the hills. The word for hills was mistranslated into mountains by overzealous scholars who allowed church tradition to color their judgment, just as artists through the years have mistakenly rendered the flood as a tsunami and the ark as a ship, neither of which is biblical. People lived on the low ground not on the high mountain slopes.

But again, anyone that lived anywhere near a mountain could have simply gone up as the water rose.

The water came in from the seas, and returned to the seas.

Sorry, the water is already in the seas, it could not have "come from the seas". There is this little thing called gravity. Plus it could not have gone "back to the seas" they would already have been full, see "gravity".

 

[dougangel]

As you have.

well you are not being intellectually honest.
But from my experience atheists do have beliefs about the world and the bible. A lot them take it very literal.
If you believe there is nothing behind the big bang. That is a belief. It's not proven. A lot of Evolution is an unobserved science and uncompleted. Parts of evolution is controversial amongst evolutionists. Also parts of it is unexplainable.

 

[Hoghead1]

And those same points, Dougangel, also hold for Genesis. No one directly observed God creating in six days. There is much controversy how to interpret the creation account. Much of it is unexplained. Why did God create? What was before creation? How did God create? Out of noshing? Out of something? This situation is also complicated by the fact that Genesis offers two contradictory accounts of creation.

 

[Aman777]

The bible says that the present day 'families' of the earth descended from Noah's group, not those drowned in the flood. There is no way for science to know what the population of the earth was in Noah's time.

Not quite, since Humans (descendants of Adam) could produce children with the sons of God (prehistoric people whose origin was in water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21) according to Gen 6:4 Cain married one of these people on Adam's Earth and Noah's grandsons, who had NO other Humans to marry, did the SAME on Planet Earth, AFTER the Ark arrived.

*** Geology told you that there was no flood as it is traditionally interpreted, yet virtually all the earth shows evidence of recent flooding. Noah's flood would be pretty recent and the evidence very vulnerable to weathering and other events, like more flooding. Uniform evidence isn't possible.

Our Earth has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's Earth which was destroyed in the Flood. Water CANNOT destroy our Earth since it's a ROCK, with a molten core, and that is WHY it's going to be burned. ll Peter 3:10

*** There was no reason for the flood to overtop Mt. Everest. There was no one living up there, and nothing up there was 'corrupted' by man. Civilization probably hadn't reached the 'tree line' in Noah's day.

The highest mountains on Adam's Earth were only 15 cubits (22.5 feet) in elevation as Gen 7:20 clearly shows. Read it for what it says instead of what some ancient theologian, who lived more than 3k years ago, THOUGHT it said. They mistakenly THINK the water was 15 cubits ABOVE the highest mountain, when actually the flood was only 15 cubits deep.

*** Plenty of water for a flood to cover all the hills. The word for hills was mistranslated into mountains by overzealous scholars who allowed church tradition to color their judgment, just as artists through the years have mistakenly rendered the flood as a tsunami and the ark as a ship, neither of which is biblical. People lived on the low ground not on the high mountain slopes.

The water came in from the seas, and returned to the seas.

Doesn't work since IF the water covered the highest mountains on Planet Earth, it would STILL be there. The ONLY place it could go would be into Space and it would still be there. The Ark arrived from Adam's world (Kosmos) and surfaced in Lake Van, Turkey, 11k years ago.

Here is empirical historic evidence of the arrival of the FIRST Humans (descendants of Adam) on planet Earth. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html Noah simply walked down from Lake Van into Northern Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Human Civilization on this Earth. The rest is clearly recorded in History. Notice that the FIRST Human cities are named in Gen 10 and some of them are STILL around today. Amen?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Didn't the Noah's story still require all of the mountains of the world to be covered? Why do you think that people could not have climbed as the water rose? They would have no problem at all climbing Mt. Everest if the sea level was rising.

The word 'mountain' can be translated 'hill', which is a more reasonable translation.
No need to cover the high mountains as people would soon starve up there anyway, if indeed some made it that far. There would have been great confusion during the flood so rational actions would be rare.

Sorry, the water is already in the seas, it could not have "come from the seas". There is this little thing called gravity. Plus it could not have gone "back to the seas" they would already have been full, see "gravity".

Tsunamis and tides come in from and go out to the sea. Even a small uplift of the seafloor would cause massive flooding. Doesn't the geologic record show many great uplifts of the sea floor going back millions of years?

I have no problem with a Lake Van, or similar altitude, landing.

 

[florida2]

I think it would be fascinating to meet Aman777 in person. Utterly terrifying, but fascinating nonetheless.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doesn't work since IF the water covered the highest mountains on Planet Earth, it would STILL be there. The ONLY place it could go would be into Space and it would still be there. The Ark arrived from Adam's world (Kosmos) and surfaced in Lake Van, Turkey, 11k years ago.

The flood stood 15 cubits above the highest hills that man occupied at that time. How else would they be drowned? No need to cover Mt. Everest, or even the Mts. of Ararat as there was nobody up there.

The account states that the main flood waters came from the seas (the fountains of "the great deep") and returned there; to the deep. Why question that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

well you are not being intellectually honest.
But from my experience atheists do have beliefs about the world and the bible. A lot them take it very literal.
If you believe there is nothing behind the big bang. That is a belief. It's not proven. A lot of Evolution is an unobserved science and uncompleted. Parts of evolution is controversial amongst evolutionists. Also parts of it is unexplainable.

How am I not being honest? And how can an atheist take the Bible literally? That does not make any sense at all. I will quite often argue with people that believe the Bible literally so my arguments using the Bible will take the Bible literally in that case. But if I am merely discussing science with a Christian I will point out that much of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and that you don't have to take the Bible literally to be a Christian.

And when it comes to what caused the Big Bang all we can say at this time is "We don't know yet". That is not evidence for a god, but luckily it is not evidence against a god either. So if you are not a literalist I will not interpret the Bible literally when debating with you. If are a literalist I will interpret the Bible literally when debating with you. I will use the interpretation that best fits the debate, and that seems more than honest to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word 'mountain' can be translated 'hill', which is a more reasonable translation.
No need to cover the high mountains as people would soon starve up there anyway, if indeed some made it that far. There would have been great confusion during the flood so rational actions would be rare.

So you don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's fine. The problem with a local flood is that it would not have killed all of the people on the Earth and the Ark itself would have been superfluous.

Tsunamis and tides come in from and go out to the sea. Even a small uplift of the seafloor would cause massive flooding. Doesn't the geologic record show many great uplifts of the sea floor going back millions of years?

I have no problem with a Lake Van, or similar altitude, landing.

Yes, but again, not everywhere. And yes, there have been many different uplifts in different times at different places. For the flood story to be supported all of the events would have had to have happened at the same time. That is why all of the local floods that can be observed do not support the Noah's Ark story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's fine. The problem with a local flood is that it would not have killed all of the people on the Earth and the Ark itself would have been superfluous.

I do take Genesis literally. I just think the translators got a little carried away with popular traditions about the flood. Also, I still believe it was a global flood, just not 5 miles deep.

Yes, but again, not everywhere. And yes, there have been many different uplifts in different times at different places. For the flood story to be supported all of the events would have had to have happened at the same time. That is why all of the local floods that can be observed do not support the Noah's Ark story.

Noah's flood evidence would have manifested as thousands of local floods, not one huge flood. The variety of evidence left in each of those multiple regions would be subject to nearly 5000 years of degradation by the elements.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I will use the interpretation that best fits the debate, and that seems more than honest to me.

You have already shown that this isn't true, by forcing questionable traditional interpretations and constructing a straw man argument with them. As an example of this critics continually argue that a 'ship' the size of the ark would not be seaworthy. When anyone points out that the ark was not a 'ship' they refuse to abandon their 'ship' argument, but press it even further.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have already shown that this isn't true, by forcing questionable traditional interpretations and constructing a straw man argument with them. As an example of this critics continually argue that a 'ship' the size of the ark would not be seaworthy. When anyone points out that the ark was not a 'ship' they refuse to abandon their 'ship' argument, but press it even further.

Remember what Peter said?

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of,

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do take Genesis literally. I just think the translators got a little carried away with popular traditions about the flood. Also, I still believe it was a global flood, just not 5 miles deep.

Then you are not taking it literally. And if it was a global flood, but only about fifteen feet over the highest hills in the Tigris and Euphrates valley it still would not be anywhere near deep enough to kill everyone in the world. You can't have it both ways.

Noah's flood evidence would have manifested as thousands of local floods, not one huge flood. The variety of evidence left in each of those multiple regions would be subject to nearly 5000 years of degradation by the elements.

Except all of those "floods" occurred at different times. Please bring up these supposed floods and I will show you that. Five thousand years is a mere blink of an eye in geologic terms and it would be extremely easy to date them.