What your best sources backing creation?

[Ark Guy]

Lucaspa, I read what you wrote and laughed at your logic.

What else do you expect God to call Adam? Just because his name was Adam and means dirt.... doesn't mean Adam was an allegorical.

Your assertion surely is open ended and made up.

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa said:
Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.

I say...prove it.

I have already proven they took it as literal...the problem is your science REQUIRES it to be a myth.

For example, Barnabus certainly took it as literal.
So did Peter...want me to present it again?

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa said:
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

That is not what the bible says. It is what you are twisting it to say....which you should be ashamed of.

Anyway, I'm glad that you have now admitted that the first portion of Genesis the days equal 24 hours. That's an improvement.

Now as to the second part, or what you have labeled as "b"....day means a time frame. It is a different word than YOM used in the first instance. Of course you should already know that.

When the word day has the article the prior to it...such as Gen. 2:4 does, it means "at the time". It's like saying, in the day of George Washington...now we all know that George Washington lived for more than a day. Right?

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa said the folowing:
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.

It has already been explained to you that they did die that very day. Just like you died the very day you committed your first sin....yet you still physically live.
Now once this first sin was committed, they did began to physically die as announced in Genesis 3:19.

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa also said:
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed.

....soooooooo, you are saying that death is just a theory? Get real lucaspa. Please.
Once you have died and especially for 3 days...YOU STAY DEAD. No theory, scientific fact. Try again lucaspa.

The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory.

I think it has been proven lucaspa. That is why a miracle was required. By the way did you know that miracles were employeed as Jesus created during the six literal days? It's amazing how you so easily accept one miracle, then deny another. You let you science influence your thought in one instance, then reject it in the other.

BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.

Just as Jesus' resurrection is data, so is the creation as per Genesis.
Both are scientifically impossible. FACT. Both required miracles.

Then again you use the ah, er, "Theory of Evolution" to try and reject Genesis. This is invalid science as per your logic above.

 

[Bushido216]

lucaspa said:
Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.

I say...prove it.

I have already proven they took it as literal...the problem is your science REQUIRES it to be a myth.

For example, Barnabus certainly took it as literal.
So did Peter...want me to present it again?

You take it as literal too. You're not too bright. Erego, those who take it as literal aren't too bright.

Since we know that the OT and NT people referred to in the Bible were bright, they didn't take it as literal.

Good day.

 

[Ark Guy]

Bushido216,
Did you actually read what you wrote? You should have used the edit button. Less embarassement for you.

The bible is quite clear that the Old and New Testament folk took their scripture literal.....or perhaps you can show me where they took it as allegorical. I've been waiting for that answer for years and so far no evo has stepped up to the plate. Perhaps you can be the first. Yes?

 

[Bushido216]

I think both me and lucaspa already did. The fact that you care not to accept it is your own fault.

 

[ThePhoenix]

God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.

 

[Ark Guy]

God could certainly ressurect someone who has been dead for three days. God could also create the world in six days. But God does not hide his works. When he ressurected Jesus, Jesus did not hide in a cave and write a few papers that said "God brought me back, but he doesn't want you to know that he did." He went out and proclaimed that he had been ressurected. Similarly, if God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago then the evidence would proclaim it. It doesn't. He didn't.

The evidence speaks loudly to a young earth....not an old universe.

 

[lucaspa]

Hmmmmm, sounds like you are saying that the author of Genesis, Moses I believe, also has the creation story wrong.

There are two creation stories in Genesis 1-3. Since they contradict, we know both are not literal. And Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

Now that makes me wonder about just how much of the other portions of the bible are true. After all if creation was an allegorical myth....why not the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Let's not use inflammatory language, Ark Guy. I've never said the creation stories were not true, just that they are not literal. Now you get to my signature. We use extrabiblical evidence to let us know whether our interpretation of the Bible is true. Your interpretation is literalism for every passage. Yet you use extrabiblical evidence to determine that Luke 2:1 is not literal. The whole world was not enrolled.

I have extrabiblical evidence to tell me that Genesis 1-11 is not literal (not to mention the internal evidence). I don't have extrabiblical evidence to show he resurrection was not literal, much less mythical.

But yes, you are on the slippery slope. Bring your cleats and we'll explore how far down the slope truth lies.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, I read what you wrote and laughed at your logic.

What else do you expect God to call Adam?

Something other than an allegorical name. How about nonsense syllables that didn't mean anything in Hebrew. Jonad would work, wouldn't it?

Just because his name was Adam and means dirt.... doesn't mean Adam was an allegorical.

When people write allegory, they choose names that represent the thing they are talking about. For instance, in the allegory the Tortoise and the Hare, guess what the names are? Tortoise and Hare. Not John and Henry. So, having names like this is evidence that the story is allegory.

BTW, you forgot Eve. Why name here "Hearth"? How about Betsy? Again, syllables that, in Hebrew, do not mean any word.

 

[lucaspa]

This post is not addressing my argument, Ark Guy, it is introducing one of your own: the later writers thought the creation stories were literal. Now, we can discuss that if you want. Again.

lucaspa said:
Actually, both did. Neither the editor of Genesis or Jesus or Paul referred to the creation stories as literal. They all looked upon them as theological stories.

I say...prove it.

This is how you take it apart? I have shown, in several threads, how Jesus and Paul used the theological messages in the creation stories, not as literal history. In Mark 10 and Matthew 19 Jesus uses Genesis 1-2 to show that the law on divorce is wrong. A theological message.

For example, Barnabus certainly took it as literal.
So did Peter...want me to present it again?

Verses, not assertions. And since I refuted them the first time , yes you are going to have to present it again. Remember, Ark Guy, you can't use the same argument again and again once it has been refuted. You have to address the refutations.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said:
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

That is not what the bible says. It is what you are twisting it to say....which you should be ashamed of.

It's exactly what the Bible says. I even gave you the Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:4b.

Anyway, I'm glad that you have now admitted that the first portion of Genesis the days equal 24 hours. That's an improvement.

Ark Guy, I have always said that, if you are using a literal interpretation, then the "yom" in Genesis 1 is a 24 hr day. I have even said that the author intended them to be 24 hour days. The author was setting up a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath. What I have said is that the 24 hour days are not correct. Creation did not take place in that time frame. But that is different from what the author intended to say.

Now as to the second part, or what you have labeled as "b"....day means a time frame. It is a different word than YOM used in the first instance.

"beyom" has the prefix "be" to the word "yom". I have looked it up in 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries and the prefix means "in the". As in within a 24 hour day. Beyom cannot mean a time frame longer than 24 hours. It is sometimes used to mean a much shorter time frame, as in "instantly", but never longer.

When the word day has the article the prior to it...such as Gen. 2:4 does, it means "at the time". It's like saying, in the day of George Washington...now we all know that George Washington lived for more than a day. Right?

In English, maybe. But not in Hebrew. And the Bible was written in Hebrew. Sorry.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said the folowing:
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.

It has already been explained to you that they did die that very day. Just like you died the very day you committed your first sin....yet you still physically live.
Now once this first sin was committed, they did began to physically die as announced in Genesis 3:19.

You are contradictory. You say they died but then say "began to physically die".

Yes, you are now interpreting Genesis 2:17 as spiritual death. But a literal interpetation would not have that, would it? Death is physical death. And you are ignoring the contradiction about life expectancy. Notice that lifespans are limited to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 and then you have Noah living 950 years. Genesis 9:28.

While you are concentrating on Genesis 2-3 you are ignoring the contradictions between the creation stories. And it is the contradictions that tell you that you should not be interpreting them literally.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa also said:
Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed.

....soooooooo, ... Once you have died and especially for 3 days...YOU STAY DEAD. No theory, scientific fact.

Listen carefully, Ark Guy. The theory is that you stay dead if you have been dead 36 hours. The observations in support of the theory is that the dead do not indeed come back to life.

This is the same as the theory that states that all rocks drop when released. That you keep dropping rocks is the data that supports the theory.

But consider, Ark Guy. The theory was originally that all objects drop when released. Bricks, rocks, sticks, pens, swords, etc. This worked well until men made hot air balloons. What happened when they were released? They didn't drop, they rose. Now, did we say that the hot air balloons dropped and that was fact? No. Because the fact was that they did not drop.

Now, what do you have with Jesus' Resurrection? You have a hot air balloon. Jesus did not stay dead, did he? The scientific fact was that the theory didn't work. So the theory gets modified. Just like gravity got modified with hot air balloons. "Objects drop when released unless they displace more air than they weigh." In turn, your theory that "people dead 36 hours stay dead" gets modified to "people dead 36 hours stay dead unless God intervenes."

The theory states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory.

I think it has been proven lucaspa. That is why a miracle was required.

What you call a "miracle" is, within the context of the theory, simply another force at work. Like gravity above. When hot air balloons rise a different physical principle -- Archimedes' Principle -- is involved that counters gravity. In this case, God's intervention counters the decay process.

By the way did you know that miracles were employeed as Jesus created during the six literal days? It's amazing how you so easily accept one miracle, then deny another. You let you science influence your thought in one instance, then reject it in the other.

Ark Guy, you are going to have to address the idea that God really created. Which means that Creation tells us HOW God created. God tells us. Science is simply reading the second book of God. You have to address that.

What God tells us is that the "miracles" you think happened during creation did not happen. Also, Ark Guy, you are interpreting Genesis when you say "Jesus created". Genesis is very clear that God created. Now, with Trinity you can say that Jesus and God are two manifestations of the same person, but Genesis is clear that it was the God manifestation.

The reason I accept the one miracle but deny the other is that God gives me evidence to deny one. And there is no evidence to deny the other. That should be clear enough for you.

BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the point that has to be kept firmly in mind. The Resurrection is data. Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation. And that is what you did above. You have used the theory to reject data. Invalid science.

Just as Jesus' resurrection is data, so is the creation as per Genesis. [/quote]
The creation as per Genesis is a theory. Not data. The Resurrection is an observation = data. The observations in God's Creation -- data -- show your theory about creation is wrong.

Then again you use the ah, er, "Theory of Evolution" to try and reject Genesis. This is invalid science as per your logic above.

Sorry, Ark Guy. Nice rhetoric, but wrong. We use data to reject the theory of creationism. And that data was available before Darwin devised the
theory of evolution to explain the data. And scientists had rejected creationism prior to evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

The evidence speaks loudly to a young earth....not an old universe.

Ah, Phoenix got to you, didn't he. Instead of arguing against his logic, you now try to duck the logic and claim that the earth is young.

But the evidence caused virtually all Christians to realize that the earth is not young. Remember, Ark Guy, if you look for evidence showing a young earth, you will find it. What really matters is the evidence that simply can't be there if the earth is really young. And there are thousands of pieces of such evidence. All of geology for starters.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

 

[Bushido216]

BTW, you forgot Eve. Why name here "Hearth"? How about Betsy? Again, syllables that, in Hebrew, do not mean any word.

I always thought Cecelia, Holly, and Sierra were nice names.

 

[lucaspa]

I always thought Cecelia, Holly, and Sierra were nice names.

Yeah, they are. BTW, how do we get out of the bold that Ark Guy put us all into? How did he do that?

 

[Bushido216]

I'm not sure that it's him specifically rather than a bug in the forum code. This happened to me once in the Politics forum.