How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

[JacksBratt]

That's nice but completely irrelevant to the conversation you inserted yourself into. A claim was made about how long a certain view was held. I offered evidence refuting that claim. You asked why I offered that evidence. I explained that it refuted a claim that had been made. Now it turns out you don't care about the claim or the evidence, making your contribution pointless.

Very sorry. I see that you were just stating it to show that someone held a certain view at a certain time. Post # 18 just has the quote without any of your input.

 

[JacksBratt]

Your opinion -- and the extremely high value you place on it -- are noted.

This is why people like myself are criticized for the "literal" interpretation... Due to the "literal" part.

And, it is my opinion, that we are correct in doing so and not bending to the assumptions of mere mortals. Most of which don't even belief the book anyway.

Which does nothing to support your wholly incorrect claim that the scientific world is leaving evolution behind. Does it matter to you whether what you say is true?

Maybe not as fast as some would like.. but....

Check this:

The Genesis Controversy: Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Losing Support in the Scientific Community

Has it been duly noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution is dying? Not at the hands of fundamentalists; it is being killed off by the scientific community itself.

There is so much circumstantial evidence against natural selection as the cause of changes other than those within a given genus that belief in it requires a leap of faith

The last line of defense of Darwinism is that nobody has come up with a better scientific explanation for the appearance of new species. And it is probably true that Darwinism will not entirely disappear until there is an alternate theory.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you have some data to support that assertion?

It's called the "Word of God".

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It's called the "Word of God".

Can you be more specific?

 

[sfs]

Check this:

The Genesis Controversy: Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Losing Support in the Scientific Community

I see no trace in there of evidence that the theory of evolution (which has of course changed considerably since Darwin's time) is losing support in the scientific community. Most of the quoted criticisms of the theory, such as they are, date from the middle of the last century.

I've been doing genetics for close to twenty-five years now, including quite a bit of work on evolution. In that time I've interacted with many evolutionary biologists and even more whose work touches on evolution in some way, and I've heard hundreds of talks involving evolution and read hundreds of papers on the subject. In all that, I have seen precisely zero instances of any researcher casting (or expressing) doubt on the core story of evolution, including the importance of natural selection in adaptive evolution, and I've seen zero evidence that suggests there's any substantial problem with evolution's account of the history of life.

 

[drich0150]

Is there anywhere that actually says what to expect from the Messiah?

brother you going in circles. That was my question to you...
Post 30:
Thursday at 4:04 PM#30

drich0150Regular Member
6,365
✟31,843.00
+397
United States
Non-Denom
Married
US-Republican

I think you made my point. Those who came later had misunderstandings of what the Messiah would do. There’s nothing that says the original audience misunderstood.

Can you provide book chapter and verse to support your assertion? Can you demonstrate that the first or earlier jews knew that Jesus would come to bring salvation to the lost in the way he did, and then at what point did this transition to the messiah being the man from God who would free them from roman oppression?

If not then how can you make this claim as the Bible is silent on what the first jews understood about the messiah.

 

[drich0150]

I understand the ballet dance of what you are saying.

I'm really sorry.. but I don't need a shoe horn and smoke and mirrors to work out my solid belief that Christ could, with ease, create the entire universe as it is stated, in six literal days...

AND... that's what He said that He did.

Then, I move on to the other miraculous examples of God's work in this world... Right up to the miracles that He is doing today. Non of which are any less true.

You do know This thread is not about you, right??? It's for those WHO HAVE TO Reconcile a literal 7 days with everything evolution teaches... It's to and for that 80% of the children we loose to science and the world.

If you can make a literal 7 days work 6000 years ago even though the Bible never provides that time like then great... But this coming generations can not make the same connections you can and I am suggesting that because this theory does not alter the text in any way it is viable for those in the church looking to reconcile the theory of evolution with a literal 7 day creation, without changing a word of either.

 

[drich0150]

Except the scriptures say that Adam only lived to be 930 years old.

It also says he died the very same day he touched the fruit.

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17, NKJV)

This means what ever Adam was in the garden with God, died that very day unless you think God lied to them. Which would mean the clock on Adam's 930 years started on the day of his exile. Not from the day of his creation as the Adam that's made from mud and placed in the garden who walked with God, was not the same exact man who walked out of the garden in exile. Something he was with God died the day He was exiled or again the alternative is god lied or was 'mistaken.'

I go over all of this and a whole lot more in the 11 min video I linked in the OP. it answers ever popular question asked about creation and Adam and Eve.. like who did their children marry/was their incest (no) where did the people come from that populated the city cain built? (a city even then was 2000++ people) why did God have to mark cain's face if it was just him and his brothers and sisters? how can their be light without the sun etc etc..

 

[BNR32FAN]

It also says he died the very same day he touched the fruit.

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17, NKJV)

This means what ever Adam was in the garden with God, died that very day unless you think God lied to them. Which would mean the clock on Adam's 930 years started on the day of his exile. Not from the day of his creation as the Adam that's made from mud and placed in the garden who walked with God, was not the same exact man who walked out of the garden in exile. Something he was with God died the day He was exiled or again the alternative is god lied or was 'mistaken.'

I go over all of this and a whole lot more in the 11 min video I linked in the OP. it answers ever popular question asked about creation and Adam and Eve.. like who did their children marry/was their incest (no) where did the people come from that populated the city cain built? (a city even then was 2000++ people) why did God have to mark cain's face if it was just him and his brothers and sisters? how can their be light without the sun etc etc..

Not according to the way it’s worded when it mentions his death.

“So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭5‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This says “all the days Adam lived were 930 years”. Perhaps he began dying when he ate the forbidden fruit. Or perhaps the word “day” was referring to an era. Like we might say in the day of Adam or in the day of Moses.

 

[Hammster]

brother you going in circles. That was my question to you...
Post 30:
Thursday at 4:04 PM#30

drich0150Regular Member
6,365
✟31,843.00
+397
United States
Non-Denom
Married
US-Republican


Can you provide book chapter and verse to support your assertion? Can you demonstrate that the first or earlier jews knew that Jesus would come to bring salvation to the lost in the way he did, and then at what point did this transition to the messiah being the man from God who would free them from roman oppression?

If not then how can you make this claim as the Bible is silent on what the first jews understood about the messiah.

The OT has many references to Messiah. So we know what earlier Jews thought because…well..they wrote it. We can see from scripture that the latter Jews (first century in particular) thought wrongly about Jesus. And we can be sure of their errors because we have the OT canon to examine. We don’t need to speculate.

What you’ve done in the OP is completely foreign, and most likely would be dismissed entirely by the writers of scripture, and a good portion of those who came later. Why? Because it’s not found anywhere in scripture.

 

[JacksBratt]

I see no trace in there of evidence that the theory of evolution (which has of course changed considerably since Darwin's time) is losing support in the scientific community. Most of the quoted criticisms of the theory, such as they are, date from the middle of the last century.

I've been doing genetics for close to twenty-five years now, including quite a bit of work on evolution. In that time I've interacted with many evolutionary biologists and even more whose work touches on evolution in some way, and I've heard hundreds of talks involving evolution and read hundreds of papers on the subject. In all that, I have seen precisely zero instances of any researcher casting (or expressing) doubt on the core story of evolution, including the importance of natural selection in adaptive evolution, and I've seen zero evidence that suggests there's any substantial problem with evolution's account of the history of life.

Well there is this:

There are roughly three camps in America: (1) those who still cling to orthodox Darwinism on the grounds that no one has come up with a better explanation for the origin of species; (2) those (like Gould and Eldredge) who have concocted baroque refinements of the original theory, such as “punctuated equilibria,” in order to shelter it from empirical falsification; and (3) those, including a well-known group of “cladists,” who reject the theory altogether.

 

[JacksBratt]

You do know This thread is not about you, right??? It's for those WHO HAVE TO Reconcile a literal 7 days with everything evolution teaches... It's to and for that 80% of the children we loose to science and the world.

If you can make a literal 7 days work 6000 years ago even though the Bible never provides that time like then great... But this coming generations can not make the same connections you can and I am suggesting that because this theory does not alter the text in any way it is viable for those in the church looking to reconcile the theory of evolution with a literal 7 day creation, without changing a word of either.

That's a good one... accuse me of selfishly holding to the view that this or any thread is about me...

Nice try. Swing... and a miss.

However...
If you can convince someone that Jesus walked out to a boat on the sea, fed 5000 men ( the number was probably higher as they don't count women and children) with 5 loaves of bread and two fish... and ended up with 12 baskets of left overs, made a couple of very large vessels of very good wine in a nanosecond, healed numerous people with life long diseases and ailments,numerous numerous other miracles that defy science then died on the cross and rose on the third day, walked through wall, showed His pierced side and hands, then floated up to heaven...

There are so very many supernatural and unscientific events that Christ did on this earth when He walked among us... These are held as truth because............ our salvation depends on them.

If you have people with the faith to hold these to be true.... Then the six literal days... is not a challenge.

If they don't have the faith to believe one... It confuses how they can believe the others.

 

[drich0150]

Not according to the way it’s worded when it mentions his death.

“So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭5‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This says “all the days Adam lived were 930 years”. Perhaps he began dying when he ate the forbidden fruit. Or perhaps the word “day” was referring to an era. Like we might say in the day of Adam or in the day of Moses.

again read the passage. I understand the interpretation you are using as it tries to explain why Adam did not die the day he touched the fruit, but rather 930 years later. "He started dying the day he ate the fruit." But again that's not what the passage says. It said God told them that they would SURLEY DIE the DAY they even touched the fruit.

I'm saying here God told them the truth. Adam's form in the garden what ever it was died that very day. what was left was exiled from the garden and live 930 years on this earth.

Your interpretation only works if you ignore genesis 2:17. if you follow what genesis 2:17 says then you can not count Adam's time in the garden as he died the day he broke his covenant with God.

 

[drich0150]

The OT has many references to Messiah. So we know what earlier Jews thought because…well..they wrote it. We can see from scripture that the latter Jews (first century in particular) thought wrongly about Jesus. And we can be sure of their errors because we have the OT canon to examine. We don’t need to speculate.

So you have book chapter and verse that shows this discrepancy in interpretation then right? if not know your argument is invalid.

What you’ve done in the OP is completely foreign, and most likely would be dismissed entirely by the writers of scripture, and a good portion of those who came later. Why? Because it’s not found anywhere in scripture.

This is a fallacial reasoning. Argumentum ad populum Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
This is the fallacy where you try and determine an argument's validity based on what the majority in a group think is right. this is poor reasoning for so any different reasons

I just demonstrated that the group of men you were referencing Got the prophesy about Christ completely wrong because they unlike us do not have the benefit of hind site nor any type of scientific understanding nor reasoning behind them.

It's not a sin to not fully understand God nor anything he left for us in scripture here.

Also understand I have not changed a word of the narrative in genesis. The Lord has simply have provided an alternative interpretation that answers ALL of the inconsistencies paradoxes and even the objections brought on by science without changing a word of what is written in genesis.

 

[drich0150]

That's a good one... accuse me of selfishly holding to the view that this or any thread is about me...

Nice try. Swing... and a miss.

However...
If you can convince someone that Jesus walked out to a boat on the sea, fed 5000 men ( the number was probably higher as they don't count women and children) with 5 loaves of bread and two fish... and ended up with 12 baskets of left overs, made a couple of very large vessels of very good wine in a nanosecond, healed numerous people with life long diseases and ailments,numerous numerous other miracles that defy science then died on the cross and rose on the third day, walked through wall, showed His pierced side and hands, then floated up to heaven...

There are so very many supernatural and unscientific events that Christ did on this earth when He walked among us... These are held as truth because............ our salvation depends on them.

If you have people with the faith to hold these to be true.... Then the six literal days... is not a challenge.

If they don't have the faith to believe one... It confuses how they can believe the others.

again sport your not listening or you still do not understand.

College professors know if they can destroy the viability of the very first story in the Bible NONE of the other stories or accounts will EVER be considered.

Genesis is the foundation to the whole bible. you destroy the foundation you destroy their faith in everything else.

that's why I keep telling you that you argument is not valid here. because if the genesis foundation is destroyed the potential believer will not even consider anything else Jesus said or did.

again understand stand when I say this is not bout YOU What I mean is everything you listed about the the faith you had in your belief of Jesus' miracles represents a very small percentage of how most people's beliefs are structured. These professors who are breaking the faiths of 70% (by the 2nd year of college and 80% of our children's faiths by the time the complete a 4 year university program understand that if you destroy the foundation Genesis lays out and replace it with 'science' then everything else bible based will also be destroyed.

again they have an 80% success rate. meaning they do not get everyone but the do destroy the vast majority of our children's faith. the church will not last 2 more generations at this rate of attrition. it may not last one if we are not already past the point of no return.

and what I'm saying is IF you are one of these people who need to reconcile evolutionary theory with everything the Bible teaches including a 7 day creation, then this is a way one can do that without changing a word of either the Bible or evolutionary theory.

if someone is like you and can just "faith" their way into belief, then keep your YEC, teach it whatever. However if you know someone who needs to reconcile creation with evolution inorder to maintain or build a faith in God then know this allows for that.

 

[drich0150]

Well there is this:

There are roughly three camps in America: (1) those who still cling to orthodox Darwinism on the grounds that no one has come up with a better explanation for the origin of species; (2) those (like Gould and Eldredge) who have concocted baroque refinements of the original theory, such as “punctuated equilibria,” in order to shelter it from empirical falsification; and (3) those, including a well-known group of “cladists,” who reject the theory altogether.

citation?/link to the full article?

 

[Hammster]

I just demonstrated that the group of men you were referencing Got the prophesy about Christ completely wrong because they unlike us do not have the benefit of hind site nor any type of scientific understanding nor reasoning behind them.

Let’s run with that. We know that they were wrong because we have the scriptures to look at that demonstrate that they were wrong. What scriptures do you have to show that believers for millennia were wrong about a literal six day creation?

 

[Hammster]

The Lord has simply have provided an alternative interpretation that answers ALL of the inconsistencies paradoxes and even the objections brought on by science without changing a word of what is written in genesis.

How has He done this?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your interpretation only works if you ignore genesis 2:17. if you follow what genesis 2:17 says then you can not count Adam's time in the garden as he died the day he broke his covenant with God.

But your interpretation contradicts Genesis 5:6. Both the word “day” and “time” are translated from the same Hebrew word “yom”. You have to use the context in which it is used to determine the correct definition that was intended brother. If Adam died the day he ate from the tree of knowledge he would’ve had to be resurrected in order to live again. There’s no mention of his death or resurrection in the scriptures. The scriptures record his life continuing. Now if we use the definition of “yom” as “time”, “age” or , “era” then there is no contradiction.

In your video you say that God created man in Genesis 1:26 before He created Adam. Now just going by Genesis that appears to be a possibility but how does that hypothesis compare to the rest of the scriptures? In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul says that Adam was the first man.

“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This would mean that Genesis 1:26 was referring to Adam since that was the first man that was created. Chapter 2 is another account of the 6 day creation in chapter 1 since Adam was the first man to be created and his creation is mentioned in both chapters 1 & 2.

Furthermore Adam named his wife Eve because she is the mother of all the living.

“Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Acts 17:26 says that men of all nations came from one man or one blood.

“and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So according to all these other scriptures outside of Genesis we must conclude that Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman and all mankind are descendants of them including Cain’s wife.

Now if we do the math, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. We don’t know how old he was when Cain & Able were born so the closest we can get is from Seth’s birth. According to the math and assuming that Adam was created as an adult which I’m confident we can agree on, Adam could’ve potentially had 153 children if Eve didn’t have any twins or triplets, quadruplets, etc. Unfortunately I’m not smart enough to try to calculate how many children those children could’ve had who were of age to marry by the time Cain was born but I would imagine it should be in the thousands by that time if they began having children around the age of 15 or so. Keep in mind that even tho a lot of people believe that Cain & Able are Adam’s first two born that is not actually mentioned in the scriptures. In Genesis 5 the descendants of Adam are counted beginning with Seth not Cain & Able. It’s very possible that the only reason Cain & Able were even mentioned in the scriptures is because it’s a record of the first death or murder that took place since creation. So it’s very plausible that an entire city of people, Nod, could’ve existed completely composed of Adam’s children by the time Cain married. We also don’t know how long after Cain killed Able before he actually got married. That could’ve been another couple hundred years for all we know. So the thousands that existed when Seth was born could’ve multiplied into tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands by the time Cain married.

I know a lot of people have a problem with the idea of incest but it wasn’t actually forbidden until Leviticus roughly 2500 years after creation. If the scriptures specifically say that we are all descendants of Adam then obviously God couldn’t have had a problem with it before He commanded us not to do it.

 

[drich0150]

Let’s run with that. We know that they were wrong because we have the scriptures to look at that demonstrate that they were wrong. What scriptures do you have to show that believers for millennia were wrong about a literal six day creation?

seriously?
post number 8 YOUR WORDS:

I read the OP. And I understand hermeneutics. The original audience of both Genesis and Exodus would have seen it as a literal and recent six day creation. That’s how it was understood for thousands of years. Letting pagans into the discussion has led to nothing but confusion.

Brother respectfully if you can't keep track of your own argument, then maybe you shouldn't make them this is the second time you wanted proof from an idea YOU BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION!!!

Maybe you would be better suited to simply say you disagree, or maybe I should just say that and allow you the last word because I'm not here to help you develop an argument against my own work.