YEC's Unite Continued

[L'Anatra]

L'Anatra, I wasn't giving Romans as scripture of fornication. That was for another point altogether, mhess13 also likes Romans 1:20 as well, that is why I brought it up to him. It and the verses before it and after it is a wonderful revelation for understanding.

Oh, I am sorry for the misunderstanding, then.

Ok, some more questions:

Do TE's believe that science has ever been wrong in its methods?
Man created the scientific methods and rational behind it, do you believe that man and what man creates is infallible?
Do TE's believe God is infallible?

"Has science ever been wrong in its methods?" Hmm... well, modern science has only existed for a few hundred years. The scientific method is a particularly sound manner in which to gain useful knowledge about the natural world. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have modern technology. Of course man and what he creates are fallible, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions we draw from our own observation of the Creation are false.

God is, of course, infallible. But as I said, (and as you know) we men are not. This is why science can not prove anything for certain. We simply can not take into account all the variables in the universe.

However, if a scientific theory (which, in contrast with the common notion of "theory," is a very highly-regarded construct in science... it has stood the test of falsification many times) continues to prosper within mainstream science for decades it is because it is particularly sound. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most sound constructs in modern science.

Let me reiterate that any extant debate over the Theory of Evolution itself has to do with the precise mechanisms that govern evolution as a natural process. There really is no doubt that evolution occurs. Just like there is no doubt that the Earth is roughly spherical in shape, or that it revolves around the Sun.

 

[mhess13]

Yeah, I understand what you meant by "scoffer," and that's why I was perhaps offended.

In any case, I was asking particularly about scriptural evidence indicating Christ's speaking against fornication (of course he did, but I'm interested in homosexuality specifically). I simply thought that it may help further the discussion if you posted some specific verses. I'm not asking for a Bible study.

GodSaves brought up Romans 1:20 and it's surrounding verses. The word fornication (porneia) can not be found, however, in the original Greek in Romans 1 (specifically verse 29), but it was added to the Latin Vulgate and can be found in the KJV translation. It is possible there are other portions of that chapter that can be read as mentioning homosexuality, perhaps Romans 1:27...

During His earthly ministry Christ did not specifically mention homosexuality. But it is fornication, so He didn't need to. Everyone understood that fornication was any sex outside of marriage. (again marriage being 1 man + 1 woman)
Here is Thayer's definition of fornication:
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4203
Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

Christ said this in Revelation:
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

Whoremonger means:
G4205
πόρνος
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from pernemi (to sell, akin to the base of G4097)
Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

Paul spoke of Homosexuality:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Effeminate means:G3120
μαλακός
malakos
Thayer Definition:
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaphorically in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of uncertain affinity

So anyway, there's a few verses w/definitions. It's a shame I had to spend 15 minutes preparing this. A basic straight forward reading of the Bible is plenty enough to prove that homosexuality is WRONG.
It's sad that this is even up for debate or discussion on a Christian forum. Shows what sad shape the church is in...

 

[mhess13]

You're a nitwit. Back up what you have to say or turn off your P.C.. You're not Big Man on Campus because you ignore everyone.

Grow up guy

 

[Underdog77]

you also assume that no helium escapes earth's gravity in the troposphere and moves to the upper levels of the atmosphere, so measuring the concentraiton of helium at sea level would give you a falsely low reading.

That's part of assuming there were no extractions of Helium.

But you see, your proving my point. These types of assumptions can be wrong and lead to false dates. The same goes for the assumptions made by scientists who date things and say the earth is millions and millions of years old. Depending on how old you want an object to be will affect the assumptions you make. Therefore, since many scientists who go to date things are thinking evolution and are possibly looking for evidence for evolution, many times they will make assumptions that will change the calculations that favor an old earth (and the old earth aids the evolutionary theory because it provides the necessary amount of time).

These findings are not reliable. They cannot be used as evidence for either view; Old Earth or Young Earth. Does anyone disagree with this? Can anyone see how fallible the dating methods are and still use them as evidence?

 

[Underdog77]

When a model doesn't work, it is a good sign that at least one of the assumptions is faulty.

When a model doesn't work...with what? Your preconceived ideas? Are you telling me that because something doesn't fit with your beliefs it must be false?

Does anyone else see this as ironic? Here am I proclaiming the Bible and people shoot me down saying "Well because the Bible doesn't fit with science we must change it's meaning or interpret it another way" and then someone else turns around and goes "Well because something (supposedly scientific) doesn't with my ideas it must be wrong or changed". Its almost funny how people will turn a blind eye to methods that were supposed to work for them and then didn't. And now they say because it didn't work the way they wanted it to its wrong. That's holding on to YOUR beliefs too tightly.

 

[GodSaves]

I am just curious if science has changed its mind about something I found.
Francis Crick, the biologist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, determined that the four billion years evolutionists have determined was available for evolution was not enough time for life to arise out of a primordial soup.

Here is a nice quote I found.

"If evolution is in such a state, then why do so many people cling to it? As it turns out, the argument is not really between creation and science. The argument is on a philosophical level. Rationalistic thinking rules out the supernatural and looks for other explanations than the work of an all wise Creator, who left His imprint in a designed creation. Should the theory of rationalistic, fallible man mold our thinking, or ought we to acknowlege the God, who is our Sovereign Creator, and believe His Word?"

God Bless

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Elaborate please.

 

[GodSaves]

Well has science now changed its mind that this Nobel Prize winner for discovering DNA is wrong. That 4 billion so years was enough for life to arise out of the primordial soup?


EDIT: I mean science cannot come and say that the biologist is not qualified, as I have seen some say about other scientists. And Francis is a capable and well knowledgable scientists on life, I mean he did get the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA.

God Bless

 

[Underdog77]

If I was to go into the Bible with the mind of a child and read I would within its first two chapters find to contradictory stories of creation. This is indeed what I have done on numerous occasions. Additionally I'd like to point out that the canonical portion of the Bible was not decided on by God, but by fallen men (not that the Holy Spirit didn't guide them). So, indeed, the Bible hasn't exactly been unchanged for thousands of years.

Well, sure; everybody's human. Still, the scientific community itself corrects these issues. Perhaps a scientist can expound on this...

It isn't the evidence for a theory that's important so much as the evidence that falsifies it. The Earth is not "young."

I would recommend that you actually go read what evolution actually is. You continue to discuss "evolutionary" thought processes. I contend that they do not exist. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the cosmos, the age of the Earth, or the origin of life. Besides, we uneducated people really aren't qualified to think differently about the numerous tenets of modern science.

That's silly. Either way, being that the Theory of Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, it stands to reason that scientists will go into their field with the idea that the theory is useful. Facts don't have an "evolution label."

Nothing is being squeezed into the Bible. It is not a science book!

Take it as it is... why wouldn't I? I will not, however, take it as whatever you think it is.

I don't know how to do that split-the-quote thingy yet, so bear with me as I number my response according to your paragraphs.

1) a) I would LOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEE to hear these contradictions. I have probably heard of them before, but who knows, maybe its something new. b) You also suggest here that God could not or did not make sure that whatever He wanted the Bible to be, came to be. You also doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us humans. Why, if it were not for the calling of the Holy Spirit, we could never choose Christ as our Saviour. And now you doubt His (the Holy Spirit) ability to guide humans in acknowledging God's Word? Do you truly believe that the Holy Spirit could not have given men wisdom enough to distinguish between the Holy Scirptures and the writings of heretics as well as just other non-divine writings. You allow skeptics, athiest, as well as believers to twist, chop, and distort the Bible when you allow its authority to be questioned and this leads to relativism and the philosophies of fallen men.

2) Who makes up the scientific community, primarlily anyways? SCIENTISTS! The people who we are doubting you are trying to bring in to 'clear things up'! We shouldn't ask the scientists "Are you telling me the truth?...You are, oh OK." They aren't going to say "Well I wasn't going to mention it but what I was saying was based mostly on my opnion. It very well may be wrong because I had to make some guess to come up with this stuff." NO WAY! We have to look over their shoulder every now and then and make sure their aren't feeding us lies, falsified facts, or stuff they think is right just because they believe it. That's one thing that makes the debate on this topic so hard, not only is there no definate way to prove either side, but we have to cut through a lot of junk given by scientists from both sides of the arguement. The 'facts' may not be facts. Some 'evidences' may just be brainwashing statements labeled as facts. Therefore, on a lot of matters we have to do research ourselves to make sure we aren't fooled. We can't always just take a scientist's (or even many scientists) word on it and we must make sure it isn't the product of their opnion.

3) Abosolutely correct. Instead of proving a young earth in my future thread (although I will give some data on it), I will show geological and other such scientific data that will undoubtedly render the possibility of an old earth impossible. But again, I have never seen anything that disproves a young earth.

4) You only shoot yourself in the foot when you make such statement. The age of the earth and evolution are totally related. The age of the earth can stand alone without evolution but evolution is absolutely dependent on the age of the earth (otherwise I wouldn't be debating the age of the earth, rather I would setting something else as my target). If the earth isn't millions+ years old, then evolution could NEVER happen. Notice my emphesis on never. It just couldn't. It would be like proving to Christians that Jesus never lived. Our beliefe would then become impossible and we would look even more foolish to the world. Evolution's biggest need is time, any evolutionist would agree.

Also (still on paragraph four), are you saying that because we don't PhD's or Master's that we can't determine lies from truth? I think you underestimate yourself. If we can't think for ourselves then we shouldn't even be debating this because as far as 'science' is concerned, its a done dea, evolution is truth. But the fact is we can think for ourselves. Not only scientifically but also logically. We are able to deduce and figure things out for ourselves, to some extent of course.

5) That's untrue. Are going to tell me that the study of life could not exist without evolution? Funny, 'cause it did before. Evolution does concern how life operates but instead (again, supposedly) how life came into being. That's natural history, not Biology. And are you going to tell me that the fact of natural selection isn't not connected to evolution (it shouldn't, but it is)? Whenever someone hears natural selection, what do they think of?

6) It isn't a science book. But it is a book of truth. And if something doesn't fit with divinely inspired truth, then I suggest that we question its (the facts, belief, etc...) validity. If the Bible isn't a book of truth then I suggest we don't look to it for help.

7) The problem is you don't take it as it is. You twist the words to mean what you want them to mean. And that's heresy.

 

[L'Anatra]

During His earthly ministry Christ did not specifically mention homosexuality. But it is fornication, so He didn't need to. Everyone understood that fornication was any sex outside of marriage. (again marriage being 1 man + 1 woman)
Here is Thayer's definition of fornication:
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4203
Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

Christ said this in Revelation:
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

Whoremonger means:
G4205
πόρνος
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from pernemi (to sell, akin to the base of G4097)
Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

Paul spoke of Homosexuality:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Effeminate means:G3120
μαλακός
malakos
Thayer Definition:
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaphorically in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of uncertain affinity

So anyway, there's a few verses w/definitions. It's a shame I had to spend 15 minutes preparing this. A basic straight forward reading of the Bible is plenty enough to prove that homosexuality is WRONG.
It's sad that this is even up for debate or discussion on a Christian forum. Shows what sad shape the church is in...

Well... thank you, I guess. Honestly, I have spent time over the last several years studying those same words and taking into account their definitions in Strong's Concordance. Not to mention studying the Greek language itself. You do know, by the way, that it is particularly dangerous to take individual verses out of their context?

By the way, I find it sad that you come in here wondering why people discuss these topics which you think are so easily explained away with your supposed "basic straight-forward reading of the Bible" and then pretending those who may disagree with you don't have a clue.

 

[GodSaves]

Can we each try to stray from any personal attacks or judgements? We all make mistakes, that is a given, but lets all try to keep from these in this thread. I am not outside this either, and I will try too. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ lets try and act like it. This isn't to anyone but everyone. (me too, pointing finger at myself) =)

God Bless

 

[L'Anatra]

I don't know how to do that split-the-quote thingy yet, so bear with me as I number my response according to your paragraphs.

Use quote tags. At the end of the paragraph you want to quote, type [ / Q U O T E ] without the spaces. To start a new quote, type [ Q U O T E ] without the spaces.

1) a) I would LOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEE to hear these contradictions. I have probably heard of them before, but who knows, maybe its something new.

You probably have. Genesis 1 and 2 are separate and contradictory stories of creation. You probably feel otherwise.

b) You also suggest here that God could not or did not make sure that whatever He wanted the Bible to be, came to be. You also doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us humans. Why, if it were not for the calling of the Holy Spirit, we could never choose Christ as our Saviour. And now you doubt His (the Holy Spirit) ability to guide humans in acknowledging God's Word?

I don't doubt His ability at all. I just know different Churches claim different Books as being canonical. How do I decide which ones have been chosen by the Holy Spirit and which ones haven't? For example, the Book of Enoch were considered canonical by the Ethopic Church for hundreds of years. How do I know they were wrong in doing so?

I'm not saying that I believe that Book is inspired by God, but it is certainly interesting. It's writings are referenced in the Bible numerous times.

Do you truly believe that the Holy Spirit could not have given men wisdom enough to distinguish between the Holy Scirptures and the writings of heretics as well as just other non-divine writings.

Of course not.

You allow skeptics, athiest, as well as believers to twist, chop, and distort the Bible when you allow its authority to be questioned and this leads to relativism and the philosophies of fallen men.

Wrong. In actuality people are only able to question the interpretation of a literalist such as yourself. Skeptics aren't able to question the theological messages in the Bible, but they can absolutely question the factual claims. When they do, it throws you literalists into a frenzy...

2) Who makes up the scientific community, primarlily anyways? SCIENTISTS! The people who we are doubting you are trying to bring in to 'clear things up'! We shouldn't ask the scientists "Are you telling me the truth?...You are, oh OK." They aren't going to say "Well I wasn't going to mention it but what I was saying was based mostly on my opnion. It very well may be wrong because I had to make some guess to come up with this stuff." NO WAY! We have to look over their shoulder every now and then and make sure their aren't feeding us lies, falsified facts, or stuff they think is right just because they believe it. That's one thing that makes the debate on this topic so hard, not only is there no definate way to prove either side, but we have to cut through a lot of junk given by scientists from both sides of the arguement. The 'facts' may not be facts. Some 'evidences' may just be brainwashing statements labeled as facts. Therefore, on a lot of matters we have to do research ourselves to make sure we aren't fooled. We can't always just take a scientist's (or even many scientists) word on it and we must make sure it isn't the product of their opnion.

Okay, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist. That's what I should call you from now on. The scientific community is huge. Other scientists who are actually qualified to question the veracity of these supposed false conclusions will do so. Hoaxes and lies will be uncovered. The Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and the evidence for an old Earth are not hoaxes or lies.

3) Abosolutely correct. Instead of proving a young earth in my future thread (although I will give some data on it), I will show geological and other such scientific data that will undoubtedly render the possibility of an old earth impossible. But again, I have never seen anything that disproves a young earth.

Any one specimen that is older than 6,000 years old disproves a young Earth. Sorry. You may even be able to find one somewhere close by...

4) You only shoot yourself in the foot when you make such statement. The age of the earth and evolution are totally related. The age of the earth can stand alone without evolution but evolution is absolutely dependent on the age of the earth (otherwise I wouldn't be debating the age of the earth, rather I would setting something else as my target). If the earth isn't millions+ years old, then evolution could NEVER happen. Notice my emphesis on never. It just couldn't. It would be like proving to Christians that Jesus never lived. Our beliefe would then become impossible and we would look even more foolish to the world. Evolution's biggest need is time, any evolutionist would agree.

You're correct. Except that the age of the Earth was determined to be at least in the millions of years before the Theory of Evolution was even proposed.

Also (still on paragraph four), are you saying that because we don't PhD's or Master's that we can't determine lies from truth? I think you underestimate yourself. If we can't think for ourselves then we shouldn't even be debating this because as far as 'science' is concerned, its a done dea, evolution is truth. But the fact is we can think for ourselves. Not only scientifically but also logically. We are able to deduce and figure things out for ourselves, to some extent of course.

I'm not saying that we can't think for ourselves. I'm saying that we don't have the experience to think for ourselves and actually come up with meaningful conclusions. You're right, evolution is truth. It is a fact.

5) That's untrue. Are going to tell me that the study of life could not exist without evolution? Funny, 'cause it did before. Evolution does concern how life operates but instead (again, supposedly) how life came into being. That's natural history, not Biology.

No, it concerns itself with how species, not life, came into being. That is biology, without a doubt.

And are you going to tell me that the fact of natural selection isn't not connected to evolution (it shouldn't, but it is)? Whenever someone hears natural selection, what do they think of?

Can you reword that? I see a triple-negative in that first statement and it's kind of throwing me off. No offense.

When I think of natural selection, I think of populations of species and the environment they inhabit. If a species is not capable of inhabiting its environment it will become extinct. If, however, it develops adaptations to cope with its environment, it will be more successful.

6) It isn't a science book. But it is a book of truth. And if something doesn't fit with divinely inspired truth, then I suggest that we question its (the facts, belief, etc...) validity. If the Bible isn't a book of truth then I suggest we don't look to it for help.

Truth does not always mean fact. How many times must this be reiterated?

7) The problem is you don't take it as it is. You twist the words to mean what you want them to mean. And that's heresy.

Everyone twists the words to what they want them to mean. Including you. Don't call me a heretic because I refuse to assent to your literalist theology.

You are not God. You do not know what he meant. And you continue to put words into His "mouth," just as you say we TEs do.

Christ teaches humility. Why don't you open your Bible and read about that?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Well has science now changed its mind that this Nobel Prize winner for discovering DNA is wrong. That 4 billion so years was enough for life to arise out of the primordial soup?


EDIT: I mean science cannot come and say that the biologist is not qualified, as I have seen some say about other scientists. And Francis is a capable and well knowledgable scientists on life, I mean he did get the Nobel Prize for discovering DNA.

God Bless

I meant elaborate Crick's argument. I don't know if he is being quoted correctly or not.

 

[L'Anatra]

Can we each try to stray from any personal attacks or judgements? We all make mistakes, that is a given, but lets all try to keep from these in this thread. I am not outside this either, and I will try too. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ lets try and act like it. This isn't to anyone but everyone. (me too, pointing finger at myself) =)

God Bless

I agree. As I've mentioned before in this forum, I can be a bit sarcastic... I will definitely try and refrain from making personal attacks.

 

[GodSaves]

In Francis Crick's book 'Life Itself' he is quoted saying this:
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

Incredibly, Crick concludes that the first living organisms on earth may have been "seeded" in our oceans by intelligent beings from another planet!

Now, I know one of the reasons why we must find water on mars, so we can say life came from mars orginally from aliens. Gotta love science.

God Bless

EDIT: check this out http://www.burlingtonnews.net/earthseed.html

 

[GodSaves]

Hey L'Anatra, I saw that you talked about the possible gap between Genesis chpt 1 and chpt 2. I just wondered if you have read Genesis 2 in the light that it could be a summary of Genesis 1, but more in depth?

I know you believe God is infallible, so of course He isn't a liar, or one to try and confuse us so we cannot find the way. Check out Genesis 2:1-6

Genesis 2:1-6
"Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

Notice the part where it says in the first sentence it was finished. What was finished? The heavens and the earth, and all the host of them. Host refers to the innumberable abundance of creatures in heaven and earth.

Notice this verse "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." Doesn't this sound like an explanation that what precedes is the history? Sounds like what follows is a summary of the creation of the heavens and earth.

I am not trying to convince you, just wondered if you could look at it and see this. Maybe you will dismiss it, that is fine, just wanted to point to this.

I will have more later, gotta go eat dinner now, wife is calling. =)

God Bless

 

[Bushido216]

Grow up guy

I'm resisting the urge to say things that would have me banned.

 

[Bushido216]

Hey L'Anatra, I saw that you talked about the possible gap between Genesis chpt 1 and chpt 2. I just wondered if you have read Genesis 2 in the light that it could be a summary of Genesis 1, but more in depth?

I know you believe God is infallible, so of course He isn't a liar, or one to try and confuse us so we cannot find the way. Check out Genesis 2:1-6

You're right. Too bad He didn't write the Bible for us.

 

[L'Anatra]

Hey L'Anatra, I saw that you talked about the possible gap between Genesis chpt 1 and chpt 2. I just wondered if you have read Genesis 2 in the light that it could be a summary of Genesis 1, but more in depth?

I know you believe God is infallible, so of course He isn't a liar, or one to try and confuse us so we cannot find the way. Check out Genesis 2:1-6

Genesis 2:1-6
"Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

Notice the part where it says in the first sentence it was finished. What was finished? The heavens and the earth, and all the host of them. Host refers to the innumberable abundance of creatures in heaven and earth.

Notice this verse "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." Doesn't this sound like an explanation that what precedes is the history? Sounds like what follows is a summary of the creation of the heavens and earth.

I am not trying to convince you, just wondered if you could look at it and see this. Maybe you will dismiss it, that is fine, just wanted to point to this.

I will have more later, gotta go eat dinner now, wife is calling. =)

God Bless

I won't dismiss it... the best part about literature is the varying interpretations that can come from different people reading the same words.

But I'm actually talking about the verses after Genesis 2:4. The order of creation is completely different. In Genesis 2, living creatures and plants were created after Adam but before Eve. Indeed, it says that God did not create plants until He created Adam because "there was no man to till the ground." It says that animals were created because "it is not good that man should be alone." This is simply a straight-forward, logical, and literal understanding.

Now, if I tried to understand the Bible this way, I'd become confused quickly. I trust that God is not trying to confuse me... so I therefore figure that I didn't read or understand the passage correctly.

To me, the order is irrelevant because Genesis 1-3 is not meant to be taken historically.

 

[L'Anatra]

I'm resisting the urge to say things that would have me banned.

Me too.

I've had to bite my tongue (read fingers) at least 15 times (by my count) over the last few days when I felt like responding to mhess's posts.