Rain and The Creation

[PotLuck]

Well, this is more of a modern problem that it was for people in biblical times. Geneologies which combined mythical and historical elements were very much taken for granted in biblical times and were not considered problematical. We create the problem for ourselves because we think differently about the value of myth.

Let's focus on one thing at a time so we're not going in too many directions at once.

Lineage of Jesus.

Looking at Luke 3:23 who do you believe are myths and who are the real people?
I believe all are real so let's start from there.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

In the lineage of James 1 (VI of Scotland) from King Eremhon, first Milesian ruler of Ireland, which ones are mythological and which historical?

How about the lineage of Alfred the Great from the god Woden?

The genealogies are such a pathetically weak argument it makes me weep to see you people so desperate that you resort to it.

 

[PotLuck]

LOL
OK, point made.
It's weak. Then do I get a weak answer or none at all?

 

[PotLuck]

*sigh*

Why not just make a statement and end this.

If it doesn't align with evolution it's a myth, weak or possibly wrong altogether.

There. That should sum it up.

 

[Andy D]

|v26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
|v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(OldT:Genesis 1:26-27)

Throughout the verses God mentions only man until the very end and even makes that point with "him", not her or both but says "created he him". Then He follows with "created he them". Notice the placement of "them", again an overview. God makes that distinction AFTER He created "him". I certainly see no contradiction between the two accounts of Genesis.

And again focus on the verse... "in the image of God created he him ; male and female created he them.
It reads, "in the image of God created he him"
semicolon *pause*
then continues, "male and female created he them."

Gen 1:18-23 fills in for the semicolon, the pause, in greater detail.
I think someone already pointed out that one account is an overview while the other fills in the details.

Take no offense here ok? I'm just very poor with words in sensitive areas. Please forgive me.
Here evolution is used first, the verse comes second. The motivation here is to fit the bible to evolution instead of looking to reconcile the two accounts of Genesis. The Word of God is "closed", a book unto it's own, requiring no outside input to support it. If there's a question concerning the bible then it's best to use the bible to answer the question or find the solution. For example, before I was saved I used to think "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a contradiction to "Turn the other cheek". That is until God opened my eyes and I could understand what I was reading and used the bible to reconcile what I thought was a contradiction.
And I'm STILL learning that lesson (using the bible to answer biblical questions). It's like a never-ending learning curve. The bible has SO much to offer, SO much within itself that I honestly believe it's depth will never be reached. There's always more, something missed, something unseen, something to learn.

Why would The Creator, who was also there, say Adam was alone if he wasn't? Myth or not the idea is still conveyed that Adam was alone. Adam was real so he was really alone.

1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Why do you think that may be important? I know I asked that before but still... does that event, Eve being created after Adam, have any significance? And what is the significance of Eve being created from Adam and not from the ground as Adam was?

There's something to be said for why Adam was created from the ground and not just POOF! ..."created". Each were created differently and for a reason.

Very nicely said. I was actually going to check up 'again' on those verses that everyone seems to keep saying are a contradiction and again i read it so simply that you quoted and it makes soo much sense. I am not sure who brainwashed people into thinking this was a contradiction?? It is VERY clear from reading that verse that it matches the account in chapters 2 and 3 anyhow. It was an overview and then the detail has been presented (I dont care what order the chapters were written in because that doesnt change this). The verses in chapter one dont ever state that Adam wasnt created from the dust of the ground. So it doesnt contradict how Adam was created. It says He created them male and female...well it doesnt mention days here whereas the rest of the chapter it did mention days right? I would love to hear more Potluck on this.

Also the whole thing about man being the head of the family because he was created first and being in leadership roles in church and not the woman was all based on this point of man being formed first and then eve. It is very obvious that Paul thought this was real. He never had a clue that it was just a myth.

 

[Andy D]

You seriously going to contend that women are not created in the image of God? Gen. 2 does not state that Eve was made a living soul by the breath of God as Adam was. Does that mean women do not have souls either?

Because the Creator didn't say it (the bible was not dictated). The writer of the story said it and the writer said it because it was necessary to the flow of the story. And Paul picks it up because he is basing a theological point on this part of the story.

Maybe because Adam was made in the image of God and then the woman came second, it was not necessary to comment on Eve also having a soul and having a lot of the characteristics that come from God. It doesnt put women down from how I see it. The reason so much time was spent on explaining Adam being created, compared with Eve is because He was the first man (whether you use that to explain the gender or that he was the first of our kind).

The Bible was not dictated as in God spoke words out aloud whilst someone just copied text because there is a human element to it in that He spoke through the prophets and others who wrote Sciptures and inspired all that was written so that only truth would be written.

 

[Andy D]

In the lineage of James 1 (VI of Scotland) from King Eremhon, first Milesian ruler of Ireland, which ones are mythological and which historical?

How about the lineage of Alfred the Great from the god Woden?

The genealogies are such a pathetically weak argument it makes me weep to see you people so desperate that you resort to it.

Weak argument to you maybe but this was the lineage of Jesus and not just a man!!

 

[PotLuck]

Lineage is also used in prophesy.


|v12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
|v13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope,
(NewT:Romans 15:12-13)

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Lineage is also used in prophesy.

Another reason to ignore it!

 

[herev]

The Bible was not dictated as in God spoke words out aloud whilst someone just copied text because there is a human element to it in that He spoke through the prophets and others who wrote Sciptures and inspired all that was written so that only truth would be written.

Hi Andy D
I agree whole heartedly. However, you do realize that many YEC's would throw rocks at us for saying that, don't you?

 

[gluadys]

The verses in chapter one dont ever state that Adam wasnt created from the dust of the ground. So it doesnt contradict how Adam was created.

Yes they do, and the point has been made time and again by creationists. In Gen. 1:27 it says "So God created (Heb. "bara") man....." This is the same verb used in 1:1 "when God created (Heb. "bara") the heavens and the earth...."

Many commentators, including I believe, elsewhere on this thread, have pointed out that "bara" does not simply mean "made"; it means "created out of nothing".

If that is the meaning of "bara", then Gen. 2:7 is a contradiction of Gen. 1:27, for the one verse uses a verb that means "created out of nothing" while the other just as clearly says man was created from the dust of the earth.

The dust of the earth is not nothing.

 

[gluadys]

Let's focus on one thing at a time so we're not going in too many directions at once.

Lineage of Jesus.

Looking at Luke 3:23 who do you believe are myths and who are the real people?
I believe all are real so let's start from there.

I don't see any names in that geneology as definitively historical unless there is archeological evidence I am unaware of that confirms the existence of David. Matthew's geneology is better in this respect since I know we have confirmation of Solomon and several of his successors---that being the royal line. But after the exile, the lineage sinks into obscurity again and cannot be verified.

So the rest of both lineages are a matter of oral tradition (or lost manuscripts.) Many names probably refer to historical personnages, but cannot be confirmed as such.

In the Lucan lineage I would guess that we pass from oral history (or legend) to myth somewhere between Abraham and Peleg. Matthew, of course, does not include anyone prior to Abraham.

 

[Andy D]

Hi Andy D
I agree whole heartedly. However, you do realize that many YEC's would throw rocks at us for saying that, don't you?

Haha, I wouldnt be the first martyr though. Our sermon on Sunday happened to be on that topic. It is really hard to explain I guess how it could be said that it was dictated and yet not in the way we would think dictation means. I would believe God did inspire with His Holy Spirit to write and guide them as to what to write but as we can see in the Gospels and the differences of them all, men wrote them from their perspectives and yet they all wrote truthfully what they were lead to write....hmmm...guess it sounds easy enough to understand but then again, who are we to know the mind of God

 

[Andy D]

Yes they do, and the point has been made time and again by creationists. In Gen. 1:27 it says "So God created (Heb. "bara") man....." This is the same verb used in 1:1 "when God created (Heb. "bara") the heavens and the earth...."

Many commentators, including I believe, elsewhere on this thread, have pointed out that "bara" does not simply mean "made"; it means "created out of nothing".

If that is the meaning of "bara", then Gen. 2:7 is a contradiction of Gen. 1:27, for the one verse uses a verb that means "created out of nothing" while the other just as clearly says man was created from the dust of the earth.

The dust of the earth is not nothing.

Whilst I am no Hebrew Scholar, wouldnt that interpretation also be in contradiction of evolution? Cause made from nothing doesnt mean evolve. I need to study it but indirectly Adam was made from nothing. God made the dust and then formed Adam from it.

 

[Andy D]

I don't see any names in that geneology as definitively historical unless there is archeological evidence I am unaware of that confirms the existence of David. Matthew's geneology is better in this respect since I know we have confirmation of Solomon and several of his successors---that being the royal line. But after the exile, the lineage sinks into obscurity again and cannot be verified.

So the rest of both lineages are a matter of oral tradition (or lost manuscripts.) Many names probably refer to historical personnages, but cannot be confirmed as such.

In the Lucan lineage I would guess that we pass from oral history (or legend) to myth somewhere between Abraham and Peleg. Matthew, of course, does not include anyone prior to Abraham.

Firstly, that doesnt prove that it isnt history, just because we dont have the body of Adam or someone prior to Abraham.

Secondly, Matthew may not have needed to go beyond Abraham as he was the Father of the nation and the Gospel was to focus on Jesus and not the lineage of the Jews since creation. It went without speaking that before Abraham, who was chosen to be the start of the nation from all men on earth, that somewhere at the start of the line was Noah and then Adam prior to him. All men came from Adam is the common knowledge that no one needed to quote again. The Jews were all completely aware of the fact that Adam was the first man, from reading the Torah.

 

[herev]

Haha, I wouldnt be the first martyr though. Our sermon on Sunday happened to be on that topic. It is really hard to explain I guess how it could be said that it was dictated and yet not in the way we would think dictation means. I would believe God did inspire with His Holy Spirit to write and guide them as to what to write but as we can see in the Gospels and the differences of them all, men wrote them from their perspectives and yet they all wrote truthfully what they were lead to write....hmmm...guess it sounds easy enough to understand but then again, who are we to know the mind of God

 

[gluadys]

Whilst I am no Hebrew Scholar, wouldnt that interpretation also be in contradiction of evolution? Cause made from nothing doesnt mean evolve. I need to study it but indirectly Adam was made from nothing. God made the dust and then formed Adam from it.

Well, if you can buy that "made from dust" is the same as being made "indirectly" from nothing, I can buy that evolution is the same as being made "indirectly" from dust.

So, depending on how you read Gen. 1:27, there is no contradiction between either creation story and evolution. Especially if one also takes the position that Adam and Eve were real individuals.

 

[gluadys]

Firstly, that doesnt prove that it isnt history, just because we dont have the body of Adam or someone prior to Abraham.

Right. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I am just giving my personal opinion here; I wouldn't attempt to prove it.

I consider that the names from Adam to Peleg are mythical because the only places we find them outside of the NT are in connection with stories that seem to be myths. If some day evidence turned up that they are historical, it wouldn't bother me to change my mind about the individuals, but I would still probably consider the stories to be mythological without evidence to the contrary.