I have no idea what point you're trying to make, AV. Maybe that speaks to the original thread subject, too.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Given that Jesus did not mention Adam, and only used the creation account to teach about marriage, any views you have of what he thought about a literal Adam are going to be pretty much your own personal opinion. You need to be very careful about taking your interpretation of Genesis, and thinking it is so obviously correct that must be what Jesus thought too.Could anyone be dense enough to think the Christ and Paul did not think Adam was the first man?
Actually, alternative interpretations date back to first century Judaism, both the Hellenistic Philo of Alexandria and the Jerusalem priest Josephus thought Moses' description of Adam was allegorical.It doesn't make any sense, alternative interpretations did not exist until 150 years ago:
Obviously Paul saw Adam as the first man. He says so in the verse. The question is, did Paul mean the same thing by 'the first man', as your literal interpretation does? If Paul was simple discussing Adam as the literal and historical first man who ever existed, how is Christ 'the second Man'? According to a plain literal and historical interpretation the second man was Cain. And there have been millions of men born between Cain and Christ. Clearly Paul was not talking in the same literal or historical sense you assume here.The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; aand as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. (1Cor 15:47,48)
And Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1.My favorite mantra for this is as follows:
- Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
- Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism
So how many differences are there between Genesis 1 and 2?Let's forget the time-spans then, explain the order of the creation events.
I understand there are something like 20 differences between Genesis 1 and Evolution.
Well, if the bible gives two contradictory chronologies of creation it is clear they can't both be meant literal. How do you know which one to take literally? If at least one has to be figurative, how do you know they aren't both figurative? The only one that can't be figurative is the way God actually made the earth. That tells us neither Gen 1 nor Gen 2 are to be taken literally.You talk about being amused --- what amuses me is those who whine about the order of events in Genesis 2 being asynchronous w/Genesis 1 (which it's not), but don't say a word about the order in Genesis 1 itself
He didn't say the "second man" ---Obviously Paul saw Adam as the first man. He says so in the verse. The question is, did Paul mean the same thing by 'the first man', as your literal interpretation does? If Paul was simple discussing Adam as the literal and historical first man who ever existed, how is Christ 'the second Man'? According to a plain literal and historical interpretation the second man was Cain. And there have been millions of men born between Cain and Christ. Clearly Paul was not talking in the same literal or historical sense you assume here.
1 Corinthians 15:45 said:And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Assyrian, I don't stray from Genesis 1 in discussing the Creation Week --- I believe you know that.And Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1.
So how many differences are there between Genesis 1 and 2?
There are probably more but it does not matter.
- Genesis 1 talks of six days, Genesis 2:4 says one day.
- In Gen 1 the earth starts off wet, in Gen 2 it is so dry nothing could grow.
- In Gen 1 plants flourish and bear fruit before man is created, in Gen 2 the plants could not grow because there was no gardener to till the land.
- In Gen 1 plants come before man, in Gen 2 after
- In Gen 1 birds of the air are before man, in Gen 2 after
- In Gen 1 birds are created the day before beasts, in Gen 2 it is at the same time.
- In Gen 1 the beasts are created before man in Gen 2 they are created after.
- In Gen 1 God commanded the earth to produce living creatures, in Gen 2 God formed them out of the ground
Well, if the bible gives two contradictory chronologies of creation it is clear they can't both be meant literal. How do you know which one to take literally? If at least one has to be figurative, how do you know they aren't both figurative? The only one that can't be figurative is the way God actually made the earth. That tells us neither Gen 1 nor Gen 2 are to be taken literally.
The ineffectiveness of science at large scales of time and space seems to be an argument you like to cite a lot, but I wonder if you could please elaborate on what you mean by it, mindlight. Speaking only to fossils, since that's what I work on, I admit that the evidence becomes more sparse the further we look back into the fossil record. But I don't think that means we can't say anything about the history of life on earth with some certainty. For example, we can be quite certain that the first fossils were not vertebrates, and that only the theory of evolutionary common descent describes this order in the fossil record.
Make no doubt about it: The further back we progress in the fossil record, the harder it becomes to say anything with certainty. But palaeontology, as with any science, is in the business of working with what we know to rule out alternative hypotheses, and young earth creationism, as an hypothesis, has definitely been ruled out by the evidence.
Can I ask whether you deem the pursuit of creation science as valid?
My favorite mantra for this is as follows:
- Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
- Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism
Also to argue Creationism was heresy on a par with Gnosticism or Marcionism is stretching it a bit far. The historical churches and Orthodox Jews also all believed the universe was young, in special creation, original sin and a literal Adam and Eve and dated their calendars from a time in the last 6-10,000 years.
I know that a professional scientist like your self may be shocked to hear it but not all of us creationists regard the scientific evidence to be the crucial determining factor with things that we regard to be outside the realm of meaningful science e.g. Discussions of origins and the remote places of the universe. In these cases the biblical witness cannot be overruled by the scientific method since science is ineffective at this distance in time or space.
What I object to here is the shared conviction of TEs or atheists that science can speak effectively when the evidence itself is degraded by time or distance or ignorance of the variables to the point of irrelevance or at very least has become the discussion of the probability values of one model of understanding over another.
ANGELS ARE NOT NATURAL CREATURES! The bible says humans are above angels anyway.
What logical reasons do you have for saying this is NOT the case? Steno's laws of superposition and continuity are accepted even by most YECs. What reasons do you have for rejecting them?1) That the geological layers follow a broad order and that the simplest organisms always appear at the bottom ones and the more complex higher up. But sometimes the orders get reversed or layers are missed out completely or the format is different.
This isn't an assumption. We can now date strata using a variety of means. Besides, given the diversity of palaeoenvironments that are represented in the sedimentary record (forests upon deserts upon inland seas), it makes no sense whatsoever that these strata could be deposited in a matter of just a few years. Not unless you want to infer miracle upon miracle upon miracle.2) That geological layers were established over millions of years rather than suddenly all at once or over a shorter time period of thousands of years.
Please elaborate. Do you have any doubt that, say, this isn't a fossil insect?3) That the signatures of life contained in each piece of evidence are of sufficient quality to still be read. That other factors have not distorted these signatures since the fossils were laid down.
There are no hydrological, ecological, or functional mechanisms by which to explain the order of the fossil record, mindlight. Some of the earliest fossils in the fossil record had no means by which to burrow. And some of the best burrowers (moles and snakes and whatnot) are found only in the uppermost strata. That explanation makes no sense. It's just an ad hoc assumption designed solely to prop up broken framework.4) That we have understood what the simplest organisms are and how they came to burrow to the lowest levels where that is true. In a young earth I would not expect to find big creatures deep below ground cause they would have to have dug themselves down there but simpler smaller organisms would have less trouble getting down there by themselves for instance whether the ground was land or seabed in its original form.
That's really what it all comes down to for you, eh? We can't be 100% certain about anything, therefore all explanations of the data are equally likely? Young earth, global flood scenarios are just as likely as old earth, evolutionary scenarios even though the former cannot explain any of the data? Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Regardless, I'll feign from debating the subject any further because we've gone waaay off topic.I am sure you will have answers to my 4 points and ones backed by a scientific consensus but your answers could still be wrong nonetheless.
The bible says we were made lower than the angels, that when we die we will become like them and that one day we shall judge angels. Superiority to angels is not discussed. The angels bow to Christ in Hebrews 1 but then Jesus is also God and not just man. Our humanity is taken to the centre of the throne in Christ but does that make us in ourselves superior to the creatures that surround the throne.
The bible also says that fallen examples of these non natural beings were able to become natural enough to be able to reproduce with women.
So a corporeal natural creature (e.g a man) will one day be like an incorporeal one an angel.
No, as I said the sun is about 4.57 billion and the Earth is 4.54 about billion.And the earth was billions and billions of years before the sun?
And whales billions of years before man?
umm... not muchHow amused are you at explaining these?
Sure if taken to be literal. And Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and I Chronicles 16:30 pwns Heliocentrism. And Job 37:18 pwns the idea that the sky is made of gases and not cast bronze.My favorite mantra for this is as follows:
- Genesis 1 pwns Evolution
- Genesis 1:1 pwns Atheism
Let's forget the time-spans then, explain the order of the creation events.
I understand there are something like 20 differences between Genesis 1 and Evolution.
You talk about being amused --- what amuses me is those who whine about the order of events in Genesis 2 being asynchronous w/Genesis 1 (which it's not), but don't say a word about the order in Genesis 1 itself.
Assyrian, I don't stray from Genesis 1 in discussing the Creation Week --- I believe you know that.
Sounds like you avoid confusion by ignoring scripture that disagrees with you interpretation. That is one way to keep things simple and clear. But also wrong.Those that do get what they deserve --- confusion.
Just because it isn't a complete account does not mean it isn't a chronology. Genesis 1 does not mention mushrooms, seaweed or bacteria, ostriches or penguins. There are entire kingdoms of created life missing, yet you consider it a chronology. Genesis 2 is a narrative, the narrative sequence gives us a chronology of the creation, as long as the narrative is literal of course. But that is the point.Genesis 2 is not --- I repeat, not --- a chronology of the Creation Event --- there's way too much data missing.
There is no mention of Adam writing the account, or even being able to write. Even if he did write it, it is still a narrative where he gives us the sequence of events in the creation.Genesis 2 is Adam's written account of how he got married.
Works for me. I also explain Genesis 1 by looking at other passages in the bible where we are shown how to interpret it, Psalm 90:4 or Hebrews 3&4 for example. But Genesis 2 is handy, and if your interpretation of Genesis 1 can't stand up to Genesis 2, then it really has problems.Your attempts to avoid explaining Genesis 1 by bringing up Genesis 2, which is just a shell of Genesis 1 (if that much), is a very poor way of debating the Creation.
You mean Genesis 2?Like I say, if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets worse from there.
Interpreting the Bible that way is certainly your prerogative.Yet your interpretation of Genesis 1 falls apart if we look at Genesis 2 and you have to steer clear of the passage. Two great accounts of Creation in the beginning of Genesis and your interpretation only works if you avoid one of them. As I said, Genesis 2 pwns your interpretation of Genesis 1. If you want to talk about scripture interpretation in terms of pwning that is.
Here's my take on the Creation:
Genesis 1 pwns evolution
There are no "scientific problems" associated with the Creation as, according to Genesis 1:1, which came first: science or heaven?
Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (7.012: Introduction to Biology, Fall 2004)Creationism has rejected the false assumption of universal common descent not evolution as it's properly defined scientifically.
If Liberal Theistic Evolution dovetails so nicely with an Evangelical and Fundamentalist understanding of the Gospel then why are Creationists constantly hounded by them? It's because the Pauline doctrine of original sin is directly tied to justification by faith. That is what is missing, a figurative Adam gives us no reason for sin which in turn gives us no need for justification.
Then after they dismiss original sin and the Fall of Adam and Eve as mythology they want to be embraced as Christian.
The fact of the matter is that evolution as natural history, particularly with regards to human origins, is a myth.
The mythographers of the modern world follow the tradition of Darwin who traced lineage as far as genus and then projected it all the way to our primordial past.
TE is devoid of traditional Christian theism and instead embraced naturalistic assumptions
Interpreting the Bible that way is certainly your prerogative.
What difference does that make, Shernren?
Okay, so He mentioned the Creation as a secondary point --- what about it?
I'm sorry, but this is one of the worst exegeses I've ever seen.The text is a neon sign saying "Do not read the stories literally". But some people do not have eyes to see.
That's why I keep the two separate.Creation and creationism are two different things.
Okay.Creation is the theological statement "God created the universe and everything in it".
Okay.Basically, Genesis 1:1 is creation.
I don't agree, but for the sake of the discussion...Creationism is a very specific how God created the universe.
If you want the how, it is called creatio ex nihilo --- where exactly is the problem?It is creationism that has theological problems.
No, it doesn't. Before one cries "contradiction", one should make every attempt to reconcile the opposing passages. That's the proper way to do it.There are 2 major problems:
1. Read literally, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.
No, it doesn't. You're assuming that creation is an on-going process --- that God is still creating today --- and He is not. The Creation was a one-time, one-week act, done in the absence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.2. Creation itself contradicts this. Creation itself -- created by God -- says that God created by evolution.
Only, as I said, if you assume it was done (or still in progress) under the Laws of Thermodynamics.There are scientific problems associated with creationism.
Well, as I have said before, I really don't use the term creationism --- it is a much misused, misunderstood term --- and frankly, it is the choice term of Atheists and Scientists, so the chances of it being misunderstood are very high.This inability to separate creation from creationism is one of the major theological problems of creationism.
Well now ain't that a shame?Interestingly, none of the creation stories cover the creation of angels.
Here's your "creation story" pertaining to angels:There are no Biblical verses saying that angels were created by God. So, what produced the angels? Or, like God, were the angels always present?
Psalm 104:4 said:Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Are you kidding me?You missed the main point: Moses (a man) wrote the only scripture known in Jesus' time.
Moses edited the book of Genesis, he did not author it.And this man got part of it wrong.
Not hardly.What it does is totally blow away your claims that the Bible is God's "Diary" (as you put it).
Try "holy men of God".Jesus tells us scripture was written by men and that occasionally they got it wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?