how to assimilate all of evolution into a literal 7 day creation

[drich0150]

After better then tens years of doing expositions in Genesis, related passages in Job, Isaiah and the New Testament witness I know what an exposition should look like. I've also did exegetical studies of the principle words used in the text, so I know what is lost in translation and how to discern the contour of the original Hebrew. This is not complicated if you let the text guide you, the passage is adequate to interpret itself if you will let it.

nice..

So after a stent working in the church I come out and started working directly with fresh from their family collage aged kids for about the last 10 or so years. Most of which who have never had their faith tested as it will be by the 'higher learning institutions' e send them to and tell them over and over how important collage is to their future. A place who pride it's self on being consistent reliable in truth and can proof anything it claims.

Here's the problem with your traditional read:before any other problem concerning science fossils or theories Genesis read from the traditional perspective fails basic continuity when read with the other 4 chapter of the origins narrative.. It's like the authors did not know what the other one wrote and those who compiled what was written did not know any better than to correct such blazing and obvious mistakes...

But! I also know God is real. I also know Genesis is true, therefore traditional reading must be what is causing those problems Because God by definition can't be wrong, the scripture which points to God have an almost perfect of itself which only leaves the traditional understanding of what was written to be the source of the problem.

Does it not alarm you what so ever that I can take a literal word for word reading of genesis 2 and come u with something you in your traditions can not find? Again I add nothing I take nothing away but I do not arrive to where you are either.

Meaning if one account does not jive with anything else written in the scripture (meaning it creates paradoxes or inconsistencies eg: the people adam and eve married the city where cain fled this is either a lie or a very poorly conceived story.) if an interpretation creates problem with in it's very own understanding then again the understanding is at fault. let alone when compared to outside 'truths.' Fossil record for one. traditional ready says not possible for both to exist yet here are the bones. These literary errors/inconsistencies is what trivializes this whole book before anyne who has been taught to think logically and or rationally.
So why hang on to thought that rightfully labels us irrational or not logical when a simple change to our base understanding absolves all of this?

Yet again secondary reading/what I purposed does not change anything written out in the bible. only how we read it, This secondary reading accounts and explains everything I mentioned or shown to be an inconsistency plus a whole lot more. it effectively shuts down the atheist argument all together. Agan I have been helping people who need to balance science with the religion by using this example for 10 years now. and it works!

all of that without adding to the bible narrative or take things away from it. Especially under the scrutiny of those higher learning professors and peers why make our children choose when they do not have to choose between science and God.

Before we start majoring in the minors here let's step back and see what we are dealing with, the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth (universe) Gen. 1:1. From Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 It's the account of creation week.

The rest of Gen. 2 is an account of Adam and Eve immediately following creation, centered on a garden eastward in Eden. I will be delighted to discuss what is going on in 2:4 if you would be good enough to understand that the account of the Garden of Eden and the creation of Eve are subsequent to creation week, quite trying is equivocate the planting (not creation) of the Garden with creation week it simply doesn't fit in the pigeon hole your trying to make for it. This can all be readily discerned from a cursory reading of the text, no special insights required.

this is not true. because one has to ignore the first two verses to make genesis 2 the following week. This is an assumption based on tradition and nothing else. as the written words of verse 4 places chapter two between day one and day 3.5

You seem to think this is a contest, it's not, I know how do do an exposition of this text but let's see what you have here.

it is, but not between you and me. it is between holding on to our father's tradition in exchange for our children's souls.. as all atheism starts in the inconsistencies of genesis. why? because John placed Jesus at the head of a 7 day creation, Jesus also confirms the literal interpretation of genesis.. So if genesis is wrong or is in error then the natural logical conclusion is Jesus/your god is also in error ie false.

How can any one defend a tradition that leaves so many holes/ways for the enemy to come in and cause doubt?

Genesis 2:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth.


What kind of a paraphrase did you get that from?

this literally the common english translation. unless one speak in a 16th century dialect, then one needs a common english translation like this one: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

No, the passage is actually saying that this is a continuation of the account of the original creation and the previous account of creation.

I've said this several times now.

The passage describing the Garden of Eden is subsequent to the seventh day Sabbath, you might have noticed it at the top of the chapter.

but again this was artificially indicated several thousand years after the fact. book chapter and verse denotations happened mid 16th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible

so chapter one or rather the original/1st telling of the seven day story would have concluded on day seven which is chapter 2 verse 3. which means chapter 2 would have started apart from anything to do with the 7 day out line. as it is the traditional way Jews told stories. one was to give an outline framing out all the major points and then they would come back tpyically and fill in important detail along the out line. like they out lined 7 days of creation, but where does the garden fit in all the creation? between day one and day 3.5... then all of chapter 2 would include what happened between day 1 and 3.5. No jew thought God went through the trouble of a 7 day creation, rested and did it all over again for the garden.. No our God is an awesome God and while he was separating earth and sky He also planted a garden that he worked on why waiting for things to move into place.

It's so important there is even a special commandment commemorating this day following Go's work in Creation. It also marks the timeframe, this is obviously subsequent to creation week,

if it is then is created first? man or animals? chapter one says man was created last, chapter two say man was created first. if chapter 2 precedes chapter 1 chronologically then one of them is wrong. Do you see how your reading of these two chapter cause more problems than the resolve? If adam was created day 6 and no other man was created outside the garden then where did the city of nod come from who did adam's children marry? Are you answers consistent with the bible answers other questions pertain to incest or unannounced sorcery?

 

[drich0150]

Adam was not the first man
but was the first to be given
eternal life by God.

Do you not understand the purpose of this thread?

It is to have or assimilate all of evolution into a literal 7 day creation.

Meaning we can have Adam as the first man who was created maybe day 2. then place in the garden which was set apart from the rest of the world. Then day 6 God created the rest of man kind outside the garden or what would become man kind outside the garden and allowed them to develop on their own pace.

All anyone need do to make this work theologically is understand there is NO time line between genesis 2 and genesis 3 once that happens in your mind you can set a 7 day creation and a small garden at the head of the creation of this world however it is described, and then know adam and Eve lived immortally till about 6000 years ago.

That is what is being discussed here... not something that is not in the bible. Again because the bible says ADAM was the first man then Adam was the first man with or without a soul. It's not good enough that you are close in your beliefs as a good professor will see your willing to compromise your beliefs by allowing small fractures in your faith to accept what the bible and what science says.. He will then turn your willingness to compromise on you, and unless you are in pure faith up to your neck you will concede eventually.

What we have did here allows for no christian compromise and we do not change a letter of the bible, we simply identify what is bible and what is traditional understanding/without biblical support. cut that supoort out and allow the scripture to read open ended. in this case no time line between genesis 2 and 3 puts Adam as the first man and like the bible say put away in a garden sanctuary and is allowed to live indefinitely so long as he does not eat of the fruit of knowledge. This could have bee a week month or year or It Could have been the 50 billion years science needs for evolution to happen.. which ended about 6000 years ago when adam and eve were expelled and the genologies started. Do you see we do not add or take anything away if anything we tie up more loose ends (like all the facts the truths of the YEC's teach) without compromising what the bible teaches nor what science has found.

 

[mark kennedy]

nice..

So after a stent working in the church I come out and started working directly with fresh from their family collage aged kids for about the last 10 or so years. Most of which who have never had their faith tested as it will be by the 'higher learning institutions' e send them to and tell them over and over how important collage is to their future. A place who pride it's self on being consistent reliable in truth and can proof anything it claims.

I'm talking about the text, appreciate you sharing but this is about an exposition.

Here's the problem with your traditional read:before any other problem concerning science fossils or theories Genesis read from the traditional perspective fails basic continuity when read with the other 4 chapter of the origins narrative.. It's like the authors did not know what the other one wrote and those who compiled what was written did not know any better than to correct such blazing and obvious mistakes...

The traditional view is that God created the heavens and the earth. The Geneisis account describes what God did for three days to prepare the world for life, then in three more days to create life in general and man in particular. Your right this is traditional that the same God who promises eternal life, created life in the first place.

But! I also know God is real. I also know Genesis is true, therefore traditional reading must be what is causing those problems Because God by definition can't be wrong, the scripture which points to God have an almost perfect of itself which only leaves the traditional understanding of what was written to be the source of the problem.

The traditional understanding of Genesis 1 is confirmed in the New Testament. Go learn what this means, in him was life and that life was the light of men. I am well acquainted with the fossils, the scenerio we are getting from natural science is incomparable with how life works. Life comes from life, it's called the law of biogenesis. It's the only way anyone has seen it done, the life sciences have no first cause, they have no efficient cause, they have no cause period. What they have is naturalistic assumptions.

Does it not alarm you what so ever that I can take a literal word for word reading of genesis 2 and come u with something you in your traditions can not find? Again I add nothing I take nothing away but I do not arrive to where you are either.

What I find disturbing is you can't follow the obvious narrative. At the top of Genesis 2 is the seventh day, creation week is obviously over. It's not that hard yet we appear to be up against you insisting on a flash back in the text that doesn't exist.

Meaning if one account does not jive with anything else written in the scripture (meaning it creates paradoxes or inconsistencies eg: the people adam and eve married the city where cain fled this is either a lie or a very poorly conceived story.) if an interpretation creates problem with in it's very own understanding then again the understanding is at fault. let alone when compared to outside 'truths.' Fossil record for one. traditional ready says not possible for both to exist yet here are the bones. These literary errors/inconsistencies is what trivializes this whole book before anyne who has been taught to think logically and or rationally.
So why hang on to thought that rightfully labels us irrational or not logical when a simple change to our base understanding absolves all of this?

Absolves something? The text is fonsistant and clearly linear. After creation week God planted a garden, its not that hard to figure.

Yet again secondary reading/what I purposed does not change anything written out in the bible. only how we read it, This secondary reading accounts and explains everything I mentioned or shown to be an inconsistency plus a whole lot more. it effectively shuts down the atheist argument all together. Agan I have been helping people who need to balance science with the religion by using this example for 10 years now. and it works!

This isn't about science, science hasn't proven universal common ancestry at the majors nodes of evolution as history, it notoriously assumes it.

all of that without adding to the bible narrative or take things away from it. Especially under the scrutiny of those higher learning professors and peers why make our children choose when they do not have to choose between science and God.



this is not true. because one has to ignore the first two verses to make genesis 2 the following week. This is an assumption based on tradition and nothing else. as the written words of verse 4 places chapter two between day one and day 3.5


it is, but not between you and me. it is between holding on to our father's tradition in exchange for our children's souls.. as all atheism starts in the inconsistencies of genesis. why? because John placed Jesus at the head of a 7 day creation, Jesus also confirms the literal interpretation of genesis.. So if genesis is wrong or is in error then the natural logical conclusion is Jesus/your god is also in error ie false.

How can any one defend a tradition that leaves so many holes/ways for the enemy to come in and cause doubt?

this literally the common english translation. unless one speak in a 16th century dialect, then one needs a common english translation like this one: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

I've said this several times now.
but again this was artificially indicated several thousand years after the fact. book chapter and verse denotations happened mid 16th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible

so chapter one or rather the original/1st telling of the seven day story would have concluded on day seven which is chapter 2 verse 3. which means chapter 2 would have started apart from anything to do with the 7 day out line. as it is the traditional way Jews told stories. one was to give an outline framing out all the major points and then they would come back tpyically and fill in important detail along the out line. like they out lined 7 days of creation, but where does the garden fit in all the creation? between day one and day 3.5... then all of chapter 2 would include what happened between day 1 and 3.5. No jew thought God went through the trouble of a 7 day creation, rested and did it all over again for the garden.. No our God is an awesome God and while he was separating earth and sky He also planted a garden that he worked on why waiting for things to move into place.


if it is then is created first? man or animals? chapter one says man was created last, chapter two say man was created first. if chapter 2 precedes chapter 1 chronologically then one of them is wrong. Do you see how your reading of these two chapter cause more problems than the resolve? If adam was created day 6 and no other man was created outside the garden then where did the city of nod come from who did adam's children marry? Are you answers consistent with the bible answers other questions pertain to incest or unannounced sorcery?

You got a lot going on there, most of it random I pointed out the progression of the text and you abandoned the text. Now if you want to get into the life sciences or fossils no problem but we have to get past an exposition of the text and this flash back, overlap scenerio is frankly, unsound.

 

[drich0150]

I'm talking about the text, appreciate you sharing but this is about an exposition.

wow... Do you still not understand the reason for the 'exposition' I have brought to the table? Yours is broken. Your exposition cost souls. Your exposition creates inconsistencies and paradoxes with in the story narritive itself, let alone gets contradicted by higher learning. Your keep people in the dark when we tell everyone to walk in the light. The reason "i shared" was to inform and educate you as to how how and why we need change in our tradition view here..

Again if this is all you need for faith then why not simply let this go? why combat me if this could help someone else? I noticed you did not answer any of the contradictions your reading creates why is that? have you blocked them from your mind? what of those in collage who are demanded to make an account or these paradoxical instances? would you rob them of an opportunity just because you are uncomfortable with a non traditional reading? Because so far that is the only exegetical reason you have presented to combat my reading... in essence your whole argument amounts to "nut-huh, that is not how your read that, you read it like this because that is how it is always been done.) then proceed to ignore and talk past every point made.



The traditional view is that God created the heavens and the earth. The Geneisis account describes what God did for three days to prepare the world for life, then in three more days to create life in general and man in particular. Your right this is traditional that the same God who promises eternal life, created life in the first place.

The traditional understanding of Genesis 1 is confirmed in the New Testament. Go learn what this means, in him was life and that life was the light of men.

wow... such a teacher i hope to never be. I spent hours compiling and wording and re wording every new precept and concept and fussed over how the would be read and received by you/to new ears. I made sure every dot was connected and ever shade penciled in.. Then in your exposition on your key principle I must go and muddle through the bible looking for a principle not directly taught (meaning no sermon on the mount Genesis addition that Jesus taught.) Rather it seem you are taking one of the verses I used john 1:1 forward and repurposed it without any explanation.

I used John 1:1 to explain that is how young people of faith are being broken of their beliefs in that John taught christ was present on a literal 7 day creation and Jesus himself point to a literal 7 days. however because people like you in the church demand genesis can only be read the old way. young people honestly see the explain inconsistencies crested by the church's reading of this passage and has no answer for them. so based on your key passage we are loosing this next generation to scientific thought and reason because the church is too proud to reexamine tradition.

I am well acquainted with the fossils, the scenario we are getting from natural science is incomparable with how life works. Life comes from life, it's called the law of biogenesis. It's the only way anyone has seen it done, the life sciences have no first cause, they have no efficient cause, they have no cause period. What they have is naturalistic assumptions.

Globb..
BUT WE DO!!! what we don't have is a fossil record that supports YEC. So put 7 days of creation in front of this fossil record (which is what my exposition does) now you have both accounts of creation work with each other! You cancel out all contradiction and even can fold in the YEC's without changing one blessed word... only how the word is perceived.

What I find disturbing is you can't follow the obvious narrative.

You have yet to even disclose a single bible verse.. how is it that we know I am the problem we I am the only one providing the read along cut and pasted direct quote from the bible itself? you great teacher that you are only seem interested in trying to discredit the messenger rather than directly address the message. This is atheist debate tactic no.1

If your heart was directed in the true exegesis of God's word would you not try and use God's word to support your claims? You reference passage but you never quote or teach from it you just use it to beat me over the head and tell me this is not how it is read.
Mabe try teaching some. meaning explain yourself. rather than sticking with the 'nut-huh you wrong' arguemnt.

At the top of Genesis 2 is the seventh day, creation week is obviously over. It's not that hard yet we appear to be up against you insisting on a flash back in the text that doesn't exist.

Read the Op I said this is how we know mistakes were made in assigning book chapter and verse in the mid 1600's because this narrative the 7 day creation would all be placed in one chapter. why because it completes not only the narrative but it completes the chiastic pattern. what is the chiastic pattern? it is a literary form common with ancient jewish writings it follows a pattern like:
A “He [God] created” ()rb; 1:1b)
B “God” (Myhwl); 1:1b)
C “heavens and earth” (Cr)hw Mym#$h; 1:1b)
X FORMING AND FILLING OF THE EARTH (1:2-31)
C’ “heavens and earth” (Cr)hw Mym#$h; 2:1)
B’ “God” (Myhwl); 2:2)
A’ “He [God] had made” (h#&(; 2:3) Figure 1.

Genesis 1:1-2-3 also follow this pattern. Now inorder for you to say chapter 2-4 is a continuation of the chapter 1 or is some sort of post script of said pattern it must follow the same cadence. It does not. Chapter 2-4 -4-13 have their own patterns which gives full weight that the seven day creation stands alone. Again this to my point that the book chapter and verse denotations are wrong.

So then chapter 2-4 being a completely different story tell a completely different narrative. which again is the garden narrative, but with in the frame work provided in verses 4 and 5, as nothing else says this account proceeds the 7 day creation. no clearly if you read the chapter you will see God is still in full creation mode.


https://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xgen1_1-2_3.pdf
do you see this quote? clearly i'm not the only person who can see chapter one through 2-3's chiastic pattern being completed with this chapter 2 verse 3, and a whole new pattern beginning in verse 4 making chapter 1 a stand alone outline of creation.

from the link provided:
Many commentators, both ancient and modern, and a few editors of the English versions (NIV; NEB; NJB) have regarded Genesis 2:4a not functioning as a heading to what follows, but as a postscript to what precedes, the account of creation in Genesis 1:1—2:3. It is argued that Genesis 2:4a makes a neat inclusio with Genesis 1:1. However, there are problems that discourage dividing Genesis 2:4 in this way. First, the formula “this is the account” in Genesis 2:4a, if taken as a summary, would differ from its common use in Genesis where it uniformly refers to genealogy or narrative that follows, not precedes. Second, because of the chiastic structure of Genesis 2:4 (Figure 2), it seems preferable to understand the entire verse as a structural unity, and thus as a “title” to Genesis 2:5—4:26. Likewise understanding Genesis 2:4 commencing a new section allows full weight to be given to the chiastic structure of Genesis 1:1—2:3 (Figure 1), and Literary Analysis of Genesis 1:1—2:3 Page 3 InTheBeginning.org the recognition that the name “LORD God” does not occur once in Genesis 1:1—2:3, but many times in Genesis 2:5—3:24. Thus, what matches Genesis 1:1 is not 2:4a but 2:1-3, where the seventh day serves as a satisfying denouement to the account’s narrative progression. The key terms of Genesis 1:1 (“created”; “God”; “the heavens”; “the earth”) are repeated in Genesis 2:1- 3 but in reverse order (Figure 2), which clearly indicates that Genesis 2:1-3 forms the inclusio ending to the first section without the unnecessary first half of Genesis 2:4.The purpose of the repetition of the starting point of creation in Genesis 2:4 is to establish the context for understanding the ensuing story of human sin and its devastating consequences on the human race and environs.

In other words chapter 2-4 is the garden narrative set apart from the 7 day creation. If this is the case then 2-5 and 2-6 are the point from with in the 7 day creation that all of chapter two took place...

Now if you are just going to ball up you fists and say 'nut-huh this is not how it is read then I'm done with you. bring me something tangible. show me you understand this topic well enough to research it. don't give me a home work assignment. put fourth an effort equal if not great than my own.

Absolves something? The text is consistent and clearly linear. After creation week God planted a garden, its not that hard to figure.

Again show me in the hebrew text because nothing they wrote was chronological they wrote topically not what happened in order. that is a western construct of literature.

This isn't about science, science hasn't proven universal common ancestry at the majors nodes of evolution as history, it notoriously assumes it.

Are you so foolish as to believe this? Again my 'brother' it about loosing our children to the cold hard logic of science because it has answer we don't.. "we/you can't even read your bible though without contradicting yourself. Who did Adam's children marry once outside the garden? where did the city of nod come from that cain fled to?

You got a lot going on there, most of it random I pointed out the progression of the text and you abandoned the text. Now if you want to get into the life sciences or fossils no problem but we have to get past an exposition of the text and this flash back, overlap scenerio is frankly, unsound.

God help him see. I have three things going on here just three, and you are lost. maybe if again the tradition suits you, you should sit down and findsomeone to share your tradition with.. but note you did not answer any of the paradoxes your traditional reading creates let alone the scientific inconsistencies. You may have the luxury of dismissing people with new ideas but our children don't and we will LOOSE the Church with in another generation if we do not do something quickly. Because we talk about the truth of God's word, well they are demanding it and tradition is falling flat on it's nose. If we don't or can't supply truth 'science' will.
because this next generation are not so willing to lie to themselves. or over look inconsistencies, to ignore paradoxical readings to have to remember what is truth what is allegorical and what is in a grey area.. It should all be truth all the time and JIVE with what we know is right on the outside world. Bone's don't have it in for Jesus. ruins and stone tablets don't seek to obliterate the faith of the untested. but that is what happens when they come to use and we can't even answer the inconsistencies we create when we read our origin story.

So three things you have yet to address. 1 the op. basically anything topically written out in the opening post. all you've done is say nupe that's not how it is done and the proceed to ad hom attack the messenger rather than address any of the point of the message.

2 I added the paradoxes and inconsistencies a traditional reading of genesis provides when you read it your way. in essence if you are going to insist on reading this way show me where adam and eve kids are not marrying in incest. show me where the people came from that populated the city of nod. show all the things I've asked for that my exegesis explains while your causes.

3 this topic is the single biggest stumbling block we have in the church, as it applies to our kids moving off to collage. this is where doubt and discontent are sown. and when we can not answer the 2 things I asked you to address the third thing results in moving away from God. Meaning I am asking you how to fix this hole in the christian church boat by using your traditional reading.. If you don't like my idea (the idea that changes nothing in the bible, fixes all the inconsistencies and paradoxes your reading creates, makes evolution work, and folds in the YEC's WITHOUT ADDING OR TAKING ONE WORD AWAY from a literal 7 day account0 then please provide a way for those of us in the trenches to effectively combat those trained to eat people who hold fast to a traditional genesis reading.

please rather than troll or try to inflame me I ask that you stick on topic and address any one of those three thing I have going on here. just stay on topic please. I don't need to hear how I'm not smart enough to read what is on you page of your bible that you wont share. I get it. we have different views. so then I listed out my problems with your so address one topically

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you not understand the purpose of this thread?

It is to have or assimilate all of evolution into a literal 7 day creation.

Meaning we can have Adam as the first man who was created maybe day 2. then place in the garden which was set apart from the rest of the world. Then day 6 God created the rest of man kind outside the garden or what would become man kind outside the garden and allowed them to develop on their own pace.

All anyone need do to make this work theologically is understand there is NO time line between genesis 2 and genesis 3 once that happens in your mind you can set a 7 day creation and a small garden at the head of the creation of this world however it is described, and then know adam and Eve lived immortally till about 6000 years ago.

That is what is being discussed here... not something that is not in the bible. Again because the bible says ADAM was the first man then Adam was the first man with or without a soul. It's not good enough that you are close in your beliefs as a good professor will see your willing to compromise your beliefs by allowing small fractures in your faith to accept what the bible and what science says.. He will then turn your willingness to compromise on you, and unless you are in pure faith up to your neck you will concede eventually.

What we have did here allows for no christian compromise and we do not change a letter of the bible, we simply identify what is bible and what is traditional understanding/without biblical support. cut that supoort out and allow the scripture to read open ended. in this case no time line between genesis 2 and 3 puts Adam as the first man and like the bible say put away in a garden sanctuary and is allowed to live indefinitely so long as he does not eat of the fruit of knowledge. This could have bee a week month or year or It Could have been the 50 billion years science needs for evolution to happen.. which ended about 6000 years ago when adam and eve were expelled and the genologies started. Do you see we do not add or take anything away if anything we tie up more loose ends (like all the facts the truths of the YEC's teach) without compromising what the bible teaches nor what science has found.

What we think of as the evolutionary timeline
all took place before Creation week. Creation
week refers to a Spiritual Creation - man.

There is really nothing physical about CW.

 

[drich0150]

What we think of as the evolutionary timeline
all took place before Creation week. Creation
week refers to a Spiritual Creation - man.

There is really nothing physical about CW.

Again, with this reading you can put creation before evolution if you need it to be there. if you got things figured out that's good. most do not. for them it is important to have a literal reading of Genesis. This reading allows them to have that as well.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

We don't know how long the earth was "without form and void" before anything else happened. The Bible doesn't tell us. It could have been billions of years. After all, in an eternity where there is no measurement of time (because our measurement of time is dependent on the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and there is no mention of these at this stage. But to try and prove that the universe is a product of time and chance and basically chaotic is not supported or denied by the Biblical record, so the theory that the universe came about through time and chance is baseless.

if the Bible says that creation happened in six days, then it is true. This is the because the Infinite-Personal God told Moses to write it that way, and He is not a liar, nor is He mistaken. If the book of Genesis is an allegory, then no one can be saved, and the whole history right up to the Exodus never happened. There was no Abraham, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no promise made to Abraham, Jesus was wrong when He spoke of Adam, Eve. Abraham, and Lot.

Also, there is no problem with science telling us that human beings migrated from Russia to North America 20,000 years ago. If we understand how genealogy was described we see that it is not an account of one consecutive generation after another. When it mentioned a name, it was the names of whole family groups and there were great gaps between them. So it could be seen that there could have been hundreds of years of gaps between these groups. There could have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of years after the person mentioned before Noah died, and when Noah was born. We also don't know how long it took for Noah's family to repopulate the earth. This meant that the Flood could well have happened well before the 20,000 years when humans migrated to North America. There is nothing in the Bible that refutes that. The Bible, although accurate in what it does say in its history and description of the cosmos it is not exhaustive. There are many things the Bible does not say because although it is accurate, it is not a scientific or historical text book.

If Genesis is not an accurate history that God told Moses to write (and the account ways that Moses had a very personal relationship with God and spoke with Him as a man speaks to his friend), then Moses is a liar when he said that God told him to write it all down in a book.

 

[cwo]

You might ask who cares or why does this matter?

Background: I was an active member here till they pulled the atheist outreach, some years back. as I do some of my best work answering atheist questions. (last 10 or so years) a lot of time these question center around creation versus evolution or just in the creation narrative itself. questions or paradoxes like who did adam's children marry or where did the city of nod come from/where cain fled after killing abel. And the big one how can any of the creation narrative square with evolution???

What if I could tell you, you could answer these questions without changing one letter of the creation narrative (genesis 1-5) and square everyting with what has already been written and even assimilated the whole of the evolution into the 7 day creation.. Now understand this is not gap theory nor any other anything that is not already in the bible. Again this does not thing to add or take anything from the bible away. I simply point out how and where we have been reading genesis wrong for a very long long time.

First we must all understand there were never any original book chapter or verse denotations. However all translations with these denotations ends genesis chapter 1 on day six. This where chapter two picks up, on the beginning of day seven and day 7 carries it (the end of the 7 day creation narrative over to verse 4. I don't know why they did this and cut chapter 1 short of the whole of creation other than to say to start out where they chose to start without a jewish understanding of storytelling would make the start of chapter two seem awkward and as if it we missed a line or two. The Jewish understand of storytelling would start with the author giving a complete overview (7 day creation) and then come back and say now between this and this, this detail happened, so as to frame perspective and give a time line. this allows the storyteller to go off in many different direction at once if need be (when you give the time line first and reference back to it.)

Now if you were reading this narrative without book chapter and verse telling you where a thought begins and ends, the natural break would be to read through till day 7. (establishing the storyteller time line) which again would complete the 7 day creation narrative.

If you do this, chapter two's new beginning @ verse 4 can start out a little confusing. All one need do is keep in mind there are actually two different things being discussed here Chapter 1 a 7 day account of creation and chapter 2 a garden only creation account. This is where we separate ourselves from a traditional reading. Most assume or even teach chapter 2 is a second creation account. This is not true. if it were the atheist point out a large number of inconsistencies when we view chapter two as a broader or more detailed over all 7 day creation/retelling.. case in point, chapter two has man/adam being created on 3 day and chapter 1 says day 6.. ect. if chapter 2 had anything to do with the narrative of chapter one we would have an inconsistent no matter how you explain it.

However if you look at how the new beginning of chapter 2 reads you will note chapter two is a different account all together.

So chapter starts:
4 This is history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, (this is a history of the creation of Adam and Eve, "They." which again is different than what happened on the creation of everything else.) in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (IN or On the day God created the Heaven and the earth God starts chapter 2's garden project on day one) 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (So this marks the end of the garden project. "before any plant because no rain which is late day 3, but after God made the ground which is early day 3") because mid day day three is when the plants outside the garden where made. and remember all of this was done before then.

So from sometime mid late day, day 1 which was the start for the garden project, to mid day 3 which ear marks the completion. everything that follows in chapter 2:4-25 is a garen only narrative. Meaning everything chapter two records and the order in which it records is seperate from the rest of creation. Chapter two is garden only. That means Adam the man which God breathed a living soul into on day 1 to day 3 and was placed in the garden per verse 7, was different from "Man made in the image of God" per chapter 1 day 6 outside the garden... two different creations of man. the one we know as Adam was still the first as he was made on day 2ish, verse man made in the image of God on day 6.

Now what does this mean? it means all the paradoxes that plagued the garden narritive because adam and eve where the only people created to this point go away. Meaning who did Adam's children marry and were given off to marry, where did the different races come from if we were all descendants of one race, where did the city of 'nod' come from/the city Cain fled to after killing abel. and on and on and on concerning any diversity or people adam and eve or their children interacted with.

Now like this or not the only alternative is to say Adam was day 3 man and day six man being the same guy, is to say the bible is in error, and then we have to accept incest to explain all the questions that the next 3 chapters create concerning the other people or we have to speak where the bible is silent and create outside the garden man apart from what the bible says. or we can simply accept day three man which was given a soul and placed in the garden was separate from day six man created out side the garden who was made in the image of God. Note the bible does not say day 6 man was given a soul just that he was made in the image of God/compatible with Adam's children. (as per chapter 5:1) As it says adam too was made in the image of God, but again according to chapter 2 was given a soul. To which Day six man was never given a soul. (however later we learn the Sons of Adam pass tis soul on to their children through the doctrine of Traducianism ) So day 6 man has a spirit, but no soul. Adam day 2ish man soul, spirit made in the image of God/complete package. (Also note we are all descendants of Adam per the purge in Gen 10/the flood)

This reading also means that chapter two and chapter 3 are not in chronological order. meaning the events of chapter three did not happen right after chapter two. Again chapter two is the beginning of the garden narrative and chapter three is the end like two book ends, but if you remember the beginning of chapter 2, starts day one and the end happens some time mid day 3 (after land but before plants). So this means if chapter three happened right after chapter 2 Adam and Eve would have been expelled from the garden mid day day 3 or 4... before creation was even complete...

At the very least we can point out that the typical garden narrative is wrong. that chapter 2 and 3 are not consecutive events nor even are they chronological events as day 3-7 still have to be complete If we are not adding to scripture. Which means any amount of time could have taken place between the end of chapter two and the beginning of chapter three. it could have been week, month, year or the 100 bazillion years evolution needs for it to take place.

The only thing we know for sure is the end or exodus of the garden happened about 6000 ago as that is how far our 'genealogies' push time outside the garden back to. so YEC's this reading can work for you as well. Now Understand I am not saying you have to believe in evolution for this to work... Again it could have been a week in the garden, but the rest of the world and the evidence does not support this.

Now we as religious people can blindly put out heads in the sand and pretend none of what the world says matters, but our children will not follow us in doing this...lest the "bible BELT' still means something to your kids... but eventually with as much importance the world puts in schooling and collage, they will have to make a decision for themselves.

I have been working with this age group of fresh/new atheist converts, and this one point in the bible that 'we' collective have no answers for, with our traditional readings. is the key stumbling block for our kids going off to school. Again you may not need to reconcile all of the contradictions in genesis, but our kids, rather most of them will/do. as they receive unimaginable pressure to conform to a non god culture, being pushed by science. Now we have the tools to fortify our faith in light of all 'science' has to say. their biggest point being the time line.. now we need not concern ourselves with time lines as God has place non on creation or time spend IN the garden..

Now some of you probably want to point out the 930 years of Adam in chapter 5.. In most translations it says "Adam lived 130 years and begat seth and then lived another 800 years on this earth."

I simply point out that the time spent with God was garden time, and not life on the earth/post garden life. how can I say this? it is simple. God told Adam and eve the day they ate of the forbidden fruit they would surely die. They did. or rather whatever type of immortal life they lived with God (remember the tree of life was in the garden as well and they had access/could eat from it freely) ended the day they were expelled from the presence of God, and they were sent here saddled with their punishments. (Lest you call God a liar) It is if Death is the common bond we have with Adam but in reverse. He was created to exist with God hand in hand and died to come to this earth, to be punished on this purgatory/earth where Satan reigns. (see the book of Job and the temptations of Christ..) And "we" not created in the garden, are born here slaves to sin get to choose to be with God or suffer the second death in this life, and then Die and move on to the life Adam gave up.

Again for the traditionalist. this really changes nothing as you can adjust the time line any way you see fit as there is not one mentioned. but for the kid stuck between this world and God, you can indeed have a 100% literal reading of genesis 1-5 and still assimilate everything the evolution being taught has to say in between the time of chapter 2 and chapter 3 of genesis.

Again nothing I do here changes the content not one letter of the bible. all it does is take the old way of reading and understanding the first 5 chapters of genesis and reminds us of the natural breaks in the story and has us more closely examine the bits we over look that allow the old thinkers to turn genesis 1 and 2 into one creation account rather than 7 day creation and the garden narrative.

Note.. I've been teaching this for the last 10 or so years and yet have had one single atheist can break this reading. meaning their best efforts to use evolution to circumvent the bible or their use of the bible to try and dismiss this reading as they do with YEC's or traditional jewish time line and reading. they can't despite some really good efforts.

Now the best any of them can say or do is question why I have a need to preserve a literal reading of genesis 1-5 (again because Jesus Himself read and referenced it literally, and if he got that wrong then He wasn't who He claimed to be.) Or call me an anti semite for challenging the traditional jewish reading and interpretation.

Not a bad trade for those who need the time to square what they are being taught with their faith.

The problem with your approach is that you don't believe the account of Genesis is the truth, and rather than try to figure out the meaning behind the text, you question its validity. Well, let me explain to you the difference between chapter one and chapter two of Genesis, briefly, because they are indeed two different accounts, deliberately so, because they are given from two different perspectives, because it speaks of two different persons,

Chapter one is given from the perspective of the one that would later be revealed as Yeshua. It gives a general scope of commands he issued on each day.

Whereas chapter two is a more detailed account given from another perspective of the one named "Yehovah", who is first mentioned in this chapter, which is the angel that appeared to Abraham and Moses later in time, where this chapter begins on day six of creation, because that is when the generations of earth began, since that is when man was created,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Yehovah God made the earth and the heavens. (Genesis 2:4 [MODIFIED-ESV])

 

[SkyWriting]

If the book of Genesis is an allegory, then no one can be saved,

So to be saved, each person must endure a crucifixion?
That's seems harsh.
And we must be Noah and ride on a boat to be saved?
And we must survive in the belly of a big fish to be saved?
And we must be water and turned into wine to be saved?

Romans 10:9
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are many things the Bible does not say because although it is accurate, it is not a scientific or historical text book.

So the mountains are eternal and everlasting, just as it says?
That would be at minimum......ancient or very old

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So to be saved, each person must endure a crucifixion?
That's seems harsh.
And we must be Noah and ride on a boat to be saved?
And we must survive in the belly of a big fish to be saved?
And we must be water and turned into wine to be saved?

Romans 10:9
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The events of Genesis had to have occurred in history and Adam and Eve had to be real people. Otherwise the temptation and fall never really happened. If the fall resulting from Adam's sin never actually happened, then mankind remained the same as they were originally created. Also, if Genesis is just an allegory, God never created the universe in the way it is described. In Exodus, God told Moses to write it all down. He told Moses about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, Noah, etc. I have studied allegory as part of my M.A. English Literature degree, and Genesis is a history of real events and does not have the literary characteristics of an allegory.

All the New Testament scriptures you have quoted depend on the actual historical fall of man in order to be effective in our salvation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So the mountains are eternal and everlasting, just as it says?
That would be at minimum......ancient or very old

It is quite believable to me that God took billions of years to create and form the universe. Our time is measured only by the rotation of the earth (days) and the orbit of the earth around the sun (years). God lives apart from our universe and although He has a past, present, and future in terms of one event following another, there is no actual measurement of time. Therefore, being eternal with an infinite past and an infinite future, He can take as long as He likes to do anything.

There is a verse in Genesis where it says that "the earth was without form and void" I believe that this is where the earth was a blank form after the universe was created. Then I believe that He did all the rest in six days.

Because God is infinite in His knowledge and power, He could easily have fired up the sun and stars, created the plants, trees, animals and insects in six days.

Therefore, science does not contradict what the Bible says about how the universe and the world was created, if we accept the scientific dating system. Because the Bible is not a scientific text book, it does not give us all the information that scientists might required to be fully informed. But there is enough to show who God is and who we are, and why mankind is in the deplorable state it is in, and the plan God put in place to save as many as choose to be saved through Christ.

 

[SkyWriting]

The events of Genesis had to have occurred in history and Adam and Eve had to be real people. Otherwise the temptation and fall never really happened. If the fall resulting from Adam's sin never actually happened, then mankind remained the same as they were originally created. Also, if Genesis is just an allegory, God never created the universe in the way it is described. In Exodus, God told Moses to write it all down. He told Moses about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, Noah, etc. I have studied allegory as part of my M.A. English Literature degree, and Genesis is a history of real events and does not have the literary characteristics of an allegory. All the New Testament scriptures you have quoted depend on the actual historical fall of man in order to be effective in our salvation.

Evidently you didn't study the word "allegory" as part of your studies of allegory becasue is it a story written as a real event that has deeper significance than the literal understanding of it. This use of allegory is what Scripture is about cover to cover. It's about God using man to create allegory or deeper meaning for man, beyond the literal understanding. And allegory can be used to describe actual events, so the literal event is not required to be non-fiction.

 

[SkyWriting]

The events of Genesis had to have occurred in history and Adam and Eve had to be real people. Otherwise the temptation and fall never really happened.

The temptation and fall can be real events
and Adam and Eve allegory.
Who is making up your rules for you?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The temptation and fall can be real events
and Adam and Eve allegory.
Who is making up your rules for you?

God told Moses what to write. Genesis cannot be part history and part allegory. Scientists are only just discovering that all of mankind originates from one genetic pair. Jesus spoke of a real Adam and Eve, and so did Paul. You would have to say that they were mistaken or lying - or that what they said was absolutely true, that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in time and space, at a definite time in human history.

The idea that the Bible is full of mistakes and allegorical comes from the theology of Soren Kierkegaard who proposed that we discount the historical side of the Bible and extract just the religious stuff that it contains - that the Bible is not the Word of God but contains the Word of God to us. His theology is at the basis of humanist existential theology which is taught by Bishop Spong and his followers.

If we take our faith away from the written Bible, and cease to accept that it is the direct Word of God to us, we end up hanging our faith from a hook in the air - a faith that has no other support than our faith itself. Try hanging a hook in the air. It doesn't stay up there very long until it falls to the ground. This is what Jesus was referring to when He gave the parable about a house being built on the sand. When the storms come, the house falls. Faith built on faith, will fail when tested, but faith built on God's written Word will never fail.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Evidently you didn't study the word "allegory" as part of your studies of allegory becasue is it a story written as a real event that has deeper significance than the literal understanding of it. This use of allegory is what Scripture is about cover to cover. It's about God using man to create allegory or deeper meaning for man, beyond the literal understanding. And allegory can be used to describe actual events, so the literal event is not required to be non-fiction.

Bishop Spong teaches that, and he doesn't believe in a real infinite-personal God. Also he doesn't believe that Jesus is a true historical person but that he follows "the Christ of faith". In other words, he believes in a god and a christ whom he has chosen to construct by his "faith", rather than the true account of God and Christ as found in the Bible.

Therefore, anyone who follows Bishop Spong's "christianity" is following a pretence, a fantasy christianity which has no solid foundation and will not survive the fire of God when Jesus comes again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does the cursing of Adam and Eve get to, or apply to, the rest of man?

There are two elements you have to deal with: The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and the Serpent. Damage to the brain's frontal lobe is known to impair one's ability to think and make choices. The ability to choose between right and wrong, good and evil is exactly what makes us human and more evolved than the animals or other primates.

 

[drich0150]

We don't know how long the earth was "without form and void" before anything else happened.

That is called gap theory/where you introduce all of evolution into in the beginning and let there be light. Not what I was doing here because you have to introduce too much that is not written if you take the evolutionary position. My read changes nothing period. you can adjust the time line as needed.it allows people who want 7 days and the a fall their 7 day then a fal it also allows 100 bazillion years if that is needed.

The Bible doesn't tell us. It could have been billions of years. After all, in an eternity where there is no measurement of time (because our measurement of time is dependent on the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and there is no mention of these at this stage. But to try and prove that the universe is a product of time and chance and basically chaotic is not supported or denied by the Biblical record, so the theory that the universe came about through time and chance is baseless.
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gap-theory/

where gap theory fails.. you need all of the stuff creation provides in order for their have been evlution. You need sun you need plants you need oceans.. Gap theory does not provide that. gap theory would only work for the big band to the beginnings of the earth. But life could not happen with light/sun.

if the Bible says that creation happened in six days, then it is true.

actually the rest is still part of creation. which my account does not change one letter of.

This is the because the Infinite-Personal God told Moses to write it that way, and He is not a liar, nor is He mistaken. If the book of Genesis is an allegory, then no one can be saved, and the whole history right up to the Exodus never happened. There was no Abraham, no Sodom and Gomorrah, no promise made to Abraham, Jesus was wrong when He spoke of Adam, Eve. Abraham, and Lot.

again I don't understand the need for comments like this.
You are preaching to the quire. do you not understand the intention of this thread?

Also, there is no problem with science telling us that human beings migrated from Russia to North America 20,000 years ago. If we understand how genealogy was described we see that it is not an account of one consecutive generation after another. When it mentioned a name, it was the names of whole family groups and there were great gaps between them. So it could be seen that there could have been hundreds of years of gaps between these groups. There could have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of years after the person mentioned before Noah died, and when Noah was born. We also don't know how long it took for Noah's family to repopulate the earth. This meant that the Flood could well have happened well before the 20,000 years when humans migrated to North America. There is nothing in the Bible that refutes that. The Bible, although accurate in what it does say in its history and description of the cosmos it is not exhaustive. There are many things the Bible does not say because although it is accurate, it is not a scientific or historical text book.

this sould be in your own thread...

If Genesis is not an accurate history that God told Moses to write (and the account ways that Moses had a very personal relationship with God and spoke with Him as a man speaks to his friend), then Moses is a liar when he said that God told him to write it all down in a book.

You can't have read the op if this is directed at me. Too often time Christian hating conflict will seek out key words in an argument and write in a stereotypical manner which makes us look either disinterested or foolish. Disinterested meaning you can be bother to address the subject topically or you just want to take over the subject by introducing a whole new topic.. That what it feel like you have done here.

 

[drich0150]

The problem with your approach is that you don't believe the account of Genesis is the truth, and rather than try to figure out the meaning behind the text, you question its validity.

did you even read the OP? how can you pretend to have enough insite to a discussion if you do not even read the opening post? how do you what is even being discussed here?

What if I could tell you, you could answer these questions without changing one letter of the creation narrative (genesis 1-5) and square everyting with what has already been written and even assimilated the whole of the evolution into the 7 day creation.. Now understand this is not gap theory nor any other anything that is not already in the bible. Again this does not thing to add or take anything from the bible away. I simply point out how and where we have been reading genesis wrong for a very long long time.

The above was cut and pasted from the OP it is literally the whole second paragraph. which now completely undermines your whole post. The rest of what you have to say is moot because everything I do quares itself with a literal 7 day creation... Maybe you should have asked some questions if you did not understand, rather than assume what I have here is automatically against the bible.

Maybe it is a non traditional reading of the bible that rings true and allows everything I said it would without changing a word of the bible like I say it does. If you can't understand or work out how then ask a question.

Well, let me explain to you the difference between chapter one and chapter two of Genesis, briefly, because they are indeed two different accounts, deliberately so, because they are given from two different perspectives, because it speaks of two different persons,

Chapter one is given from the perspective of the one that would later be revealed as Yeshua. It gives a general scope of commands he issued on each day.

Whereas chapter two is a more detailed account given from another perspective of the one named "Yehovah", who is first mentioned in this chapter, which is the angel that appeared to Abraham and Moses later in time, where this chapter begins on day six of creation, because that is when the generations of earth began, since that is when man was created,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Yehovah God made the earth and the heavens. (Genesis 2:4 [MODIFIED-ESV])

So?

NONE Of your mess changes anything that I have said.. want to put Jesus in charge of the second day fine.. John 1:1 does that for you.. but know this changes nothing else. if you think it does then please explain. do a line by line because generally speaking just because you want to use the "the word" instead of "God" changes nothing in what I have said.. Jesus creates day two man. Jesus creates the garden and while the father is about day one through 3.5 Jesus saw Adam should not be alone and fashioned womanect.. all you've done here is rightfully put Jesus' or "the word" onto the garden centered creation of chapter 2.

To quick dispatch you claim this is a retelling of chapter 1 then please explain the chronological order inconsistency between the listed chapter one list and chapter 2 list ONLY using what is in the bible. (like I did)

 

[drich0150]

So to be saved, each person must endure a crucifixion?

Each person has to have either their blood spilled or that of an atoning sacrifice. for each sinners life there must be a death.

That's seems harsh.

that is the wage of sin. for the work of sin death is the reward death is what is earned/owed.

And we must be Noah and ride on a boat to be saved?

If we lived then? ah.. yeah!

And we must survive in the belly of a big fish to be saved?

if we were thrown over board with Joah yes!

And we must be water and turned into wine to be saved?

frm a dull wedding reception yes again!

Romans 10:9
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

ahhhh. scrap book theology... meaning nothing without select interpretation yet again!