Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:Genesis 1:27 tells us that that God created mankind in His image on Day 6. The "adam" of Genesis 1 is small 'a' adam denoting mankind in general.When looking at the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the question at hand is are Genesis 1 and 2 synoptic or sequential?If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then the Scriptural text would indicate that mankind in general was created on "day 6" in Genesis 1 and then at some later time a specific man, Adam, was placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of day 6 in Genesis 1 instead of a sequel to Genesis 1 is a function of interpretation and tradition as opposed to something that is explicitly stated in the text.

I have never considered this idea of yours. I'll look into it and get back to you.

DBowling wrote:So what does the Bible say about this?I believe that the Bible says that God created mankind in his image on "day 6" in Genesis 1, and then at some point after "day 7" he took a specific man Adam and placed him in the Garden in Genesis 2:8.

The Bible says nothing about God taking Adam and placing him in the Garden on day 7. This appears to be a parasitic belief of yours. Get rid of this idea before you build a whole theology around it.

Stick to what the Bible says.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DBowling wrote:Genesis 1:27 tells us that that God created mankind in His image on Day 6. The "adam" of Genesis 1 is small 'a' adam denoting mankind in general.When looking at the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the question at hand is are Genesis 1 and 2 synoptic or sequential?If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then the Scriptural text would indicate that mankind in general was created on "day 6" in Genesis 1 and then at some later time a specific man, Adam, was placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of day 6 in Genesis 1 instead of a sequel to Genesis 1 is a function of interpretation and tradition as opposed to something that is explicitly stated in the text.

I have never considered this idea of yours. I'll look into it and get back to you.

DBowling wrote:So what does the Bible say about this?I believe that the Bible says that God created mankind in his image on "day 6" in Genesis 1, and then at some point after "day 7" he took a specific man Adam and placed him in the Garden in Genesis 2:8.

The Bible says nothing about God taking Adam and placing him in the Garden on day 7. This appears to be a parasitic belief of yours. Get rid of this idea before you build a whole theology around it.

Stick to what the Bible says.

FL

I think what he is driving at is that if the chapters are sequential then six days are gone and God rested on day 7 and made Adam on the 8th day, at the least.

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Audie wrote:

neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.

How do you know that?

By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.

Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.

Then don't, no one's asking you to. You asked how I knew that and I told you. If you don't have any interest in it why ask the question, only to follow up with your personal preference on the matter?

An atheist once wrote to me on my blog, "I don't hate God, I just believe in the fxxxxx" (sorry mods but this is what I work with mostly and People need to realize that its wrong, I hope in Audie's case she see my point). Really! some atheists feel strongly about God. And one even top that; after he asked me a question and I wrote a 2 page reply addressing the nuances of the question he had asked and providing a detailed answer, he replied with a single line "Who cares, I don't believe in your sky-rat anyway". It annoyed me, because instead of addressing the replies to his questions he himself wanted to know he just wrote a one liner insult and was on his merry way.

So my point, try to discuss the points you ask about rather than tell me what you don't believe, which I already know. It adds nothing to the discussion and I for one would like an intelligent discussion rather than a boring reply which brings nothing to the table.

What I said was an inadequate response, however much it may be a reasonable position to take that if one must accept all or none or an untenable proposition, that none is the choice.

You gave me a reason why you believe as you do, of course, not how you know something. That brings the no more to the table than my giving a far more valid reason for being disinclined to believe any of the bible,

"Not believe any of it" is actually not true, of me. There is plenty of "truth' of various sorts, including in the poetry.

Also, of course, we see that Adam and Eve are found bu sincere Christians to be utterly literal, the first two people, formed as adults around 6000 years ago; we find others who think they are allegorical, never existed at all, others who ...you know.

Believing the Bible means something different to each, it seems. I could make a good case for it that I believe the Bible more and respect it more than do the literalists who think there actually was a flood, and that A and E were really the first two people. Different subject, tho.

Anyway, noting your line..It annoyed me, because instead of addressing the replies to his questions.. sorry to add to your annoyance with something that presented as just another quip with no substance and nothing to discuss.

DBowling wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20)

Yes, Adam and Eve were the direct ancestors of all living people (as far as Genesis is concerned, anyway).

OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if Genesis 3:20 is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.

In Genesis 4:20 Jabal is referred to as the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock".
Does this mean that Jabal is the genetic progenitor of all those who dwell in tents and have livestock?

In Genesis 4:21 Jubal is referred to as the "father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
Does this mean that Jubal is the genetic progenitor of all those who play the lyre and pipe?

Understand that it is unlikely that any of Jabal's or Jubal's descendants survived Noah's Flood and Genesis was written after the Flood, so within the context of Genesis 3 and 4 this type of language ("father of...", "mother of...") cannot be be limited to meaning "genetic progenitor of...".

Add to that the fact that Eve doesn't mean that either.
Eve means "life" or living". (Chavvah)
From a root word that means to "show" or "declare" or to "breathe".

Still, the passage is petty explicit and states that the writer believed that Eve was the mother of all the living.
Even if the writer meant it only symbolically, he still meant that she was, in some way, the mother of all living humans.

DBowling wrote:Genesis 1:27 tells us that that God created mankind in His image on Day 6. The "adam" of Genesis 1 is small 'a' adam denoting mankind in general.When looking at the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the question at hand is are Genesis 1 and 2 synoptic or sequential?If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then the Scriptural text would indicate that mankind in general was created on "day 6" in Genesis 1 and then at some later time a specific man, Adam, was placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2.The presumption that Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of day 6 in Genesis 1 instead of a sequel to Genesis 1 is a function of interpretation and tradition as opposed to something that is explicitly stated in the text.

I've read Genesis 1, 2 & 3 over in several different translations and languages and - sorry! - but you are mistaken. The Adam in Ge 1:27 is the same guy as in Ge 2:7 and in Ge 3:20. The stories are complimentary and expository of each other. The animals & plants Adam was told to rule over in Ge 1:28, 29, 30 are the same ones in Ge 2: 19, 20 and Ge 3:18.

The creation story in Genesis 1 is quite clear and isn't written like a myth or a riddle. We have to wait for Psalm 33:6,7 to get a more poetic rendering of the story. Genesis 2 is also written in a curt didactic form; it is only conveying information.

I think you are trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

FL

The only diufficulty in reconciling Genesis 1 and 2 is the sequence of creation BUT since Genesis 2 is about creation in the Gardn of Eden in SPECIFIC whereas Genesis 1` is about creation in general, it can be understood that the creative process could have been a bit different in the Garden .

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DBowling wrote:So what does the Bible say about this?I believe that the Bible says that God created mankind in his image on "day 6" in Genesis 1, and then at some point after "day 7" he took a specific man Adam and placed him in the Garden in Genesis 2:8.

The Bible says nothing about God taking Adam and placing him in the Garden on day 7. This appears to be a parasitic belief of yours. Get rid of this idea before you build a whole theology around it.

Stick to what the Bible says.

FL

OK... let's stick to the Bible and see what it says...


First let's look at the basic sequence of events in Genesis 2:7-8

7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f]being.
8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

1. The first thing that happens in this passage is that the Lord forms man/mankind from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7)
2. After God forms man/mankind from the dust of the ground He plants a Garden in Eden. (Genesis 2:8)
3. After God plants the Garden in Eden he places Adam in Eden (Genesis 2:8)

So the basic sequence of events that I laid out is right there in Scripture, no parasites anywhere to be found

So maybe the parasites involve "when" Adam was placed in the Garden.
Did the events of Genesis 2:8 occur during Day 6 or Day 7?

I have already stated that I believe Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential.
If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential then the events of Genesis 2:1-3 (The beginning of Day 7) occur before the events of Genesis 2:8 (God creating the Garden and then placing Adam in the Garden)
No parasites anywhere, just the sequence of events that are laid out in Scripture in Genesis 2.

Your response to my thoughts on the sequential nature of Genesis 1 and 2 did not give me a whole lot to work with.
You disagree with with my premise that Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential... Fine I get that...
But the fact that you disagree with a position that I am exploring doesn't make the position "mistaken", it doesn't make the position "parasitic", and it doesn't make the position unScriptural... in fact my proposed sequence of events is precisely the sequence of events that is laid out in Scripture in Genesis 1 and 2.

That said... I do want to thank you for your feedback. The reason for my OP was to explore some issues that I am currently working through, and I appreciate "iron sharpening iron" with other brothers and sisters in Christ.

One final thing... I don't believe you have yet responded to the two primary questions in my OP, and I would be interested in your feedback on those specific questions.
1. Do you believe that the internal Scriptural evidence places Adam and Eve historically in Mesopotamia somewhere in the 4000 BC to 6000 BC time frame?
2. Do you believe that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had migrated to Australia and the Americas prior to 10,000 BC?

In Christ

DBowling wrote:1. The first thing that happens in this passage is that the Lord forms man/mankind from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7)

I've highlighted the assumption you made, above. The text of Ge 2:7 has God forming "...[the] man from the dust of the ground...", not mankind as you say. The difference is important. Only one man was formed, not a whole species, as was the case with animals, etc.

DBowling wrote:So the basic sequence of events that I laid out is right there in Scripture, no parasites anywhere to be found

There is at least one example of a parasite you have let slip into your thinking, above. The "parasitic belief" I originally wrote about was your belief that God placed man in the Garden on day 7. Day 7 was a day of rest for God - that is what Scripture says - not Moving Day!

DBowling wrote:Your response to my thoughts on the sequential nature of Genesis 1 and 2 did not give me a whole lot to work with.You disagree with with my premise that Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential... Fine I get that...

I understand that they must be sequential for your idea to work but the Bible is silent on this. I said that Genesis 1 & 2 are complimentary. Complimentary in the same sense that the 4 Gospels are complimentary: each recounts the ministry of Jesus from different points of view and for different purposes. The Gospels are no more sequential than Genesis 1 & 2 are.

DBowling wrote:Did the events of Genesis 2:8 occur during Day 6 or Day 7?

You tell me! What does the text infer?

DBowling wrote:1. Do you believe that the internal Scriptural evidence places Adam and Eve historically in Mesopotamia somewhere in the 4000 BC to 6000 BC time frame?

I am a YEC but I've never done the math because this isn't a question that interests me. I see all such questions as hair splitting, or tripping over the flowers embroidered into the carpet.

DBowling wrote:2. Do you believe that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had migrated to Australia and the Americas prior to 10,000 BC?

Here, you are making a fundamental mistake in mixing secular dating with your presumed dating from the Bible (which must itself be tainted by many secular assumptions.) You can't mix two modes of thinking any more than you can mix two languages and expect to understand anything. Or mix two law codes and hope to make sense out of it. Or try to dock a ship as if it were a car: you'll smash into the pier. If you are a pilot, you'll know that you can't mix VFR and IFR flight without crashing and burning, guaranteed. The Bible also warns about mixing human philosophy with the things of God, Col 2:8.

You have taken the wrong fork in the road.

FL

DBowling wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (<a target="_blank" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Gen 3.20" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%203.20" class="rtBibleRef">Gen 3:20</a>)

Yes, Adam and Eve were the direct ancestors of all living people (as far as Genesis is concerned, anyway).

OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if <a target="_blank" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Genesis 3.20" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%203.20" class="rtBibleRef">Genesis 3:20</a> is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.

In <a target="_blank" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Genesis 4.20" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%204.20" class="rtBibleRef">Genesis 4:20</a> Jabal is referred to as the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock".
Does this mean that Jabal is the genetic progenitor of all those who dwell in tents and have livestock?

In <a target="_blank" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Genesis 4.21" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%204.21" class="rtBibleRef">Genesis 4:21</a> Jubal is referred to as the "father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
Does this mean that Jubal is the genetic progenitor of all those who play the lyre and pipe?

Understand that it is unlikely that any of Jabal's or Jubal's descendants survived Noah's Flood and Genesis was written after the Flood, so within the context of Genesis 3 and 4 this type of language ("father of...", "mother of...") cannot be be limited to meaning "genetic progenitor of...".

What?

Of course the phrase doesn't have to mean "genetic progenitor of." Where, for the love of all that is holy, did you get such an absurd idea? Words have meaning in context, and in the context of Gen 3, it is clear who Eve is the mother of -- all the living. Just as those who play the harp can look back to Tubalcain and call him "father," insofar as he invented the discipline, just as any doctor can look back to Hippocrates and call him "father," insofar as he is called the father of modern medicine, and so Lavoisier the father of modern chemistry and so on, in the same way, all who are living today look back to Eve as mother. The question is what that would mean if not referring to her as genetic progenitor. Because while "the father/mother" of does not necessarily refer to genetic progeny, it certainly includes it; so the father of Israel is Abraham (and Abraham, likewise, is the spiritual father of the church). What would it even mean to be "the mother of all the living" if there were others who were alive and having children in her day? It's just absurd to think it would mean anything else. More than that, it demonstrates a willful insistence on reading foreign ideas into the text. It's terribly obvious what the author of Genesis 3 had in mind in calling Eve "the mother of all the living."

Now, if you want to adopt a hermeneutic that allows us to read meanings into a text that the author did not intend, then fine. I'll just shrug my shoulders and write off anything you say about biblical interpretation whatsoever, because in that case, you can make the text say whatever you want it to. Whatever you are doing in that case, you certainly aren't submitting to the text as it is written, which means that you are just really bending the text to match your own ideas. And in that case, you are only submitting to your own ideas, using the text to illustrate what you already believe. And I promise you this: just as you rightly could not care less what I think when discussing theological matters (for I have no authority), I don't care what you think; moreover, I don't care what I think about such matters, and I say you shouldn't care what you think. The question is what the text says and what we therefore have warrant to think the author thought.

Anyway, the bottom line is that pointing out that "the father/mother of" in some passages does not mean "genetic progenitor of" in them doesn't suffice to say that it doesn't mean "genetic progenitor of" in another passage. That's not explaining a text. That is trying (poorly) to explain it away. If, then, you want to offer a more thorough understanding of Eve as "mother of all the living," then I'm all ears.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

DBowling wrote:1. The first thing that happens in this passage is that the Lord forms man/mankind from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7)

I've highlighted the assumption you made, above. The text of Ge 2:7 has God forming "...[the] man from the dust of the ground...", not mankind as you say. The difference is important. Only one man was formed, not a whole species, as was the case with animals, etc.

The reason I used man/mankind is that it is an accurate representation of what the Hebrew "ha-adam" means.
In the OT when 'adam' is preceded by the article 'ha' then the meaning is man or mankind.
When adam is not preceded by the article ha then it is an indicator that adam could be used as a personal name.
In both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 "ha-adam" is used which indicates the generic reference to man or mankind.

Man/Mankind is not an assumption on my part it is an accurate english representation of the Hebrew "ha-adam"

DBowling wrote:So the basic sequence of events that I laid out is right there in Scripture, no parasites anywhere to be found

There is at least one example of a parasite you have let slip into your thinking, above. The "parasitic belief" I originally wrote about was your belief that God placed man in the Garden on day 7. Day 7 was a day of rest for God - that is what Scripture says - not Moving Day!

Two comments here..
1. As Hugh Ross has explained much better than I ever could, Hebrews 4 indicates that we are still currently in Day 7. Which is consistent with the fact that unlike days 1-6, no end to day 7 is mentioned in Genesis 2:1-3.

2. Genesis 2:3 describes the nature of God's day 7 rest. He is resting from His creative work of days 1-6.
God can and has done all kinds of great and awesome things since He ceased his creative work at the end of day 6.


In Christ

DBowling wrote:The reason I used man/mankind is that it is an accurate representation of what the Hebrew "ha-adam" means.

No, it isn't. The context of Ge 2:7 clearly speaks of a single individual.

Listen, I understand that you really want to shoehorn your meaning into the text but it just doesn't fit. You should just drop this whole thing to read & reread and re-reread the Bible. There is so much more in the Scriptures of greater importance than this stuff.

FL

If we are gonna go STRICLY by what the bible states explicitly then what we do have is TWO creation accounts.
1 that is a general creative process of the world ( Genesis 1) and another that is SPECIFIC to the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 2).

In regards to Genesis 2, we have Man being created first:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 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. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We have God then creating the Garden in Eden and putting Man there:

8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Then we have God warning Man to not eat of the tree of knowledge:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Then God creating animal life to keep Man company:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

The God created Woman FROM Man:

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

So what we have in Genesis 2 is a different creation account because it is referring to a special and specific situation in a specific place.


In short we have a general overview of how God created the world AND a specific accounting of the creation of the Garden of Eden and the events that transpired there.

WHY?
IMO, because while Genesis 1 deals with the WHOLE world and all of mankind, Genesis 2 deals with the line that would become the Abrahamic line that would be blessed by God.

Is there a more fundamental mistake than being a yec?

Audie wrote:Is there a more fundamental mistake than being a yec?

You can be 100 % correct about YEC being wrong, and still be lost in your sins. And conversely, someone can be 100 % wrong in his YEC(or any other creation belief), and at the same time, have eternal life.

Fundamentally, and ultimately, not trusting in Christ for salvation, is really the only mistake that's going to matter.

Audie wrote:Is there a more fundamental mistake than being a yec?

Its a valid question, though one that really has very little significance theologically.
That said, since God is revealed in nature ( His creation) and if nature tells us one thing, maybe we should at least be open to the possibility that if nature is telling us one thing and our UNDERSTANDING of God's written word SEEMS to be telling us another, that we should try to reconcile instead of taking a side because we THINK we have to or our belief system may fall apart.