Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Jig]

The myth of men having one less rib is certainly correlated to the myth the world is 6000 years old.

Show me using just the Bible how there is a direct correlation.

 

[kenvin]

Show me using just the Bible how there is a direct correlation.

Well no where in the bible does it say the universe is 6000 years old.

The correlations are the people who believe the myths themselves.

 

[Calminian]

Well no where in the bible does it say the universe is 6000 years old.

The correlations are the people who believe the myths themselves.

Actually it kinda does. You have several chronological genealogies making it just about impossible to conclude anything else, if you read the book in a straightforward fashion.

I mean there are some arguable areas like the time of Abram's birth (70 year or 130 after Terah's birth) but these aren't going to make a big difference. It pretty much does say that. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

 

[Jig]

Well no where in the bible does it say the universe is 6000 years old.

The correlations are the people who believe the myths themselves.

That's not true either. At least not when the Bible is understood to be correct in it's plain sense.

God created in six days - with Adam being created on the sixth day. Also, thanks to the numerous genealogies found within the text itself (Luke traces Jesus's lineage back to Adam!) it becomes impossible to fit the history of mankind into the secular timeframe of millions of years.

Again, when the Bible is read literally, it becomes reasonable to assume the universes' age is somewhere between 10,000-6,000 years old - taking into consideration any potential gaps in the genealogies.

 

[Calminian]

That's not true either. At least not when the Bible is understood to be correct in it's plain sense.

God created in six days - with Adam being created on the sixth day. Also, thanks to the numerous genealogies found within the text itself (Luke traces Jesus's lineage back to Adam!) it becomes impossible to fit the history of mankind into the secular timeframe of millions of years.

Again, when the Bible is read literally, it becomes reasonable to assume the universes' age is somewhere between 10,000-6,000 years old - taking into consideration any potential gaps in the genealogies.

Or, yeah, what he said.

 

[kenvin]

Actually it kinda does. You have several chronological genealogies making it just about impossible to conclude anything else, if you read the book in a straightforward fashion.

I mean there are some arguable areas like the time of Abram's birth (70 year or 130 after Terah's birth) but these aren't going to make a big difference. It pretty much does say that. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

6000 year old earth is as incorrect as men having one less rib.

 

[Calminian]

6000 year old earth is as incorrect as men having one less rib.

Well you started out talking about what scripture said. Scripture doesn't ever mention or slightly imply that men have one less rib. But it does contain chronological genealogies indicating the world began about 6000 years ago.

The question is, why don't you believe scripture?

 

[Jig]

6000 year old earth is as incorrect as men having one less rib.

You apparently don't care to have a real, honest conversation. You can disagree with my hermeneutics, but still understand my position.

I believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. I do NOT believe that men have one less rib.

The Bible (when read plainly) strongly implies that the Earth is less than 10,000 years.

The Bible (when read plainly) does not imply that men have one less rib.

This will be my last post to you. I can't make it any clearer.

 

[kenvin]

Well you started out talking about what scripture said. Scripture doesn't ever mention or slightly imply that men have one less rib. But it does contain chronological genealogies indicating the world began about 6000 years ago.

The question is, why don't you believe scripture?

Actually it says God took a rib from Adam to make Eve.

 

[Calminian]

Actually it says God took a rib from Adam to make Eve.

You are correct. The took Adam's rib (or tissue from his side) and made Eve. God also made the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago.

 

[kenvin]

You are correct. The took Adam's rib (or tissue from his side) and made Eve. God also made the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago.

Well that is your opinion. The opinion of many who agree with you that the earth is 6000 years old also believe men actually have one less rib. I heard the pastor say it at the first church I went to.

There are different opinions out there. To me those two sound like myth. You are free to believe what you want regardless.

My opinion is my biology and human physiology teachers were more likely correct. Just seems more likely to me.

 

[Calminian]

Well that is your opinion. The opinion of many who agree with you that the earth is 6000 years old also believe men actually have one less rib.

So you heard it from a pastor, therefore all YECs believe that? That's not very scientific reasoning.

There are different opinions out there. To me those two sound like myth. You are free to believe what you want regardless.

Exactly. You can believe scripture and reject it. God always gives us this choice. Why do you choose to reject it?

 

[kenvin]

So you heard it from a pastor, therefore all YECs believe that? That's not very scientific reasoning.

Not all, but there are still a few out there. It is less so because it's easy to count the ribs on a skeleton.

That scientific thinking line was funny.

Exactly. You can believe scripture and reject it. God always gives us this choice. Why do you choose to reject it?

It's an interpretation of a translation. You have yours I have mine.

 

[kenvin]

So you heard it from a pastor, therefore all YECs believe that? That's not very scientific reasoning.

Not all, but there are still a few out there. It is less so because it's easy to count the ribs on a skeleton.

That scientific thinking line was funny.

Exactly. You can believe scripture and reject it. God always gives us this choice. Why do you choose to reject it?

It's an interpretation of a translation. You have yours I have mine.

 

[Calminian]

...It's an interpretation of a translation. You have yours I have mine.

So then you agree with me that the earth is 6000 years old. Cool!

See I just decided to interpret what you said that way. I can do that, right?

 

[kenvin]

So then you agree with me that the earth is 6000 years old. Cool!

See I just decided to interpret what you said that way. I can do that, right?

Sure if that makes you feel better.

I still think the earth being 6000 lacks truth.

 

[Calminian]

Sure if that makes you feel better.

I still think the earth being 6000 lacks truth.

So by that I interpret you saying you believe in geocentrism.

Hay, thinking like you is fun.

You getting my point yet?

 

[kenvin]

So by that I interpret you saying you believe in geocentrism.

Hay, thinking like you is fun.

You getting my point yet?

You think your interpretation is only valid one. That is the point I get. The pastor who thought men had one less rib thought the same thing.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually it kinda does. You have several chronological genealogies making it just about impossible to conclude anything else, if you read the book in a straightforward fashion.

I mean there are some arguable areas like the time of Abram's birth (70 year or 130 after Terah's birth) but these aren't going to make a big difference. It pretty much does say that. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact.

Yet that's only one "Fact". Adam was not Created an infant, the Garden was not presented as seeds, the earth had "soil", and man was formed from "soil" or dust. Then there are the healings and resurection of the dead Jesus did. None of those are "zero" age.

So all the facts together say that Creation week was not week age "zero". Genealogies are trivial compared to the actual descriptions of Creation itself as not-young. Some Bishops really don't get that far in their studies and concluded the earth is young. They were wrong.

 

[southcountry]

6000 year old earth is as incorrect as men having one less rib.

Or the idea that Eden is on this Earth.

Hubble has seen around 10,000 galaxies, but this is just a small percentage of the field of view. Using that as a reference, it is estimated there are more stars than grains of sand on all the seas of this earth.

Shall we ignore what we see with our own eyes?