How long has man been created.

[GenemZ]

Just to clarify genez.....are you saying that this whole argument you put forward about prior creations revolves around the word "was" should be "became" in the verse Gen 1:2. [bible]The earth was without form and void[/bible]

"Was" or "became" should not be the issue. The issue is why would scholars choose the "became" option if the first place. The Hebrew words in that passage reveal much more than a fight over this little detail that has been magnified out of proportion, and has been used as a diversion as to avoid the context of its setting. Its a matter of filtering out a gnat, but leaving in the camel.

The Hebrew syntax Gen 1:2, used a technique we commonly see used in movies. The link I supplied you (Without Form and Void - Chapter 1 ) explains how the Jewish Massoretic text makes a point of this pause for the reader to heed when reading. Here is an excerpt:

Furthermore, in the Massoretic Text in which
the Jewish scholars tried to incorporate enough
"indicators" to guide the reader as to correct
punctuation there is one small mark which is
technically known as Rebhia which is classified
as a "disjunctive accent" intended to notify the
reader that he should pause before proceeding
to the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a
"break" in the text. Such a mark appears at the
end of Genesis 1.1.
​

This mark has been noted by several scholars
including Luther. It is one indication among others,
that the initial waw (

) which introduces verse 2
should be rendered "but" rather than "and",
a disjunctive rather than a conjunctive..



​

Here is how we see that factor work today in movies. We open seeing an introductory scene. Then we have a fade out. When it fades back in we now find ourselves looking at the situation from a different point in time, or a different place.

As for the Hebrew reader of Genesis 1:2? We really do not have to be told it 'became' something. The wording revealing a changed reality demands that the viewer know that a dramatic change has taken place. It can still be read as 'was' and still render the same reality, as long as the reader understands what all the Hebrew words are indicating to the reader. This factor is the main reason scholars wished to make sure how English translations are worded


So.. This old argument over "was" or "became?" Its a non-issue. That is, if the reader knows what the other Hebrew words are revealing.

I will illustrate. Everyone got so caught up in this detail they forgot to provide the overall reason for the debate.

"In the beginning Henry Ford created the Model T.
(now we are told to pause!)
Now, the Model T was rusted out, sitting on cinder
blocks with its parts scattered everywhere."​

Tell us? Does it really matter if it says, "was?" Or? "Became?"

If the reader knows what the words in the entire passage indicates, and get their eyes off the false issue? We can move on and discover what treasures of knowledge God's Word has buried for us to find.




In Christ, GeneZ


.
​

 

[praisejahupeople]

wait, so, blind faith in something without evidence is a more perfect and higher form of authority?

Hmmm you say theres no evidence of God and if there is, what he says isnt true?

Science uses more perfect methods than, say, oh i dont know, dogma.

Certain elements of science are very dogmatic.Theres a lot of blind faith happening,but thats probably only apparent to those who dont place their full trust in it.

Its like people want a more imperfect substitute for something thats just slightly imperfect....

Slightly imperfect?

I resist conflicting ideaologies because they're not right. I dont resist the facts. I resist those trying to send us back into the dark ages by teaching bologna like id and irredicible complexity in schools next to REAL science. I resist these ideas because THESE IDEAS ARE BAD FOR SOCIETY.

You spoke straight from one of Dawkins books.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Whats good about christianity mpok?.All i see from you is that we are backward...

 

[ThePastafarian]

Where would Darwinists be without their scientific pseudo jargon and the cover of nacht and nebel of huge periods of time. Who knows what might have happened in millions of years past. Darwin himself admitted the chief weakness of his theory was the total lack of intermediates in between these morphing species. God made the first beings as adults with a reproductive system. I think the male and female aspect of most life on earth blows the whole theory of evolution.

Really? I would like to know more. Could you elaborate?
And please provide evidence outside the bible.

 

[GenemZ]

Really? I would like to know more. Could you elaborate?
And please provide evidence outside the bible.

Did you come here to CHRISTIAN FORUMS find arguments outside the Bible?



.

 

[mpok1519]

Hmmm you say theres no evidence of God and if there is, what he says isnt true?

WHAT!? lol show me where I spoke those words.

Certain elements of science are very dogmatic.Theres a lot of blind faith happening,but thats probably only apparent to those who dont place their full trust in it.

And religion is ALL dogmatic without ANY science, or evidence, or fact to support it. You want MORE dogma to replace fact, empiricism and observation. Now THATS lunacy. You suggest pure dogma has more value than observable empirical data....which is, just, bad.

You spoke straight from one of Dawkins books.

I was thinking George Carlin. If you teach children that unicorns, faeries, spirits, angels, demons, devil imps et al, etc, etc, ITS BAD FOR SOCIETY.

If you teach a child the opposite of whats true, you cannot see the harm that comes from that? Can you not see how teaching lies is bad?

How can you advocate for lies, deception and fallacy? Thats basically the job of the devil, to lie, decieve and perpetuate falsehoods.

 

[mpok1519]

Whats good about christianity mpok?.All i see from you is that we are backward...

Theres LOTS thats god about Christianity, just how theres lots good about many religions, beliefs, etc.

Theres also alot thats wrong with Christianity, just how theres alot wrong with any religions, beliefs, etc.

 

[JediMobius]

wait, so, blind faith in something without evidence is a more perfect and higher form of authority?

If you want empirical data about God and the spiritual realm, you're not going to get it. Science can only study what it can observe, and that is limited to what is within creation. God exists in the spiritual realm which is outside of creation.

Science uses more perfect methods than, say, oh i dont know, dogma.

We're not discussing dogma, we're discussing biblical truths that are spiritually discerned.

Its like people want a more imperfect substitute for something thats just slightly imperfect....

We're only searching for truth.

and theres no such thing as perfection. You give me the definition of perfection, and show me something that fits that definition objectively, please. But, i know you can't, so really, asking for such a thing is moot.

God.

I resist conflicting ideaologies because they're not right. I dont resist the facts. I resist those trying to send us back into the dark ages by teaching bologna like id and irredicible complexity in schools next to REAL science. I resist these ideas because THESE IDEAS ARE BAD FOR SOCIETY.

To resist conflicting ideologies is not scientific. No scientific theory is established as true, so conflicting ideas are not immediately dismissed, but the evidence is reconsidered in light of the conflict.

Of course I resist false ideas; theres no reasoning or logic used when testifying that the earth is 6000 yars old. Theres no logic, reasoning or any maount of inductive or deductive ability. There is no reasoning, evidence, or logic that suggests the earth is 6000 years old. Theres no evidence that the earth is 6000 years old.

If you were paying attention and actually considering the evidence Genez in particular has presented, he does not assert that the earth is 6000 years old. To suggest that there is no (logic) reasoning or evidence behind an idea you disagree with is a fallacy. If that were true, then very very few people would perceive merit in the argument for young earth creationism. You would also be implying that no one who believes (I use the term loosely) in creationism could possibly posses the faculties of reason, yet many of these people have reasoned that evolution does not fit the evidence well enough, and have found that creationism fits the evidence better.

OF COURSE I RESIST SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE and imho, just plain stupid and BAD for society. When people insist that things that dont exist do exist, ITS BAD.

You mean like angels, satan, and unclean spirits - aka demons? The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Demonic powers are real and very active. Christians should have no delusions about that.

 

[herev]

What really happened in the Grand Canyon?

a river runs through it

 

[richterforest]

For you? Sixty years.

For me? I don't have a closed mind. A closed mind would be insisting that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and magic essentially made people. That may not be closed minded per se, but it certainly is childish, ignorant and juvenile to believe such fallacious ideas.

But in fact you believe in magic more than we in your beliefs of life forming on Earth. Spontaneous generation was disproven. But evolution says it had to happen, whereas, the Bible says an intelligent being created life. How is an intelligent being creating life magic?

I sometimes wonder how Christians can dismiss the main reason for Christ having to come to earth to sacrifice himself for our sins, which was Adam bringing sin to the world. For that matter, when did man actually awaken and have a soul placed in Him according to Christians who believe in evolution? Does science tell us that?

 

[ThePastafarian]

Did you come here to CHRISTIAN FORUMS find arguments outside the Bible?



.

Yes I did.
If you can't back up the 'good' book with independent sources, it means nothing.

So convince me evolution is wrong.

 

[GenemZ]

For you? Sixty years.

Hardly. I was brought up a Jew. If I had a closed mind for sixty years I would still be a Jew.

Being a Jew is very much like someone who was brought up in a Christian home who claims to be Christian but has no clue what Christianity truly entails. Religion is not the same thing as true Christianity. Christianity is a living spiritual life. Religion is simply integrating dogma as a tradition into ones life. No relationship with God, but quite often influenced by gods.

For me? I don't have a closed mind. A closed mind would be insisting that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and magic essentially made people. That may not be closed minded per se, but it certainly is childish, ignorant and juvenile to believe such fallacious ideas.

Let's see here..

1.) A closed mind refuses to believe the process of evolution takes place.

2.) A closed mind insists that this planet itself is only around 6 thousand years old.

3.) A closed minded evolutionist will only defend evolution on the basis of what Young Earth Creationism proposes.

4.) A closed mind will insist that the only logical position, is that life we see today is the result of the process of evolution originating from such periods as the Jurassic, etc.

5.) A close mind will refuse to consider an answer that fully resolves the conflicts that TOE and TEC can not resolve.


.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes I did.
If you can't back up the 'good' book with independent sources, it means nothing.

So convince me evolution is wrong.

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1



.

 

[fwwid]

Its sounds like you have been around the typical narrow minded anti-intellectual types. Problem is, you have become equally narrow minded by limiting all Christians and throwing them into a convenient box.

Which convenient box are you referring to? I am a Christian and love all Christians - no limits.

Why do you even come here to argue if Bible believing Christians are all what you say they are? Must be a reason.

haha, I'm actually a "Bible believing Christian"? Are you going to tell me that I'm not? Wouldn't your telling or infering that I'm not a "Bible believing Christian" be the very sort of limit your accusing me of setting on others? Genez, because we don't agree on certain issues is one issue, but questioning my fundamental passion for Christ is another. Do, we have differing beliefs? Yes, but let us continue in unity Genez, avoiding the spirit of contention.

38] And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[39] But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
[40] For he that is not against us is on our part.

Christians do not seek out truth in all realms? At least the Bible believing ones don't. Right?

Bible believing Christians do seek out truth outside of the bible.

John 8: 40
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Will we recognize Christ when he comes? He won't be quoting scripture.

There is nothing about the data that motivated the formulation of the theory of evolution that can not be found existing in the Bible for thousands of years.

There is nothing...that can not be found? I think that came out wrong - parapraxis?

But, you do? I see... That's you. You seek TRUTH in all realms?

Neither my, nor Christ's extent of knowledge and truth is limited to scripture.

Care to discuss what was discovered by some scholars?

Haha, go to the library.

That is true, and does apply to certain Christians. But, something tells me that your upbringing and a limited exposure to Christianity, opened a door for you to establish yourself right where you like to be. The superior mind.

I do not think of myself as superior to anyone, as much as your anti-evolutionist literature would have you believe.

As long as all Christians are like what you claim? It must be quite comforting to such an ego. But, then again, under my pastor have sat men from NASA, and people who attended MIT. Kind of shoots down that nice tower you have constructed for yourself. Matter of fact, my pastor was once invited to speak to the student body at MIT.

WOW, seated men from...NASA!!!! and that attended MIT?!!! He was even invited to speak there? That's unbelievable! Evidently the proverbial "ivory tower" lies in your congregation. Birds of a feather I suppose. - I'm not impressed. The standard of ones discipleship isn't established on ethos, pathos, and logos, rather the love he/she shares with others. Some words for thought...

John 13: 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

O world, thou choosest not the better part!
It is not wisdom to be only wise,
And on the inward vision close the eyes,
But it is wisdom to believe the heart.

Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

So much for that though... all Christians are to be the way you enjoy seeing them to be. Smugness is never a virtue. Its in the Bible.

Smugness is in the Bible? Genez, tisk tisk

Why should anyone want to shoot at what is already filled with so many holes?

Yeah, TRUTH is holy, huh?

Cognitive dissonance? Good to see you took at least Psychology 101.

Because nobody taking upper lever psychology courses would ever pretend to sophistication by using such a term, right? haha. Dang, If I had only attended MIT, then you'd be impressed...because that's my intention? pssht.

In Christ, GeneZ

You've got to be kidding me

 

[GenemZ]

haha, I'm actually a "Bible believing Christian"? Are you going to tell me that I'm not?

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

​

Well, then? Do you believe that? - Yes? Or.. No?




.

 

[Dark_Lite]

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

​

Well, then? Do you believe that? - Yes? Or.. No?




.

And since when did literalism equate to truth?

 

[JediMobius]

And since when did literalism equate to truth?

What evidence is there that the Genesis account of creation is only a story, and not a history?

Even if dust wasn't literally formed into a man, there persists the matter of God's active roll in creating man by forming him (as opposed to the animals simply being created) and breathing life into him. Throughout scripture there is no correction of Genesis as a history, rather it is confirmed. Men trace their lineage back to Adam, there is reference of man returning to dust, of the earth being the womb of man. Jesus used clay (moistened dust) to heal blindness, and then breathed the Holy Spirit to his disciples.

 

[fwwid]

And since when did literalism equate to truth?

My words exactly!

 

[fwwid]

What evidence is there that the Genesis account of creation is only a story, and not a history?

Even if dust wasn't literally formed into a man, there persists the matter of God's active roll in creating man by forming him (as opposed to the animals simply being created) and breathing life into him. Throughout scripture there is no correction of Genesis as a history, rather it is confirmed. Men trace their lineage back to Adam, there is reference of man returning to dust, of the earth being the womb of man. Jesus used clay (moistened dust) to heal blindness, and then breathed the Holy Spirit to his disciples.

"Evidence" is designed for the literal (i.e. tangible, concrete, and the objective) not the metaphorical which is based off interpretation. It appears that if you are interpreting that scripture as literal then YOU are the one that needs to provide "evidence". Thus far, if you are a God-fearer, then the literal interpretation of that scripture has been disproven by virue of the fact that there is no "literal" evidence which would suggest that man was somehow zapped here on earth in an evolutionary blink of an eye. The evidence suggests evolution was the means which, incidentally, also runs in harmony with the scripture Genez provided. You want to see this proof? Go on an archeological dig, catch up on your paleontology and science. I'm not going to waste my time trying to pry open a clamshell of a mind that denies those things which can be palpated by the hands and seen with the eyes.

Luke 6: 39, 43
39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

Hmmm, very interesting. Christ using something NOT literally true in order to teach something that is very true. I thought that was taboo in scripture. Evidently, this scripture has served more then one purpose.

 

[GenemZ]

And since when did literalism equate to truth?

So, the burden of proof is now on me to cause you to experience time travel and show you its literally true?


It appears that there is no faith with you unless its convenient. Then, if that's the case, what faith you think you have is really not faith at all. It becomes a philosophy instead.

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

​

One can not claim to be a Bible believer, and then pick and choose what is not to be believed in the Bible. There is nothing in that passage to indicate its not literal. Passages that are not to be taken literally are self evident.

Before the advent of Darwinism there never was a question of this passage being anything other than literal. Its those who want to now be seen as Christians, yet wish to remain consistent with the creed of evolution theory, that must compromise and make exceptions with God's Word. At least the atheists are honestly wrong.

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."
​

God had no reason to hide the truth from Moses. If God transformed some chimp into a man? Then he could have easily said so.

And? If God had not created man to be his own creation? Original creation of man, as to be without sin? Then there could not really be any fall of man if he already had the nature of an animal. That would mean? Jesus could not died for man's sins any more than he could die for the wrongs a chimp might do. Chimps have been known to murder infant chimps. Chimps get jealous. Chimps can steal.

How can Adam be said to have fallen if he inherited his nature from a chimp? If Adam evolved from some chimp? Salvation becomes a farce. Almost everything about redemption would have to be reckoned as meaningless.

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

It better be literal. Or, there is no redemption.

If its not to be taken as literal? Then, Jesus was putting on a charade on the Cross. For, there would be no sins to die for. After all? Man could not fall if we came from some animal. It would mean that we as men act like we do because its part of the animal nature we inherited from our animal ancestors. That, Adam was not created in God's image, and could never have had a fall from sinlessness. Adam just carried on with the animal nature he inherited in the process of evolution.


Well? Add to that? There is no literal Jesus. For him to claim to die for our sins would be a lie. And, if he did die for our sins? He also died for the entire animal kingdom, not just man.

"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being."

Yes, I believe that had to literally happen. If it did not? There would be no basis for the Christian faith as being genuine. The death on the Cross is now a farce according to our father Chimp.





.
​

​