It seems that I am neither Creationist nor evolutionist

[cleminson]

I posted a paper called The Genesis Enigma on the Theistic Evolution section of this web site. The feedback that I have been getting so far is that I should address creationists because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures. I am a fundamentalist who does not accept that the first few chapters of Genesis are allegorical or that they are written by a primitive people trying to understand where they came from. I disagree completely with Evolutionists maintaining that life on Earth evolved through mutation. Yet I do not agree with the traditional way that creationists traditionally interpret these scriptures. I do not wish to intrude into the Creationist thread, with views that will annoy some/most, but would value a criticism from Creationists on my very long (23 thread) document. I will stay away if asked to.

 

[juvenissun]

I posted a paper called The Genesis Enigma on the Theistic Evolution section of this web site. The feedback that I have been getting so far is that I should address creationists because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures. I am a fundamentalist who does not accept that the first few chapters of Genesis are allegorical or that they are written by a primitive people trying to understand where they came from. I disagree completely with Evolutionists maintaining that life on Earth evolved through mutation. Yet I do not agree with the traditional way that creationists traditionally interpret these scriptures. I do not wish to intrude into the Creationist thread, with views that will annoy some/most, but would value a criticism from Creationists on my very long (23 thread) document. I will stay away if asked to.

I think what you referred as the "traditional way" of creationist interpretation is a little bit over stated. So far, there is not any interpretation about creationism which is qualified to be said as "traditional". In fact, to my opinion, the more traditional the view, the worse it will be. Our understanding to creationism is improving very fast, and is becoming more scientifically true.

May be you think the 6000 years age of the earth is one of the "traditional" view. But I think it is a very narrow and simple view of interpretation. It is no better than the "traditional" view of geocentrism.

If one believed the earth is 10 million years old, to me, the person is still a creationist, not an evolutionist.

 

[cleminson]

Bravo. I totally agree.

 

[Bsman]

I disagree

 

[cleminson]

Go on Bsman, expand on your "I disagree".

 

[Seve]

I posted a paper called The Genesis Enigma on the Theistic Evolution section of this web site. The feedback that I have been getting so far is that I should address creationists because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures. I am a fundamentalist who does not accept that the first few chapters of Genesis are allegorical or that they are written by a primitive people trying to understand where they came from. I disagree completely with Evolutionists maintaining that life on Earth evolved through mutation. Yet I do not agree with the traditional way that creationists traditionally interpret these scriptures. I do not wish to intrude into the Creationist thread, with views that will annoy some/most, but would value a criticism from Creationists on my very long (23 thread) document. I will stay away if asked to.

I have not seen your post, however, I myself as OEC have different perspective of Genesis from most of the popular Creationists views. While I believe in Micro-evolution or descent with modification within it's kind, I do NOT believe in Macro-evolution (from go to you theory). The Scripture document us micro-evolution from the beginning. Genesis 6 also tells us of the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) forming a union with the daughters of men (human) producing offsprings -- mighty men of old.

But that's just my opinion based on the Scripture.

God Bless

 

[Biblewriter]

I posted a paper called The Genesis Enigma on the Theistic Evolution section of this web site. The feedback that I have been getting so far is that I should address creationists because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis Scriptures. I am a fundamentalist who does not accept that the first few chapters of Genesis are allegorical or that they are written by a primitive people trying to understand where they came from. I disagree completely with Evolutionists maintaining that life on Earth evolved through mutation. Yet I do not agree with the traditional way that creationists traditionally interpret these scriptures. I do not wish to intrude into the Creationist thread, with views that will annoy some/most, but would value a criticism from Creationists on my very long (23 thread) document. I will stay away if asked to.

I looked in the Theistic Evolution and could not find your thread. I only found threads answering it. Was it deleted, or is it many pages back?

 

[stumpjumper]

Here it is:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6964291

 

[Seve]

Dear cleminson,

After reading your post (The Genesis Enigma), believe it or not, we almost have the same Scriptural belief -- as far as the physical making of Adam on the 3rd day and his creation in the image and likeness of God on the 6th day -- are concerned. Of course, it was a pleasant surprise and I am very happy to learn few more reasonings from your outstanding post.

Although English is not my first language, pardon me but let me try to briefly summarize some of the important chronological events of what I believe in -- which I think have some similarities to yours....

1) Adam was specially made or formed on the 3rd day from the dust of the ground and was given a breath of life becoming a natural living soul (flesh and blood). Gen. 2:7 -- but was taken away from this world and put at the garden of Eden -- the first heaven formed on the 2nd day Gen. 1:6-8. The first heaven (the world of Adam thru Noah) was surrounded by waters which was later destroyed totally during the time of Noah by the same waters when the windows of heaven were broken up and opened. Genesis 7:11

2) Genesis 1:21-22 also document us that ALL living Creatures that moveth were created from the waters on the 5th day abundantly. These included, I believe, the bringing forth of other moving creatures (mankind) which the waters brought forth, abundantly. And God blessed THEM (pronoun) and told THEM to be fruitful and multiply on the 5th day (Gen. 1:22). They were later described to be "sons of God" who formed a union with the daughters of men (human) in Genesis 6."

3) Going back to Genesis 2:22, Eve was "cloned" (using our term) from Adam's rib on the 6th day -- with new function added (female sex organ) but no added new information for macro-evolution to advance it's theory --still human flesh.

4) Both committed their so called "original sin" -- acquired the knowledge of good and evil -- like God -- and was sent out of the garden.

5) They begat Cain & Abel -- Cain killed Abel -- Cain was sent out to the land of Nod -- found a mate from one of the descendants of other Creatures (mankind) who were brought forth from the waters, abundantly (Gen. 1:21-22).

6) Adam & Eve begat Seth. Then, man started calling upon the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26).

8) Thru God' riches in mercy, Adam and Eve, together with their generations (starting from Seth) were then CREATED in the image and likeness of God, spiritually (Gen. 5:1-3; 1:26-27). Both were the first couple to be "born again" spiritually and redeemed by the Lord.

Therefore, I believe the physical forming of Adam on the 3rd day becoming a natural living soul was NOT a spiritual birth and an entirely different event from his creation in the image and likeness of God, spiritually, on the 6th day. God did NOT make a mistake creating man in his image and likeness, spiritually, but only to be taken away from their hand by the old serpent. In order for one to die spiritually, one must first be born spiritually.

1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. v46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

And finally, perhaps, just like you, the way I see it, Genesis 1 is a SUMMARY or an Outline of ALL of the events leading to the Creation of the Perfect Heaven. Most of the rest of the Bible refers to the present 6th Day, but ALL of the Bible refers to the events of God's 6 Creative Days. That's why we are taken back to the 3rd Day at Gen 2:4. The narrative is adding details to the events listed in Gen 1. Both accounts agree totally and in detail.

What is amazing is that God wrote our History more than 3,000 years ago, and the events at the end of the 6th Day are still Future. IOW, God told the complete story of the Creation in Genesis 1 and beginning at Gen 2:4, we begin to learn the details of the events of Genesis 1.

But that just my opinion based on the Scripture

God Bless

 

[Van]

According to Genesis 2, Adam was possibly created on day three, after the earth was formed but before plants sprouted, and Eve was created on day 6 after all the living things including land animals had been created. So why not accept Genesis 1 refers to the time Eve was created so it is a summary statement, God created Adam (beforehand) and Eve on the 6th day of creation? Is this as viable as saying the two conditions of Genesis 2 that point to creation day 3 only refer to the area east of Eden, and not to the whole world. Therefore plants had sprouted elsewhere but God had not caused them to grow where the garden would be located until after Adam was created on day 6, and likewise, God had created land animals, but they were not near the area where the garden was located so God, who had formed them earlier, brought them to the garden area, or God simply formed additional copies of the animals for Adam to name?

 

[Seve]

Genesis 1:21 tells us that every living creature that moveth was brought forth from the water on Day 5 (including mankind). Genesis 2 tells us of Creatures made from the dust. Some people see this as a contradiction, and falsely assume that God made a boo boo.

They are ignorant of the fact that the invisible Almighty God (Father) originally made every Living Creature that moved, from the water, on Day 5. The account of the formation of the beasts of the field and fowl of the air, from the Dust, on the 6th Day, is when YHWH, the Son (known as Jesus in the New Testament), sqeezed, as a potter would mould clay, and formed living creatures from the dust of the ground. The creatures made from the dust were identical to those made from the water, and could produce offspring with the creatures from the water.

The first Living Being made from the dust was man. Man was made on the 3rd Day before the plants and herbs, after the rain (mist). Gen 2:4-7 This gives man Preeminence or First Place among all other Living Creatures.

Like the animals made from the dust, Humans (Adam's descendants) also married and produced children with those creatures (mankind) brought forth from the water (Gen 1:21-23). That's where Cain's wife came from, and that is who Noah's grandsons married, on this Planet.

We have the DNA of the sons of God (mankind) and we also have the Human Intelligence that can ONLY be inherited from Adam, the first Human. Yes, we all descended with modifications from a common ancestor, and his name is Adam.

God created EVERY LIVING CREATURE that moveth, from the water, on the 5th Day, and Jesus produced His Kind from the dust of the ground, on the 6th Day. Today's arrogant "scientists" can't tell us the difference between those creatures made from the water, and those made from the dust. Only Jesus can tell us of His Kinds, which are identical with the Creatures brought forth from the water.

 

[cleminson]

I looked in the Theistic Evolution and could not find your thread. I only found threads answering it. Was it deleted, or is it many pages back?

Hi, It has been over a year since I have visited this Blog. So sorry for the late reply. The Genesis Enigma is on page 4 or 5 of the Creationist thread. Kind regards. Cleminson

 

[cleminson]

According to Genesis 2, Adam was possibly created on day three, after the earth was formed but before plants sprouted, and Eve was created on day 6 after all the living things including land animals had been created. So why not accept Genesis 1 refers to the time Eve was created so it is a summary statement, God created Adam (beforehand) and Eve on the 6th day of creation? Is this as viable as saying the two conditions of Genesis 2 that point to creation day 3 only refer to the area east of Eden, and not to the whole world. Therefore plants had sprouted elsewhere but God had not caused them to grow where the garden would be located until after Adam was created on day 6, and likewise, God had created land animals, but they were not near the area where the garden was located so God, who had formed them earlier, brought them to the garden area, or God simply formed additional copies of the animals for Adam to name?

Hi Van, I dont believe that scripture says what you aver. Scripture says that a spiritual Adam was created om the third period of creation and mankind was created on the sixth period of creation.

 

[cleminson]

I looked in the Theistic Evolution and could not find your thread. I only found threads answering it. Was it deleted, or is it many pages back?

It is on page 4.