Where Did Humans Come From?

[BNR32FAN]

People often don't want to admit that we are animals, born like other animals and subject to the same kinds of needs for our bodies.

They wouldn’t have seen incest as being wrong since no one had ever told them it was wrong. We see it as being wrong today because that’s what we’ve been taught. Adam & Eve were never taught that it was wrong and neither were Noah and his family. Noah and his family would’ve seen it as being acceptable behavior because of knowing that their entire bloodline was a result of it and part of God’s plan.

As you know, the text itself says that it's not a literal history. It would be absurd to have literal mornings and evenings before the sun existed.

No that’s incorrect you just ignore the definition of morning & evening. Morning and evening are simply the transition from day to night and night to day. Everyone knows this, including you, but you ignore this fact because you refuse to admit that your wrong.

And nowhere in scripture does it say repeating a figurative verse will convert it to a literal one.

It speaks of mornings and evenings before there was a sun. Since that's absurd by definition, we know it's not literal days.

It also says that day and night existed before there was a sun which by your logic would be equally absurd. If day and night existed before the sun existed then it’s entirely plausible that morning and evening could also exist during the transitional phase between day & night and night & day. This is just common sense that you refuse to acknowledge because it refutes your theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

It also says that day and night existed before there was a sun which by your logic would be equally absurd.

Yes, that would be another reason we know that the "days" are figurative, as many early Christians knew. This is common sense, and refutes the notion that the days are literal ones.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where does the text say it’s not a literal history?

It doesn’t, he just refuses to acknowledge that the words morning and evening refer to the transitional period between day & night and night & day. That’s where he gets that whole idea from. He claims we can’t have morning and evening before the sun existed but by that logic we couldn’t have day and night before the sun existed either, but the scriptures specifically said that we did in fact have day and night. He’s basically trying to put a band-aide on the hole in his theory.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, that would be another reason we know that the "days" are figurative, as many early Christians knew. This is common sense, and refutes the notion that the days are literal ones.

You mean it’s the reason why you assume the days are figurative. If God placed a light near the planet and the planet revolved 1 rotation every 24 hours that would still give us day, evening, night, & morning.

 

[The Barbarian]

You mean it’s the reason why you assume the days are figurative. If God placed a light near the planet and the planet revolved 1 rotation every 24 hours that would still give us day, evening, night, & morning.

That's not what morning and evening mean. Even if you add a nonscriptural light in the sky, it's still not a sun. And morning is when the sun appears. And as you admitted, the account also says day and night before there was a sun to have them. Which also tells us that this is not a literal account.

You can always insert new things into the Bible to make your beliefs work, but it's still changing scripture to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

That would suggest that God was being reactive instead of proactive. What genetic defects are you referring to after the flood?

1. God "reacts" to Adam and Eve's sin - and shuts them out of the Garden.
God "Reacts" to the sin of the world and sends a flood.
God "reacts" to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroys them
God "reacts" to the situation of man after the flood and allows meat eating

2. Rates of harmful genetic mutation are measurable from generation to generation as we see today after the flood.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUTATION#:~:text=Harmful mutationsEdit. This is the case in hereditary,is given in the article DNA repair-deficiency disorder.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yeah .. well ...

The Protestant Reformation happened because it was needed and God set it in motion.

Matthew 6:9

9“Pray, then, in this way:
‘Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.

10‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.

11‘Give us this day our daily bread.

12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’

And He will accomplish His purposes. His will ... WILL be done, I have no doubt.

Until then ..... Sola Scriptura

We don’t know if it was set in motion by God or not. The reformation was certainly needed but they didn’t arrive at sound biblical doctrines. The reformation was a result of the evil and corruption in the Roman church at that time. There were several other Catholic Churches with sound theology that had no part in said evil and corruption. When Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD all of the other apostolic churches sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox setting themselves apart from Rome.

 

[BobRyan]

You mean it’s the reason why you assume the days are figurative. If God placed a light near the planet and the planet revolved 1 rotation every 24 hours that would still give us day, evening, night, & morning.

Exactly! Bringing a "nothing to see here" bias to what God says He did in the Bible - means ignoring anything in the Bible where it could only happen the way the Bible says it happened - if God did it as stated -- since (for example) it is "for dead sure" that plants did not arrive before the Sun and for sure - they did not arrive a million years before the Sun.

The "assumption" that God knows of no other way to provide a light source for the "evening and morning" effect on planet Earth on days 1-3 of creation week - - is a level of speculation that has never been proven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not what morning and evening mean. Even if you add a nonscriptural light in the sky, it's still not a sun. And morning is when the sun appears. And as you admitted, the account also says day and night before there was a sun to have them. Which also tells us that this is not a literal account.

You can always insert new things into the Bible to make your beliefs work, but it's still changing scripture to do so.

I see you decided not to show the definition of evening. What does your source say that the definition of evening is?

 

[BobRyan]

That's not what morning and evening mean. Even if you add a nonscriptural light in the sky, it's still not a sun.

Morning and evening with the sun created only on day 4 - was so easy and obvious that even the newly freed slaves at sinai knew it was days existing before the sun and moon just as the text says.

The literal nature of the account in Gen 1 is so glaringly obvious that basically all of the scholars in OT studies and Hebrew - in all world class university - apparently admit to - even though they themselves are atheist/agnostic.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[BNR32FAN]

Exactly! Bringing a "nothing to see here" bias to what God says He did in the Bible - means ignoring anything in the Bible where it could only happen if God did it since it is "for dead sure" that plants did not arrive before the Sun and for sure - they did not arrive a million years before the Sun.

The plants weren’t planted a million years before the sun was created. Genesis 2 shows that God didn’t not create fully grown plants but seeds. God planted the seeds then made the sun the very next day.

“The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭12‬-‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Morning and evening with the sun created only one day 4 - was so easy and obvious that even the newly freed slaves at sinai knew it was days existing before the sun and moon just as the text says.

The literal nature of the account in Gen 1 is so glaringly obvious that basically all of the scholars in OT studies and Hebrew - in all world class university - apparently admit to - even though they themselves are atheist/agnostic.

The text specifically states that there was morning and evening the first 3 days before the sun was created.

“God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“There was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BobRyan]

The plants weren’t planted a million years before the sun was created. Genesis 2 shows that God didn’t not create fully grown plants but seeds. God planted the seeds then made the sun the very next day.

Animals are eating the plants on day 5 and 6 -- so it was fairly "instantaneous". And of course as long as they have evening and morning on day 3 and 4 it is fine. In fact even if they didn't have it - a fully grown plant could survive 1 or 2 days without light.

 

[BobRyan]

The text specifically states that there was morning and evening the first 3 days before the sun was created.

agreed.

“God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“There was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

yes that is what I accept as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Morning and evening with the sun created only one day 4 - was so easy and obvious that even the newly freed slaves at sinai knew it was days existing before the sun and moon just as the text says.

The literal nature of the account in Gen 1 is so glaringly obvious that basically all of the scholars in OT studies and Hebrew - in all world class university - apparently admit to - even though they themselves are atheist/agnostic.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

I believe you have a typo in the first paragraph brother. You typed “one” I think you meant to type “on”.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you have to go through all those contortions to make scripture do it your way, why not just let it be God's way?

 

[BobRyan]

“The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. ‬‬

IT looks like the plants are yielding seed - and not like the seed is giving rise to plants from the Gen 1 description -- which is another reason it looks like instant creation of plants to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see you decided not to show the definition of evening. What does your source say that the definition of evening is?

Evening is when the sun disappears. That's in Hebrew as well as in English. Thought you knew.

 

[BobRyan]

If you have to go through all those contortions to make scripture do it your way, why not just let it be God's way?

Why not just accept it as it reads ... instead of cramming evolution into it?

Ex 20:11 makes it 7 literal days and so does Gen 1-2:3

 

[BNR32FAN]

Animals are eating the plants on day 5 and 6 -- so it was fairly "instantaneous". And of course as long as they have evening and morning on day 3 and 4 it is fine. In fact even if they didn't have it - a fully grown plant could survive 1 or 2 days without light.

I guess that is a possibility I just think that Genesis 2:5 implies that on the third day God did not create fully grown plants. So I believe you are correct and God accelerated the growth of the plants.

“Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬