Young earth creationism & 40000 year old frozen wolf

[coffee4u]

Genesis also talks about a flat earth. Is that something you believe in?

It actually doesn't. The flat earth group are yet another small group that want to take the straight forward reading of Genesis and turn it into a pretzel, except this group are twisting it the other way.

The straight forward reading of Genesis, the way a child would read it, is that God made everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Adam and Eve sinned due to Eve being deceived by the serpent. God tossed them out of the garden and the world was cursed. Some 600 years later God sent a world wide flood to wipe out mankind. Later the group of mankind descended from those on the ark built a tower and God then dispersed them giving them different languages.

There is nothing in the scripture about long ages, evolution, a flat world, surviving groups of people or local floods. These are all things people are taking and adding into the scriptures.

Matthew 18;3
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[JAL]

It actually doesn't. The flat earth group are yet another small group that want to take the straight forward reading of Genesis and turn it into a pretzel, except this group are twisting it the other way.

The straight forward reading of Genesis, the way a child would read it, is that God made everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Adam and Eve sinned due to Eve being deceived by the serpent. God tossed them out of the garden and the world was cursed. Some 600 years later God sent a world wide flood to wipe out mankind. Later the group of mankind descended from those on the ark built a tower and God then dispersed them giving them different languages.

There is nothing in the scripture about long ages, evolution, a flat world, surviving groups of people or local floods. These are all things people are taking and adding into the scriptures.

Matthew 18;3
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

All mankind came from Noah's little family group? I take it this involved quite a bit of incest?

And Adam's kids likewise were rife with incest?

Gross. Glad I wasn't a member of those groups.

 

[coffee4u]

All mankind came from Noah's little family group? I take it this involved quite a bit of incest?

And Adam's kids likewise were rife with incest?

Gross. Glad I wasn't a member of those groups.

There were four couples. Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife and Japheth and his wife.

Laws or the idea of incest came about in the time of Moses, before then incest wasn't 'a thing'. If you read about Abraham you will see his wife Sarah was his half-sister. That was the normal way of things at that time. When God gave the law to Moses he also put it upon their hearts that close family relationships were wrong. From then on it felt wrong and gross.
Leviticus 18:6 6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.
Some other verses give more detal.

And yes, Cain did marry his sister.

 

[JAL]

There were four couples. Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife and Japheth and his wife.

Laws or the idea of incest came about in the time of Moses, before then incest wasn't 'a thing'. If you read about Abraham you will see his wife Sarah was his half-sister. That was the normal way of things at that time. When God gave the law to Moses he also put it upon their hearts that close family relationships were wrong. From then on it felt wrong and gross.
Leviticus 18:6 6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.
Some other verses give more detal.

And yes, Cain did marry his sister.

Morality isn't dependent on the handwriting of Moses. Murder didn't become a sin when Moses wrote it down. It was already a sin. You haven't made a convincing defense of incest.

And terms such as 'sister' were used with liberality in Scripture so we don't know how distant a relative Sarah really was. Nor do we know whether God approved of Abraham's marriage to Sarah. All we know is that He TOLERATED it - and perhaps begrudgingly since He didn't allow her to have any natural children. That's hardly a stamp of approval upon an allegedly incestuous relationship. Since she was forced to rely on supernatural intervention to have a child, we cannot even assume that her eggs were used.

Sorry, I don't believe it. You're entitled to your incest-theory of biblical propagation, but you shouldn't be surprised that we reject your position.

 

[JAL]

And one more thing. Incest didn't become gross to me in virtue of Moses writing it down. I knew nothing about Moses when I hit puberty. If I may be so vulgar, I NEVER experienced arousal around my two sisters. That notion has always been gross to me even though my parents - nor anyone else - never had a formal conversation with me about incest.

I will admit that I had a distant cousin who, when she visited our family in my early stages of puberty, was fairly captivating. But my immediate cousins didn't have such an impact on me.

 

[kiwimac]

Not according to the Bible
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out.
Only Noah and his family survived so there were no cultures which happily survived as the water rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits above the highest point (approximately 22 feet or 7 meters) Genesis7:20
Not unless they were a family of mermaids.

There is no geographical proof of a world-wide flood. Plenty of purely regional floods but not one piece of proof for a world-wide flood.

 

[coffee4u]

Morality isn't dependent on the handwriting of Moses. Murder didn't become a sin when Moses wrote it down. It was already a sin. You haven't made a convincing defense of incest.

And terms such as 'sister' were used with liberality in Scripture so we don't know how distant a relative Sarah really was. Nor do we know whether God approved of Abraham's marriage to Sarah. All we know is that He TOLERATED it - and perhaps begrudgingly since He didn't allow her to have any natural children. That's hardly a stamp of approval upon an allegedly incestuous relationship. Since she was forced to rely on supernatural intervention to have a child, we cannot even assume that her eggs were used.

Sorry, I don't believe it. You're entitled to your incest-theory of biblical propagation, but you shouldn't be surprised that we reject your position.

Since Adam and Eve were the only people that God made, who do you think their son Cain married? It was his sister. God did not have an issue with it directly after creation.

 

[coffee4u]

There is no geographical proof of a world-wide flood. Plenty of purely regional floods but not one piece of proof for a world-wide flood.

The Bible says there was. That is all the proof I need.

 

[kiwimac]

The Bible says there was. That is all the proof I need.

As long as you continue to use the Bible as an historical text, you will be wrong.

 

[coffee4u]

As long as you continue to use the Bible as an historical text, you will be wrong.

That's your opinion.

 

[JAL]

Since Adam and Eve were the only people that God made, who do you think their son Cain married? It was his sister. God did not have an issue with it directly after creation.

I expressed my timescale at post 250. At some point I thought I mentioned Cain but can't remember where. In my understanding, Adam was the first 'man' in the sense of the first soul stamped with a conscience. Per the fossil record there were other humanoid races who, in my view, were essentially animals, regardless of their sentience, for lack of a conscience.

The only way to explain why God visits upon us the consequences of Adam's sin - and why we are sin-tainted from birth - is to regard our souls as a redistribution of his, each of our souls is a physical subsection of his (originally) dense soul. You are Adam. You sinned in the garden without remembering.

As part of this soul-redistribution, God, after the Fall, infused some of Adam's soul into the zygotes of these other races such that they began to produce real 'men' (people with a conscience). Cain acquired his wife from one of these tribes.

These are admittedly logical extrapolations but the bulk of that logic is incredibly solid since theologians have, for 2,000 years, utterly failed to convincingly explain why a supposedly infinitely fair, infinitely loving, kind,and merciful God, would visit upon us the consequences of Adam's sin.

And there is also a logical necessity whereby the notion of God creating the world in 7 24-hour periods leads to a logical contradiction. Maybe I'll cover that part later.

 

[JAL]

The straight forward reading of Genesis, the way a child would read it, is that God made everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh.

And what happens to the straightforward reading when the child asks, "Hey, where did the light come from given that the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day?"

Which was the topic of my post 250.

 

[coffee4u]

I expressed my timescale at post 250. At some point I thought I mentioned Cain but can't remember where. In my understanding, Adam was the first 'man' in the sense of the first soul stamped with a conscience. Per the fossil record there were other humanoid races who, in my view, were essentially animals, regardless of their sentience, for lack of a conscience.

The only way to explain why God visits upon us the consequences of Adam's sin - and why we are sin-tainted from birth - is to regard our souls as a redistribution of his, each of our souls is a physical subsection of his (originally) dense soul. You are Adam. You sinned in the garden without remembering.

As part of this soul-redistribution, God, after the Fall, infused some of Adam's soul into the zygotes of these other races such that they began to produce real 'men' (people with a conscience). Cain acquired his wife from one of these tribes.

These are admittedly logical extrapolations but the bulk of that logic is incredibly solid since theologians have, for 2,000 years, utterly failed to convincingly explain why a supposedly infinitely fair, infinitely loving, kind,and merciful God, would visit upon us the consequences of Adam's sin.

And there is also a logical necessity whereby the notion of God creating the world in 7 24-hour periods leads to a logical contradiction. Maybe I'll cover that part later.

None of that is from the Bible.

 

[JAL]

None of that is from the Bible.

Actually it is, because it resolves logical contradictions as to affirm, rather than to contradict, the truths of the Bible.

Any theology with logical contradictions is definitely NOT from the Bible, because the truth does not self-contradict. That's why I won't accept any traditional treatment of Adam.

Now if you can provide a theory of Adam, other than mine, that doesn't self-contradict, I'm happy to consider it. But good luck with that. All the theologians in the world have been failing for 2,000 years.

 

[coffee4u]

And what happens to the straightforward reading when the child asks, "Hey, where did the light come from given that the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day?"

Which was the topic of my post 250.

I would tell them good spotting that the light wasn't the sun, God made some kind of light source just for those days. Perhaps it came from himself, perhaps a temporary body, we don't know. God knows what it was and we can ask him when we see him.

A lot of people seem to have some issue with not knowing 'everything'. Nobody will ever know everything.
Since a lot of ancient people worshipped the sun I have always thought this might be why God did not create the sun first, to show it as being of less importance.

 

[coffee4u]

Actually it is, because it resolves logical contradictions as to affirm, rather than to contradict, the truths of the Bible.

Any theology with logical contradictions is definitely NOT from the Bible, because the truth does not self-contradict. That's why I won't accept any traditional treatment of Adam.

Now if you can provide a theory of Adam, other than mine, that doesn't self-contradict, I'm happy to consider it. But good luck with that. All the theologians in the world have been failing for 2,000 years.

I don't need a theory, the Bible speaks very plainly that Adam was made on day six from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from his rib. Eve is the mother of all the living. Sin entered the world from Adam's sin. We are their decendensts and inherited original sin and a body that dies.

our souls as a redistribution of his

Show me a scripture saying that.

 

[JAL]

I would tell them good spotting that the light wasn't the sun, God made some kind of light source just for those days. Perhaps it came from himself, perhaps a temporary body, we don't know. God knows what it was and we can ask him when we see him.

A lot of people seem to have some issue with not knowing 'everything'. Nobody will ever know everything.
Since a lot of ancient people worshipped the sun I have always thought this might be why God did not create the sun first, to show it as being of less importance.

But this is methodological hypocrisy. You point the finger of accusation at the non-literalists for refusing a straightforward reading, meanwhile you conveniently deviate from the straightforward reading whenever it suits you.

Methodological consistency would simply entail admitting that Genesis 1 is NOT in fact straightforward. As a result, we should find it understandable that others disagree with our interpretations, except where their views are plagued with blatant logical contradictions.

That's why I focus on the law of non-contradiction - it is the one-and-only somewhat-reliable arbiter of exegetical disputes.

 

[JAL]

I don't need a theory, the Bible speaks very plainly that Adam was made on day six from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from his rib. Eve is the mother of all the living. Sin entered the world from Adam's sin. We are their decendensts and inherited original sin and a body that dies.



Show me a scripture saying that.

Show me an alternative without logical contradiction. Sorry the burden of proof is on you.

Traditional theories of Adam contradict the concept of divine justice. Unacceptable.

 

[coffee4u]

But this is methodological hypocrisy. You point the finger of accusation at the non-literalists for refusing a straightforward reading, meanwhile you conveniently deviate from the straightforward reading whenever it suits you.

Methodological consistency would simply entail admitting that Genesis 1 is NOT in fact straightforward. As a result, we should find it understandable that others disagree with our interpretations, except where their views are plagued with blatant logical contradictions.

That's why I focus on the law of non-contradiction - it is the one-and-only somewhat-reliable arbiter of exegetical disputes.

No I am not, because I am not stating it as fact. I am saying maybe, possibly, as speculation. This is why I ended my sentence with 'we can't know' I only speculate because the Bible doesn't say what the light source was. As far as Genesis and the days of creation, it couldn't be plainer that it is 6 days. People come on these threads and start off on some non-scripual idea as if it were gospel.

 

[coffee4u]

Show me an alternative without logical contradiction. Sorry the burden of proof is on you.

Traditional theories of Adam contradict the concept of divine justice. Unacceptable.

What logical contradictions?