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

[drich0150]

Actually I posted this about a month or so ago in the theology side. once I cleared up some confusion it seemed everyone got it. I did know there was a creation only page, maybe you can use this in your own churches.

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.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...lution-into-a-literal-7-day-creation.8073463/

 

[drjean]

Hmmm. Interesting.
Another idea about whom did Cain marry... we don't have the time period that the Adams lived in the garden before satan bewitched Eve.... if it were 1000 years, then there would be millions of other people living on earth from them alone. That we have the account of Cain and Abel is for a purpose, not necessarily the entire story of the Adam's life and children.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually I posted this about a month or so ago in the theology side. once I cleared up some confusion it seemed everyone got it. I did know there was a creation only page, maybe you can use this in your own churches.

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.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...lution-into-a-literal-7-day-creation.8073463/

I read that Adam was Re-Made into the image of God.

 

[drich0150]

Hmmm. Interesting.
Another idea about whom did Cain marry... we don't have the time period that the Adams lived in the garden before satan bewitched Eve.... if it were 1000 years, then there would be millions of other people living on earth from them alone. That we have the account of Cain and Abel is for a purpose, not necessarily the entire story of the Adam's life and children.

Actually it's more about the two creation narritives most people attribute as being two accounts of the same creation process. I point out genesis 1:1- gen 2:4 is one complete 7 day account this creation was attributed to Elohyim and accounts for the world with a man being created on day 6. this man created on day 6 was created and lived outside the garden.

Now from genesis 2:4 to the end of the chapter is a garden narritive. the creator here is "Yahweh/YHWH or the word of John 1:1 forward. he starts his creation mid day day one and completes it mid day day 3. what he builds according to chapter 2 is Adam the first man/day 3 man and eve and everything in the Garden.

The purpose of this thread is not to answer to whom did cain marry, but to point out the two creation narratives AND to point out there is no time line correlation between the end of chapter two which ended mid day day 3 and the fall of man in chapter three. if these two chapters were successive events then the explution of man would have happened before the world was complete. meaning Adam and eve would have been cast out of the garden before God would have had time to finish the 7 day creation of chapter 1. So because we know there is no time line then A&E could have been in that garden a very very long time, like all the time evolution says it needs to have happened.

We do know when they were expelled thanks to the young earth creationists. about 6000 years ago did adam and eve set foot onto this earth which day 6 man followed the instruction of God and multiplied. The bonus here answers your question the meat of the topic answers everything else and maintains a 7 day creation but allows for a complete evolution.

 

[drich0150]

I read that Adam was Re-Made into the image of God.

that is in chapter 5 it was said or confirmed that Adam and eve were made lke the man outside of the garden but again what set them apart aside of when they were made, was that God breathed a living soul into Adam, where as man on day 6 did not get this gift.. Day 6 man was made in God's image. Then in chapter 5 we are told in addition to having been given a living soul adam also was made in the image of God, which means adam and his off spring were biologically compatible with day 6 man.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have found a direct correlation between the value of a concept and the ability of it author to provide an executive summary of the same. Would you care to post a couple of paragraphs summarising your idea? If so, I shall give serious thought to reading and studying your posts. In the absence of such a summary I conclude that you are not serious about promoting your idea.

 

[drich0150]

I have found a direct correlation between the value of a concept and the ability of it author to provide an executive summary of the same. Would you care to post a couple of paragraphs summarising your idea? If so, I shall give serious thought to reading and studying your posts. In the absence of such a summary I conclude that you are not serious about promoting your idea.

1 who are you that I should care for your consideration?
2 what is post #4 if not a complete summary?

 

[Ophiolite]

1 who are you that I should care for your consideration?

Long posts, on novel concepts, on forums are most often boring and disjointed. As such, many members will just stop reading after the first few lines and pargraphs. A well written executive summary provides a means of catching their interest. Of course, if you don't recognise that your potential readers deserve some consideration why are you posting?

2 what is post #4 if not a complete summary?

You do not place an effective summary some distance after the expostion. Summaries go at the beginning.

I'm sorry you have been offended by well intentioned advice. It's a pity your offence at my suggestion has blinded you its value. Good luck with attracting an audience.

 

[drich0150]

Long posts, on novel concepts, on forums are most often boring and disjointed. As such, many members will just stop reading after the first few lines and pargraphs. A well written executive summary provides a means of catching their interest. Of course, if you don't recognise that your potential readers deserve some consideration why are you posting?

You do not place an effective summary some distance after the expostion. Summaries go at the beginning.

I'm sorry you have been offended by well intentioned advice. It's a pity your offence at my suggestion has blinded you its value. Good luck with attracting an audience.

My problem is one most servants have. when I seek to serve I take the time to go line by boring line and answer each question, or correct individual statements, and or even reform broken or mispent ideologies. I've done this tirelessly for almost 15 years on line and in person. I've gone through books of dialog with people, never once complained and still don't complain about things like grammar spelling and length of post.

Why?

Kinda figured if I choose to serve God this way I is my responsibility to meet people on their terms like Christ did... Not like the pharisees did/demanded, people to meet and only approach them on their terms and rules.. When/if the people could not format themselves properly to fit the pharisees formal demand then they like you took their help from those people.

Honestly. respectfully I don't need an pharisaical help. God gave me this in response to a question I ask. When he gave me this response it was not in a neat and tidy form. it was in fragments I literally wrote out paragraphs for some time and spent 15 20 mins putting them in the right order. I just described/wrote out what I saw, which was out of any logical sequence.

Just imagine how much you have missed from God because you were not willing to listen to Him because he did not meet your format requirement.

Good luck to you sir... on that last day.

 

[Gene2memE]

We do know when they were expelled thanks to the young earth creationists. about 6000 years ago did adam and eve set foot onto this earth which day 6 man followed the instruction of God and multiplied. The bonus here answers your question the meat of the topic answers everything else and maintains a 7 day creation but allows for a complete evolution.

Are you claiming that there were only two extant humans "about 6000 years ago" and that these two humans are the universal common ancestors of all humans?

Because if you are, the entire fields of ancient history, archaeology, paleontology and anthropology would contradict this view. As would applied portions of the fields of chemistry, radiophysics, genetics, biology and a couple of dozen I can't be bothered to name.

 

[Aman777]

Actually I posted this about a month or so ago in the theology side. once I cleared up some confusion it seemed everyone got it. I did know there was a creation only page, maybe you can use this in your own churches.

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.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...lution-into-a-literal-7-day-creation.8073463/

You are guilty of actually reading and comprehending much of what Genesis One is teaching. I've studied Genesis for more than 30 years and would like to share my view of God's timeline Scripturally. Here it is:

Genesis chapter 1 is the complete HISTORY of God's 6 Days/Ages in His creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven. The first 3 verses of Genesis 2 tell us of a FUTURE Day, the 7th Day which has no morning and no evening. Eternity is the only word which describes a time which has no beginning and no end.

The first 34 verses of Genesis tell us the History of God's 7 Day creation including future events which take place at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. EVERY other verse in the Bible refers BACK to the first 34 verses and fills in the DETAILS of the outline of God's 7 Days of Creation.

Details begin at Genesis 2:4, which speaks of the 3rd Day when man (Hebrew Adam) was formed from the dust and go until the END of Revelation. God has but 7 Days and today continues to be the 6th Day, the Day of Salvation, 2Co 6:2 according to Jesus our Lord. God Bless you

 

[Ophiolite]

Just imagine how much you have missed from God because you were not willing to listen to Him because he did not meet your format requirement.

Good luck to you sir... on that last day.

That's fine. I get it. You view "the message", which you believe came from God, absolves you from the courtesy and the good sense of providing a clear, concise, comprehensive introduction.

In other words, I might be willing to listen to him; I'm not willing to listen to a self proclaimed "vessel" who rambles. But thank you for the intentions.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

My problem is one most servants have. when I seek to serve I take the time to go line by boring line and answer each question, or correct individual statements, and or even reform broken or mispent ideologies. I've done this tirelessly for almost 15 years on line and in person. I've gone through books of dialog with people, never once complained and still don't complain about things like grammar spelling and length of post.

Why?

Kinda figured if I choose to serve God this way I is my responsibility to meet people on their terms like Christ did... Not like the pharisees did/demanded, people to meet and only approach them on their terms and rules.. When/if the people could not format themselves properly to fit the pharisees formal demand then they like you took their help from those people.

Honestly. respectfully I don't need an pharisaical help. God gave me this in response to a question I ask. When he gave me this response it was not in a neat and tidy form. it was in fragments I literally wrote out paragraphs for some time and spent 15 20 mins putting them in the right order. I just described/wrote out what I saw, which was out of any logical sequence.

Just imagine how much you have missed from God because you were not willing to listen to Him because he did not meet your format requirement.

Good luck to you sir... on that last day.

You should have left this in the theology forum as that's where it belongs. Nobody cares about your interpretations of your holy books. It has no bearing on the reality we observe. We only care about what you can show.

 

[drich0150]

That's fine. I get it. You view "the message", which you believe came from God, absolves you from the courtesy and the good sense of providing a clear, concise, comprehensive introduction.

In other words, I might be willing to listen to him; I'm not willing to listen to a self proclaimed "vessel" who rambles. But thank you for the intentions.

Brother you left courtesy at the door when you pursue a course with no end other than to rebuke me for simply asking who you were. You ask for a summary I showed you where one had existed before you even bothered to ask. Then you went on your reprimanding tirade because it was not in the correct place. (which it was because it was left in response to someone who needed a summary) what I understand God often approaches us from our blind side. meaning from our pride or the thing or the person we do not want to hear from or interact with, is what often time God wants us to over come... Moses and his brother pharaoh, Jonah and nineveh, David and Saul, David and uriah, are all excellent examples of good men having to face "people who were not presenting themselves in the correct format" that in order to become better they had to resolve or over come a given conflict often times by doing hat they did not feel comfortable doing. God was using the evil at nineveh to break jonah of his pride and of his prejudice against the people of nineveh.

You can lie to yourself that this is about my pride, but in truth I provided everything you asked for inorder for you to continue a topical discussion, yet we/you derailed the conversation ignoring the facts you requested to go on this 'moral crusade.'

Again as I've said is in the past 20 or so years of being in your position, never once have I withheld any revelation, direction nor failed to answr a question or series of question often time going line by line sometimes for hours at a time, just to do what I feel God has tasked me to do/being faithful to the wisdom and understanding He has given me.. Never once did I fail anyone because the format was not up to my personal standards. or the spelling was bad. I have stopped conversations to focous on a topical crux where the rest of the person's assumption hinged on a specific understanding... but never have I had the never to do what you did to me. I feel it is not mine to choose who receives God's truth according to what He has given me.

If this is common in your brand of 'christianity' then perhaps it is best that you stick tightly to those rules of yours and allow God to adjust your numbers accordingly.

 

[drich0150]

Are you claiming that there were only two extant humans "about 6000 years ago" and that these two humans are the universal common ancestors of all humans?

Because if you are, the entire fields of ancient history, archaeology, paleontology and anthropology would contradict this view. As would applied portions of the fields of chemistry, radiophysics, genetics, biology and a couple of dozen I can't be bothered to name.

No..

What I said was God The Father made man (the race) on day six per genesis chapter 1 and told that man to Go out and multiply

At the same time between day .5 and day 3.5 Chapter 2 happens which says Jesus made Adam/1st man and unlike day 6 man The Father Made, Jesus Gave Man in the Garden a soul.

So now there are two forms of man at the end of 7 days creation. Man made in the image of God the Father per chapter 1 outside the garden without haven been given a soul, and man made on like day 2 or so who was given a soul by Jesus.

Man outside the garden lives a normal live dies has children (evolves) for a very long or short time (the point being there is no time line between end of chapter 2 and the beginning of 3) meaning the beginning of chapter 2 to the end of chapter two (the garden narrative) could have lasted 100 trillion years, with man or what God place outside the garden and called man grew and evolved as per 'science.' while Adam and eve remained the same/immortal in the garden with God. As they were allowed to eat from the tree of life.

So to summarize the summary. father created the world and everything in it apart from the garden in chapter one. more specifically man who lived outside the garden on day 6. While the father was creating and doing chapter one stuff, starting mid day, day one to mid day, day 3 Jesus created adam/man with soul, and eve and everything in the garden. this is chapter 2 again everything in chapter two is garden narrative and separate from chapter one and the outside world the father created.
So while adam and eve were in the garden with God/immortal Man outside the garden the Father charged this man to go out and multiply. So these guys do/did. for how long? however long you need to square the genesis account with everything else 'science' has to say. how/why? there is no time line between chapter 2 and chapter 3

But we can say chapter 3 starts bout 6000 years ago. Why? the genealogies can be traced back that far. that was Adam's first day of his 930 years.

Now because God set fourth a race of man on day 6, we can not fill in where the genetic diversity comes from, we can fill in where the city of nod came from we can fill in who Adam's children married without compromising anything except a traditional reading. we are not changing the story, just how it is read.

 

[drich0150]

You should have left this in the theology forum as that's where it belongs. Nobody cares about your interpretations of your holy books. It has no bearing on the reality we observe. We only care about what you can show.

My poor confused brother.. what is it in your 'mind' that I have not shown?

A summary? I've done 2 now... what else has been asked of me topically? other than I kiss the ring of the great and mighty oglethorpe?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

My poor confused brother.. what is it in your 'mind' that I have not shown?

Dude, I'm not your brother. I'm your cousin!

You haven't shown anything except your own personal interpretation of what you believe to be the word of a god. Nobody cares. What evidence can you show that creationism is true? Got any god fossils? Maybe message in a strand of DNA that says "made by Yahweh"? Anything like that?

 

[drich0150]

Dude, I'm not your brother. I'm your cousin!

You haven't shown anything except your own personal interpretation of what you believe to be the word of a god. Nobody cares. What evidence can you show that creationism is true? Got any god fossils? Maybe message in a strand of DNA that says "made by Yahweh"? Anything like that?

Ohhh one of those.. I am a member of AF.org they are a little less.. restrictive on what can be said there. even so they like you couldn't do much better than ask for a brand of evidence you yourself can not identify.

But if you are looking for Evidence that is anything that would be acceptable in a court of law. like written, and in some cases physical eyewitness testimony, of people who have been with and those who witness the direct result of what some might call a miracle, historical text, and of course literally the same exact hard scientific evidence you have, just neatly all tucked away between Chapter 2 and chapter 3 of the Genesis timeline... it may sound trivial but from the other side of the fence your explanation is equal as trivial given as many times as the original darwin story has been redacted, changed and augmented to fit every new thing they find.
Or did you not understand that was the purpose of this particular reading of 7 day creation? It literally allows for anything and everything you cousins can come up with time line wise and files it under the lost time between chapter 2 and chapter 3, and nothing changes in the genesis account. just how we view time.

Now your evidence becomes my evidence! see how this works christian guys? the narrative they wish to trivialize is no more trivial their 150 years of changes that they themselves have made to darwin's original theory. Now whatever our cousins have to say, we just turn his own brand of belief back onto them. because in truth their's is a more faith based belief than our own. every year that theory changes a few times, and for them each one was absolutely gospel truthie/FACT!, till the next change happened of course then what they fought for last year is now garbage.. Where as ours has not changed just our understanding has.

 

[Ophiolite]

Brother you left courtesy at the door when you pursue a course with no end other than to rebuke me for simply asking who you were.

1. At no point in our exchange have you asked me who I was. If that was part of your OP then please recall I chose not read it because you chose, discourteously and impractically, to omit a leading summary.
2. I did not rebuke you. I offered advice to help you have your words read by a wider, receptive audience. You chose to take offence at this and responded in an unseemly manner. (e.g. your words "Good luck to you sir . . . on that last day" has echoes of gloating and threat. It sounds nothing like a genuine wish of luck.)

You ask for a summary I showed you where one had existed before you even bothered to ask.

1. As I pointed out previously, I stopped reading long before you had posted that. And, as I also pointed out previously, you should put a summary at the beginning, not half way through, or after your exposition.
2. You are in a science sub-forum of this site. Find me a scientific research paper in any reputable scientific journal that does not have an abstract (=summary) at the beginning and I shall donate £100 to a charity of your choice.

Then you went on your reprimanding tirade because it was not in the correct place.

Regardless of how I presented the advice, it was sound advice. If you wish to continue writing in the slipshod fashion of an amateur, then your readership will be small and either already in agreement with you, or bored to tears before the end. Stop making this about me, or about you. It is about a very straightforward weakness in your writing that is easily addressed. It's up to you whether you address it or not.

what I understand God often approaches us from our blind side. meaning from our pride or the thing or the person we do not want to hear from or interact with, is what often time God wants us to over come...

Wise words. Perhaps you should heed them.

You can lie to yourself that this is about my pride, but in truth I provided everything you asked for inorder for you to continue a topical discussion, yet we/you derailed the conversation ignoring the facts you requested to go on this 'moral crusade.'

1. I don't think it's about your pride. I think it's about a temporary reluctance, on your part, to recognise that what I am saying makes good sense. No one likes to think they may have been doing things the wrong way for decades.
2. You provided nothing that I asked for. Had you done so you would have acknowledged the wisdom of opening with a clear, concise, comprehensive summary, rather than mounting an unconvincing explanation of your inaction.
3. A 'moral crusade'? No, but a crusade to encourage better writing, yes. Is that so wrong? Especially on a forum that lives by the written word.

If this is common in your brand of 'christianity' then perhaps it is best that you stick tightly to those rules of yours and allow God to adjust your numbers accordingly.

I don't have a "brand of Christianity". If you paid attention you would see that I am not a Christian. When I was, my brand was Church of Scotland. I offer this by way of information, since I have no idea what your word's mean.

Now, I'm going to leave you to your indignation, but I hope - when some time has passed - you'll reflect on our conversation and realise my advice was good and will adopt it in future threads. I'll look forward to that. If you wish assistance in constructing a good summary, feel free to contact me by pm.

 

[drich0150]

1. At no point in our exchange have you asked me who I was.

Quick! check if you have a post 7... if no this is a perfect example of the mandela effect in action! If you do then you are so full of yourself you can not read what is on page!

My Post #7 to you was my very first post and it starts:
1 who are you....

If that was part of your OP then please recall I chose not read it because you chose, discourteously and impractically, to omit a leading summary.

Why would the OP include anything about you. up until your first response I did not know you. you made a smug remark demanding that my work fit your profile of review if it was my intention for you to review it which needed a summary. Again I point to post 7:
1 who are you that I should care for your consideration?
2 what is post #4 if not a complete summary? and in addition to post 4 I have another summary in post 15. why did I do this for them and not you? simple they were humble enough to ask a question on what they did not understand, and I felt it necessary to help them with a specific understanding. you on the other hand asked for a general summary where by the time you asked post 4 already existed. meaning not only were you too smug to read the op before making demands you did not look for clues in the 5 post dialog. You were looking to be difficult. demanding your own personal edit of this post.

2. I did not rebuke you.

then you do notunderstand the word. to rebuke is to sharply correct or to criticize. demanding that I put a summary at the beginning of a long post because of xyz... is a rebuke.

I offered advice to help you have your words read by a wider, receptive audience.

not that I know everything, but I do know how to filter out certain people. a critic or book editor is not who this message is for. So if you give them too much 'work' the get stuck in the mechanics and loose the topic. so they quickly turn to correct the mechanics. if i'm bored then we can have some fun with that. if the topic is busy then I can just put them off. This was a letter of observation written from one servant to another. someone looking to maintain faith while being forced to reconcile the whole of 'science' that says faith is wrong. This allows for that. that is who I want to speak with. not the professor who looks to make life more difficult. There is a sharp reason God chooses to hide from the 'learn-ed' of this world.

You chose to take offence at this and responded in an unseemly manner. (e.g. your words "Good luck to you sir . . . on that last day" has echoes of gloating and threat. It sounds nothing like a genuine wish of luck.)

no offense just wanted to know who you where to demand another summary, and for me to put it at the beginning. when again post 4 and 15 summarize the whole concept. you are looking for a synopsis not a summary. A summary would be more detailed and would generally come at the end of a thought or idea which I did includes in the way of the last 5 paragraphs.

1. As I pointed out previously, I stopped reading long before you had posted that. And, as I also pointed out previously, you should put a summary at the beginning, not half way through, or after your exposition.

why? so I can answer the same 15 questions over and over again, because some 'smart guy' gets the gist and start to think this is a concept he is already familiar with? look at the first post under the op. no summary given other than what was in the first few lines about all the paradoxes this reading reconciles and this guys make the whole of the work about cain and who adam's children married.
Again for this sort of stuff is the reason God hides from people who think they are too smart.

2. You are in a science sub-forum of this site. Find me a scientific research paper in any reputable scientific journal that does not have an abstract (=summary) at the beginning and I shall donate £100 to a charity of your choice.

you do understand this is not a scientific paper right? it i a reading or understanding of genesis that one can use to assimilate the whole of science's origins account. which is in the first few lines if not the title if I am not mistaken. what more do you need to know? I in the first 3 paragraphs explain what this reading does with the scientific explanation of orgins and assimilates it into a literal 7 day creation without changing a word of either. The only thing we need to reconsider is our traditional view or reading of Genesis. If we simply read what is on page all the time lines Christians put on creation go away, yes we keep our 7 days but we CAN also expand the time between the 7th day and the exodus of the garden to fit all of evolution into that time period.

Regardless of how I presented the advice, it was sound advice.

actually in reflection of what was posted. a brief synopsis in the beginning and a 5 paragraph summary at the end in addition to 2 more summaries you have yet t address, your whole objection seem childish, making you look foolish and a bit obtuse for pressing a point you assume is not there but in fact is.

"you never asked me who I was..."
Me:"1. Who are you..."
You: never properly formatted a summary to my liking and placed it at the beginning. Im giving you sound advise you are too proud to take it."
Me: But one does exist in post 4 and a synopsis does exists in the beginning of the op as well as a 5 paragraph summary at the end.
you:"But a more complete summary is required and placed at the beginning.. "
Me: well you have 2 in post 4 and 15 just use one of those..
you:

If you wish to continue writing in the slipshod fashion of an amateur, then your readership will be small and either already in agreement with you, or bored to tears before the end. Stop making this about me, or about you. It is about a very straightforward weakness in your writing that is easily addressed. It's up to you whether you address it or not.

Me: again... ALL the information you have requested has been there from before you decided to chime in. What's more upon request I gave a more in depth summary concerning a specific attribute of the purposed reading.. no issue doing so. So if you want to read a summary goto post number 4 or post number 15 or if you want a simple synopsis just read the first 1/2 dozen or so lines in the OP. Seriously your a big boy you can make sissies standing up even if it is in front of toilet instead of a urinal.

Wise words. Perhaps you should heed them.

1. I don't think it's about your pride. I think it's about a temporary reluctance, on your part, to recognise that what I am saying makes good sense. No one likes to think they may have been doing things the wrong way for decades.

Moron... I have a synopsis in the OP in place. always been there. just not my final conclusion. what story teller tells how the murder is on the first page... oh that's right anyone wanting you to read their book.. never mind you can ask the author anything as you go along..

2. You provided nothing that I asked for. Had you done so you would have acknowledged the wisdom of opening with a clear, concise, comprehensive summary, rather than mounting an unconvincing explanation of your inaction.

then I am incapable of meeting your needs, perhaps you are correct and it is better for people like you to just move on. After all God has a track record of dealing directly with people who hold a high bar for themselves and demand everyone also meet said bar inorder for them to interact with those people.

3. A 'moral crusade'? No, but a crusade to encourage better writing, yes. Is that so wrong? Especially on a forum that lives by the written word.

it is, when the expectation has been met, but just not to your expectation. because again who are you to be the standard bearer?

I don't have a "brand of Christianity". If you paid attention you would see that I am not a Christian. When I was, my brand was Church of Scotland. I offer this by way of information, since I have no idea what your word's mean.

I saw somewhere you were a bit of a tattle tale, that you tell on other when an argument get out of control, that you even got someone's work pulled because you didn't like what he had to say. typically going that far is a sore bottom christian thing. Atheists or the ones I deal with are a little more... weathered and no so thin skinned.

Now, I'm going to leave you to your indignation, but I hope - when some time has passed - you'll reflect on our conversation and realise my advice was good and will adopt it in future threads. I'll look forward to that. If you wish assistance in constructing a good summary, feel free to contact me by pm.

why not simply teach a class surly out of the thousands on the web page I am not the only moron here. surly you could bring your learn-ed mastery of summaries at the beginning to the unwashed masses and be held in high regard for doing so!