Cain's journey

[erawdrah]

I believe this verse says that Adam was the first man ever on earth.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The first man was Adam, and the last(second) Adam was Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Now I take this to mean, as in Genesis 2: 7, that the man Adam was given a living soul. This, in my eyes, does not make the man Adam stand out as the chronological first man; it means with the creation of Adam (the individual) breathes a soul into mankind.

Let's read Gen 2:7 keeping in mind this is a recap of Gen 1,
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse says God formed man of the dust of the ground - This is how he created man
then He breathed into him the breath of life; - God breathed life into man
and man became a living soul. - Man was given a spirit more than a group of cells working together to survive.

Next, Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God put that man in the Garden of Eden. Then God made the woman

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
If Adam was not the first man or the first human, why would God think Adam needed a mate? He created that mate out of Adam. Talk about incest. If Adam was not the first man, then there would be people who were not under the sin curse that Adam and Eve brought onto mankind. We are born in sin, from day one we are under the curse of sin. If people were on the earth before Adam, that would mean that not everyone was subject the wages of sin. This would make God a liar. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[DannyM]

Let's read Gen 2:7 keeping in mind this is a recap of Gen 1,;

What makes you think it is a "recap" of Genesis 1? Genesis 1 is not a pre-run. Genesis 1 simply says "let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Why do you think Genesis 2 is some sort of re-cap on Genesis 1?

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse says God formed man of the dust of the ground - This is how he created man
then He breathed into him the breath of life; - God breathed life into man
and man became a living soul. - Man was given a spirit more than a group of cells working together to survive.;

Yes, and this is Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. There is perfectly plausibly an already existent creation. It does not go against anything to suggest this. You are taking things far too literally, in my opinion. Although that would surely then follow that you'd recognise that Genesis 1 comes before Genesis 2

Next, Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God put that man in the Garden of Eden. Then God made the woman;

Again, this is where Adam the individual is acknowledged as the living soul.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
If Adam was not the first man or the first human, why would God think Adam needed a mate? He created that mate out of Adam. Talk about incest. If Adam was not the first man, then there would be people who were not under the sin curse that Adam and Eve brought onto mankind. We are born in sin, from day one we are under the curse of sin. If people were on the earth before Adam, that would mean that not everyone was subject the wages of sin. This would make God a liar. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Eve coming out of Adam does not suggest incest at all. How can it when it is God who is doing the making? It was not sin that Adam "gave" to mankind, it was the gates to sin which were opened that made sin a *possibility* for mankind. Man didn't automatically become sinful, although barring Jesus it would've been pretty difficult *not* to sin. None of what you have told me or that I have told you makes God a liar? How can God be a liar? Can God *do* logical contradictions? Not in my eyes, he can't.

[erawdrah]

Let's read Gen 2:7 keeping in mind this is a recap of Gen 1,;

What makes you think it is a "recap" of Genesis 1? Genesis 1 is not a pre-run. Genesis 1 simply says "let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Why do you think Genesis 2 is some sort of re-cap on Genesis 1?

Maybe a better way to say it is Gen 2 is more detailed description of Gen 1. Gen 1 says God made all creatures and man. Gen 2 says How God made all creatures and man.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 1:26-28
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen 1:20-25

So did God create all the creatures again? What you are saying implies that God made everything including man, then came back and created Adam the first human with a soul. 2:19, according to your view, means God created all of the creatures again. This is simply a more detailed description of how God made man and creatures.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse says God formed man of the dust of the ground - This is how he created man
then He breathed into him the breath of life; - God breathed life into man
and man became a living soul. - Man was given a spirit more than a group of cells working together to survive.;

Yes, and this is Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. There is perfectly plausibly an already existent creation. It does not go against anything to suggest this. You are taking things far too literally, in my opinion. Although that would surely then follow that you'd recognise that Genesis 1 comes before Genesis 2

Yes I do read the Bible literally

Next, Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God put that man in the Garden of Eden. Then God made the woman;

Again, this is where Adam the individual is acknowledged as the living soul.

Yes, and the father of all mankind. Also consider that in order for man to be made in the image of God, he had to have 3 components since God speaks of the three components of God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. So man had to be made with 3 components too. The body, the mind, and the soul (spirit). This reflects God's image. To say there were people before Adam is wrong in my opinion, and if there were people before Adam then they would have a soul (spirit) too.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
If Adam was not the first man or the first human, why would God think Adam needed a mate? He created that mate out of Adam. Talk about incest. If Adam was not the first man, then there would be people who were not under the sin curse that Adam and Eve brought onto mankind. We are born in sin, from day one we are under the curse of sin. If people were on the earth before Adam, that would mean that not everyone was subject the wages of sin. This would make God a liar. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Eve coming out of Adam does not suggest incest at all. How can it when it is God who is doing the making? It was not sin that Adam "gave" to mankind, it was the gates to sin which were opened that made sin a *possibility* for mankind. Man didn't automatically become sinful, although barring Jesus it would've been pretty difficult *not* to sin. None of what you have told me or that I have told you makes God a liar? How can God be a liar? Can God *do* logical contradictions? Not in my eyes, he can't.

God did not "outlaw" incest until Lev. 18:6-18. Incest was outlawed after the flood. Adam and Eve were the originals. Let's think of a copier. When you copy the originals you get nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take one of the 1st reproductions and make copies of it. They too are nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take the copy of a copy and copy it. They are nice, not as crisp but still very clean copies. But when you get to the 10th copy of a copy, the copies are becoming very hard to read, smudged, blurry. This is exactly how incest works. The first copies are fine, especially pre flood copies. But after the flood man really started to decay, rapidly. The only way to keep this decay somewhat in check was to mix it up. If your grandparents have a genetic flaw and their children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw. Then if your parent's children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw even more. Then if the children's children had offspring, then the flaw would be enormous. The key to understanding incest, is that the human race (as well as everything else) is in a state of decay. The only way to keep the decay somewhat in check is to mix the genes. God gave His people many laws that protected them in life. For example, they were told not to eat pork (Deuteronomy 14:8), don't touch dead things (Leviticus 5:2), do not eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10). These laws in Leviticus 11 are to protect the people. If you don't cook pork all the way through you will get food poisoning, if shellfish aren't kept cold and clean you can get food poisoning, if you touch things that are dead you can get diseases. God even tells them how to clean up if they do touch something unclean, not only that but tells them the water they used to clean it is unclean too. There was a reason to outlaw incest as well as the rest of the things that were outlawed to His people.

[DannyM]

Let's read Gen 2:7 keeping in mind this is a recap of Gen 1,;

What makes you think it is a "recap" of Genesis 1? Genesis 1 is not a pre-run. Genesis 1 simply says "let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Why do you think Genesis 2 is some sort of re-cap on Genesis 1?

Maybe a better way to say it is Gen 2 is more detailed description of Gen 1. Gen 1 says God made all creatures and man. Gen 2 says How God made all creatures and man.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 1:26-28
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen 1:20-25

So did God create all the creatures again? What you are saying implies that God made everything including man, then came back and created Adam the first human with a soul. 2:19, according to your view, means God created all of the creatures again. This is simply a more detailed description of how God made man and creatures.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse says God formed man of the dust of the ground - This is how he created man
then He breathed into him the breath of life; - God breathed life into man
and man became a living soul. - Man was given a spirit more than a group of cells working together to survive.;

Yes, and this is Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. There is perfectly plausibly an already existent creation. It does not go against anything to suggest this. You are taking things far too literally, in my opinion. Although that would surely then follow that you'd recognise that Genesis 1 comes before Genesis 2

Yes I do read the Bible literally

Next, Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God put that man in the Garden of Eden. Then God made the woman;

Again, this is where Adam the individual is acknowledged as the living soul.

Yes, and the father of all mankind. Also consider that in order for man to be made in the image of God, he had to have 3 components since God speaks of the three components of God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. So man had to be made with 3 components too. The body, the mind, and the soul (spirit). This reflects God's image. To say there were people before Adam is wrong in my opinion, and if there were people before Adam then they would have a soul (spirit) too.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
If Adam was not the first man or the first human, why would God think Adam needed a mate? He created that mate out of Adam. Talk about incest. If Adam was not the first man, then there would be people who were not under the sin curse that Adam and Eve brought onto mankind. We are born in sin, from day one we are under the curse of sin. If people were on the earth before Adam, that would mean that not everyone was subject the wages of sin. This would make God a liar. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Eve coming out of Adam does not suggest incest at all. How can it when it is God who is doing the making? It was not sin that Adam "gave" to mankind, it was the gates to sin which were opened that made sin a *possibility* for mankind. Man didn't automatically become sinful, although barring Jesus it would've been pretty difficult *not* to sin. None of what you have told me or that I have told you makes God a liar? How can God be a liar? Can God *do* logical contradictions? Not in my eyes, he can't.

God did not "outlaw" incest until Lev. 18:6-18. Incest was outlawed after the flood. Adam and Eve were the originals. Let's think of a copier. When you copy the originals you get nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take one of the 1st reproductions and make copies of it. They too are nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take the copy of a copy and copy it. They are nice, not as crisp but still very clean copies. But when you get to the 10th copy of a copy, the copies are becoming very hard to read, smudged, blurry. This is exactly how incest works. The first copies are fine, especially pre flood copies. But after the flood man really started to decay, rapidly. The only way to keep this decay somewhat in check was to mix it up. If your grandparents have a genetic flaw and their children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw. Then if your parent's children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw even more. Then if the children's children had offspring, then the flaw would be enormous. The key to understanding incest, is that the human race (as well as everything else) is in a state of decay. The only way to keep the decay somewhat in check is to mix the genes. God gave His people many laws that protected them in life. For example, they were told not to eat pork (Deuteronomy 14:8), don't touch dead things (Leviticus 5:2), do not eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10). These laws in Leviticus 11 are to protect the people. If you don't cook pork all the way through you will get food poisoning, if shellfish aren't kept cold and clean you can get food poisoning, if you touch things that are dead you can get diseases. God even tells them how to clean up if they do touch something unclean, not only that but tells them the water they used to clean it is unclean too. There was a reason to outlaw incest as well as the rest of the things that were outlawed to His people.

I'm going away for a few days, Erawdrah, so I'll get back to this point when I have sufficient time to give it the proper attention it deserves.

Godbless

[DannyM]

Maybe a better way to say it is Gen 2 is more detailed description of Gen 1. Gen 1 says God made all creatures and man. Gen 2 says How God made all creatures and man.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 1:26-28
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen 1:20-25

So did God create all the creatures again? What you are saying implies that God made everything including man, then came back and created Adam the first human with a soul. 2:19, according to your view, means God created all of the creatures again. This is simply a more detailed description of how God made man and creatures.

No it is not. Both Genisis 1 and 2 are seperate. They were compiled by different individuals. There is no requirement to read Genesis as you are reading it. The accounts presuppose the existence of an already existent civilisation. Nowhere in the bible does it tell us that Adam the individual was the chronological first human being. The compilers were happy enough for us to see that there was an already existent society without explaining any further. I'll take their judgement without any equivacation.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse says God formed man of the dust of the ground - This is how he created man
then He breathed into him the breath of life; - God breathed life into man
and man became a living soul. - Man was given a spirit more than a group of cells working together to survive.;

So what do you make of Genesis 1?

Yes I do read the Bible literally

I think that's a real shame, as I believe we are not meant to read the bible literally. Just take a look at some of the gaping discrepencies; how do you read those literally? Surely you do not believe the sun and the moon came after the vegetation, like it would have you believe in Genesis 1 if you were to take it literally? This was a clear, humourous pot shot at the astrological cults of the time, demoting the heavens.

Next, Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God put that man in the Garden of Eden. Then God made the woman;

I quite agree. The man Adam and the woman Eve are treated especially. They are not said to be the first human beings. That's even if you wish to take Gen 2 as the creation of Adam and Eve the individuals, which isn't a given, as Adam the individual isn't expressly mentioned until Genesis 4.

Yes, and the father of all mankind. Also consider that in order for man to be made in the image of God, he had to have 3 components since God speaks of the three components of God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. So man had to be made with 3 components too. The body, the mind, and the soul (spirit). This reflects God's image. To say there were people before Adam is wrong in my opinion, and if there were people before Adam then they would have a soul (spirit) too.;

Not necessaarily. Man was given a living spirit, a breathing soul, but Genesis does not tell us that this was at the point of the creation of the man Adam - although it's perfectly possible that the man Adam's creation breathed life into the soul, spirit of an already existent creation.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
If Adam was not the first man or the first human, why would God think Adam needed a mate? He created that mate out of Adam. Talk about incest. If Adam was not the first man, then there would be people who were not under the sin curse that Adam and Eve brought onto mankind. We are born in sin, from day one we are under the curse of sin. If people were on the earth before Adam, that would mean that not everyone was subject the wages of sin. This would make God a liar. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Genesis 2 isn't necessarily about the man Adam. And if it is, there is already an existent civilisation outside of the garden.

God did not "outlaw" incest until Lev. 18:6-18. Incest was outlawed after the flood. Adam and Eve were the originals. Let's think of a copier. When you copy the originals you get nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take one of the 1st reproductions and make copies of it. They too are nice, crisp, clean copies. Now take the copy of a copy and copy it. They are nice, not as crisp but still very clean copies. But when you get to the 10th copy of a copy, the copies are becoming very hard to read, smudged, blurry. This is exactly how incest works. The first copies are fine, especially pre flood copies

I get your analogy but it doesn't really work when comparing it to the reality of incest. Since God created human beings, and therefore created DNA, and since there was an already existent creation before the man Adam and the woman Eve came on the scene, incest wasn't in the least bit necessary.

But after the flood man really started to decay, rapidly. The only way to keep this decay somewhat in check was to mix it up. If your grandparents have a genetic flaw and their children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw. Then if your parent's children produced offspring, then the offspring would enhance the flaw even more. Then if the children's children had offspring, then the flaw would be enormous. The key to understanding incest, is that the human race (as well as everything else) is in a state of decay. The only way to keep the decay somewhat in check is to mix the genes. God gave His people many laws that protected them in life. For example, they were told not to eat pork (Deuteronomy 14:8), don't touch dead things (Leviticus 5:2), do not eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10). These laws in Leviticus 11 are to protect the people. If you don't cook pork all the way through you will get food poisoning, if shellfish aren't kept cold and clean you can get food poisoning, if you touch things that are dead you can get diseases. God even tells them how to clean up if they do touch something unclean, not only that but tells them the water they used to clean it is unclean too. There was a reason to outlaw incest as well as the rest of the things that were outlawed to His people.

Man was also told not to eat animals, but man rebelled. After the flood God accepted that man in his heart was full of violence and evil, so accepted that man will eat meat, with conditions. And the offering from Abel prior to his slaughter by Cain was probably figurative and a nod to the age old meopotamian myths of the angst between the shepherd and the farmer.

Godbless

[Jac3510]

Both Genisis 1 and 2 are seperate. They were compiled by different individuals

Where on earth did you get that idea? Do you not believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses?

[erawdrah]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both describing the same creation. Gen 1 is an overview and Gen 2 is more detailed account of man. There was only one creation not two different creations. 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. This verse says "the first man Adam was made a living soul;" Adam was the first man and was made a living soul. Otherwise it would have said Adam was made a living soul and not mentioned that Adam was the first man. I am preparing a lengthy post for another thread where I am explaining the creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2, how people try to make the Bible fit science. We should be looking at the Bible first. I will post all of this in Questions on God's creation days. I find it fascinating all the ideas that are kicked around in the forums that don't have any Biblical roots. The way you're reading Gen 1 and Gen 2 says that God created again after he rested on the seventh day. You're saying God recreated all of the creatures again. I guess I'm assuming you are reading scripture that way to account for dinosaurs or geological time scale. Or something billions of years old. Stop, just read the Bible as it's written. Without any presupposed ideas about what is taught falsely in science as fact, then tell me if you read it the same. Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, It says "when they were created", Gen 2 is more detailed account of man and the rest of God's creation.

[DannyM]

Both Genisis 1 and 2 are seperate. They were compiled by different individuals

Where on earth did you get that idea? Do you not believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses?

Where on earth did I get that idea? Well I'll try to tell you: probably from one of my companions to the bible some years ago. The first creation account, if I remember correctly, was originally 1.1 to 2.4a, by the anonymous writer "P", in around the 6th century BCE. It is an account which draws on ancient mythology, metaphor, humour, and it glorifies in the greatness of God.

The second account, 2.4b to 2.25, is the older compiled account, and the author was known as the Yahwist or the Jarvist "J" because of his personalisation of God from the almost abstract Elohim to Yahweh. This account also draws on metaphor, humour et cetera. Evident also is mythical character when compared to other mythologies of the time. This is my opinion anyway.

I have a little question about Moses, as you mention him, which troubles me. I'll put this up soon.

Godbless

[DannyM]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both describing the same creation. Gen 1 is an overview and Gen 2 is more detailed account of man. There was only one creation not two different creations.

Obviously, but there are two different accounts of this creation. And the two accounts can also fit in with eachother and overlap eachother; they are two different individual's accounts of the same creation. What is it about this that you cannot see?

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. This verse says "the first man Adam was made a living soul;" Adam was the first man and was made a living soul. Otherwise it would have said Adam was made a living soul and not mentioned that Adam was the first man. I am preparing a lengthy post for another thread where I am explaining the creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2, how people try to make the Bible fit science..

For the record, I do not make the bible fit science in any way shape or form. I read the bible as i believe I am supposed to read it and which was intended by the compilers. In my opinion, if you read the bible literally, then you are in deep trouble on so many issues.

We should be looking at the Bible first. I will post all of this in Questions on God's creation days. I find it fascinating all the ideas that are kicked around in the forums that don't have any Biblical roots. The way you're reading Gen 1 and Gen 2 says that God created again after he rested on the seventh day. You're saying God recreated all of the creatures again..

What doesn't have any biblical roots? Be precise with me. I caqn give you 1 or 2 issues that you possibly believe that don't have any real biblical roots. I imagine you are trying to fit your tight remit, which is bound by your literal outlook, into such an open and wonderful book. This is the tradgedy.

I guess I'm assuming you are reading scripture that way to account for dinosaurs or geological time scale. Or something billions of years old. Stop, just read the Bible as it's written. Without any presupposed ideas about what is taught falsely in science as fact, then tell me if you read it the same. Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, It says "when they were created", Gen 2 is more detailed account of man and the rest of God's creation.

Again, do you not see the humour, the metaphors, the mythology? The compilers, in my view, would be astonished at this literal view you appear to be taking. Science has nothing to do with this. Is an opposition to your view automatically a scientific one?

I look forward to your forthcoming ideas.

Godbless

[erawdrah]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both describing the same creation. Gen 1 is an overview and Gen 2 is more detailed account of man. There was only one creation not two different creations.

Obviously, but there are two different accounts of this creation. And the two accounts can also fit in with eachother and overlap eachother; they are two different individual's accounts of the same creation. What is it about this that you cannot see?

Yes the first account is the chronology of creation and the second is as it pertains to man. But it is the same creation, not two different creations. And I don't see two different people writing those accounts. The Bible does use this method where the it states the summary then the following verses describe the preceding verses in more detail. This still clearly shows that Adam was the first man ever.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. This verse says "the first man Adam was made a living soul;" Adam was the first man and was made a living soul. Otherwise it would have said Adam was made a living soul and not mentioned that Adam was the first man. I am preparing a lengthy post for another thread where I am explaining the creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2, how people try to make the Bible fit science..

For the record, I do not make the bible fit science in any way shape or form. I read the bible as i believe I am supposed to read it and which was intended by the compilers. In my opinion, if you read the bible literally, then you are in deep trouble on so many issues.

Which issues?

We should be looking at the Bible first. I will post all of this in Questions on God's creation days. I find it fascinating all the ideas that are kicked around in the forums that don't have any Biblical roots. The way you're reading Gen 1 and Gen 2 says that God created again after he rested on the seventh day. You're saying God recreated all of the creatures again..

What doesn't have any biblical roots? Be precise with me. I caqn give you 1 or 2 issues that you possibly believe that don't have any real biblical roots. I imagine you are trying to fit your tight remit, which is bound by your literal outlook, into such an open and wonderful book. This is the tradgedy.

Age of the earth is billions of years. That there was people before Adam. That sin did not bring death into the world. Please let me know the issues that I might believe that don't have Biblical roots and I will honestly answer you. Maybe I will tell you one that I have been thinking about for a while that is very loosely based on the Bible. I might start a thread on it but I don't want to be someone's stumbling block either.

I guess I'm assuming you are reading scripture that way to account for dinosaurs or geological time scale. Or something billions of years old. Stop, just read the Bible as it's written. Without any presupposed ideas about what is taught falsely in science as fact, then tell me if you read it the same. Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, It says "when they were created", Gen 2 is more detailed account of man and the rest of God's creation.

Again, do you not see the humour, the metaphors, the mythology? The compilers, in my view, would be astonished at this literal view you appear to be taking. Science has nothing to do with this. Is an opposition to your view automatically a scientific one?

I don't believe that there's any mythology in the Bible. On this forum, most of the people who disagree with me are usually using scientific means to show me wrong. After all this forum is Evidence for God from Science. But I still claim you can't read Gen 1 and 2 then derive that creation took place of billions of years, nor that anybody existed before Adam. So if the Bible has myths in it. Which of the scriptures are myths and which are fact? I would be interested to hear what you think.

I look forward to your forthcoming ideas.

Godbless

Have a great day

[DannyM]

[Yes the first account is the chronology of creation and the second is as it pertains to man. But it is the same creation, not two different creations. And I don't see two different people writing those accounts. The Bible does use this method where the it states the summary then the following verses describe the preceding verses in more detail. This still clearly shows that Adam was the first man ever...

The traditional view is that Moses was responsible for the pentateuch and, while Moses may have had some input, it is now widely accepted among scholors that the pentateuch is an anonymous works. drawn and developed from traditions which pre-date, and mostly post-dates, the time of Moses. I stand by my view that the two sources I have mentioned above are responsible for Gen 1 and gen 2.

[Which issues?..

The very title of this thread, for one. The "talking snake" which i believe to be figurative. The demotion of the sun, moon and stars below the advent of vegetation. I could go on. But then again I could be wrong.

[Age of the earth is billions of years. That there was people before Adam. That sin did not bring death into the world. Please let me know the issues that I might believe that don't have Biblical roots and I will honestly answer you. Maybe I will tell you one that I have been thinking about for a while that is very loosely based on the Bible. I might start a thread on it but I don't want to be someone's stumbling block either...

I don't like to go down the root of the age of the earth. I believe in an old earth, but I feel some of the young earth theories on this are quite plausible. One issue that I'm not too convinced has biblical roots is "the fall" of man. I realise I'm going against a whole tide of opinion here, but, although sin came into the world through Adam's disobedience, God clearly knew this would happen, and even says, after admonishing the snake, Eve and Adam, "...there, man is now like us, knowing good from evil..." I'm paraphrasing a little.

I would never wish you to be a stumbling block.

[I don't believe that there's any mythology in the Bible. On this forum, most of the people who disagree with me are usually using scientific means to show me wrong. After all this forum is Evidence for God from Science. But I still claim you can't read Gen 1 and 2 then derive that creation took place of billions of years, nor that anybody existed before Adam. So if the Bible has myths in it. Which of the scriptures are myths and which are fact? I would be interested to hear what you think...

There is myth aplenty in Gen 1 through 11. When you compare creation to the Babylonian creation epic, where there was creation by seperation and so on. The Canaanites, where the god Baal, the great storm god, and the chaos monster, Yam ("the sea) fight a battle and Baal was victorious over the waters. When compared to the true creation, where God overcomes chaos and brings order, where he seperates the waters et cetera. The creation account wasn't meant to be a scientific description of how the universe came to be, that would be impossible and the compilers weren't so arrogant as to believe they could achieve such a feat. Hence they glorify the greatness of God.

The tree of life could also be alluding the the cult of mesoptamia and "the epic of Gilgamesh" where the hero Gilgamesh searches for the tree, seeking immortality; when he finds the tree, a serpent steals it from him.

There is much humour and myth in Genesis, which makes it even more astounding as a piece of pure poetry. The compilers had a witty, almost a black humour, and it suggests they were very happy and content and utterly confident in the belief of their one and only God.

Godbless

[Jac3510]

Danny,

If you don't believe that Moses wrote Gen 1-2, then what does any of this matter anyway? It obviously wasn't inspired, so if it wasn't inspired, then take it for what it says and conclude, along with most critical scholars, that there are errors in the text.

In any case, I'd strongly encourage you to reconsider the Documentary Hypothesis. It's absolutely absurd, as it's based on criteria that have been debunked a long time ago (i.e., that documents can be separated into sources based on which name of God is used).

[DannyM]

Danny,

If you don't believe that Moses wrote Gen 1-2, then what does any of this matter anyway? It obviously wasn't inspired, so if it wasn't inspired, then take it for what it says and conclude, along with most critical scholars, that there are errors in the text.

In any case, I'd strongly encourage you to reconsider the Documentary Hypothesis. It's absolutely absurd, as it's based on criteria that have been debunked a long time ago (i.e., that documents can be separated into sources based on which name of God is used).

It all matters, Jac. Genesis was absolutely inspired in my opinion. I am no scholar, but I, as a Christian, look at all views, and especially like to look at non-partisan views; not to be influenced, but to remain objective and healthy at all times. I have read many a (decent) scholar's work, and I believe I am perfectly able to distinguish between myth, legend and reality. I am certainly no shjrinking violet to the view of the biblical scholar. The scholors works I read are - I believe - fair and impartial. It is the duty of the Christian to be open not just to scripture but to impartial scrutiny. I can tell a scholar with an agenda.

I understand any base concern about the Documentary Hypothesis, but I respectfully feel you are going too far with your absolute dismisal: The D.H has certainly been vigorously contested, but "debunked"? Oh no, not thus far. It is still widely accepted among scholars - of which I feel we owe a great debt, for their often exhaustive commitment to the truth ( and I know a conspiracy theorist "scholar" from the real thing, I think... ).

But, to your real point, I *do* believe that Genesis was inspired and I do not see any error at all. Please pull me up on any issue you feel contradicts this point.

Godbless