Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 1:07 PM
190 online now:
Aussie, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Taq (7 members, 183 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,919 Year: 11,742/29,783 Month: 764/1,642 Week: 178/460 Day: 17/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 3584 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 211 of 233 (473247)
06-27-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by humblepie
05-10-2008 4:25 PM


A possible scenario is as follows.
God made men and women.
God planted Eden.
God found no man worthy of tending his garden.
God created a special man to rule over the garden.
God created a women from man's flesh so that she would be unspoiled.
Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and their eyes were opened to the world beyond Eden.
Adam and Eve were no longer worthy of remaining in Eden.
Adam and Eve had children who went off and married, which indicates there was at least one other lineage.
Two tales related by the fact that early man was placed on earth by God. Neanderthals and humans?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by humblepie, posted 05-10-2008 4:25 PM humblepie has not yet responded

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 212 of 233 (473728)
07-02-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by humblepie
05-10-2008 4:25 PM


Man was created on the third day
Dear Humble Pie,

Well if you haven’t figured it out already, let me tell you what the 7 words were that God spoke
to me that night at my friends house. "Man was created on the third day."
Now just looking at the twelve points listed above we should be able to verify this to be true.

What can I say? ... A wonderful second witness, very well drawn out and thoroughly explained. Better than I could do. If you had made a single week point, they would have jumped all over it here in this forum. It is all true.

Due to the length of this thread, I will add a note at the beginning, directing people to your post. This can't be missed!

Thank you and God Bless!
g2v


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by humblepie, posted 05-10-2008 4:25 PM humblepie has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 213 of 233 (473731)
07-02-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by humblepie
05-10-2008 4:25 PM


Re-Time
humblepie writes:

Two totally different subjects
covering the same period of time.

How could they be the same time period?

You specifically asked the man what he did at work.

If he did these:

humblepie writes:

"we watched T V , went out to eat, played
games with the children,picked out new furniture for the home."

I want a job like that if he could do all those while at work.

humblepie writes:

If man were created on the sixth day, just think of all he had to do within a twelve hour period;

Unless the man created on the sixth day was not the man created in Genesis 2:7.

That would mean the 2 stories you put together to get one was two different stories about two different events at two different times.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by humblepie, posted 05-10-2008 4:25 PM humblepie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by graft2vine, posted 07-02-2008 2:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 214 of 233 (473737)
07-02-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
07-02-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Re-Time
ICANT writes:

How could they be the same time period?

The time period being the same day. Adding a modifier "at work" or "with your wife" gets totally different responses. While the responses may overlap, mentioning what you did with your wife is not important when explaining what you did at work. Even though everything you do at work is for your wife, family, your wife is not center stage. You might say at the end of your work day that you went home to your wife.

And so it is with the creation week. God created man, but He also created the heavens and the earth for man. How God created "the heavens and the earth" or "man" get two different responses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2008 2:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by TedWalther, posted 07-07-2008 5:02 PM graft2vine has not yet responded

    
TedWalther
Junior Member (Idle past 3600 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 215 of 233 (474338)
07-07-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by graft2vine
07-02-2008 2:53 PM


Re: Re-Time
Good thread. Last winter I came also the conclusion that Adam was created on the third day. Those that deny it are also denying that the Bible is true, accurate, and inerrant. When I see posters here talking about "priestly" writers and other writers all hodge-podging Genesis together, I know they aren't believers. Their words can be freely dismissed.

Here is an article I wrote yesterday, before discovering this thread. It lays out Genesis 1 and 2 side by side for comparison purposes, and has some exposition. I hope you enjoy it.

http://reactor-core.org/adam-third-day.html
http://reactor-core.org/~djw/myblog


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by graft2vine, posted 07-02-2008 2:53 PM graft2vine has not yet responded

    
LTalbott
Junior Member (Idle past 3587 days)
Posts: 1
From: texas
Joined: 07-21-2008


Message 216 of 233 (476114)
07-21-2008 9:12 AM


Man created third day
I am not sure where this will post because I have never posted to forums before. I just wanted to confirm that my eyes were also opened to this fact some months ago regarding the creation of man on the third day. I ended up at this forum to see if there was anyone else who had seen this. My conclusions were exactly as ordered by humble pie. I appreciate as well the initial post as there was some additional food for thought included there.

At the same time that I discovered man created on the third day I also had some "thoughts" regarding the bringing forth of the Christ as the firstborn of all creation ie "let there be LIGHT". Could it be that this is where Christ was the firstborn before the foundations of the earth. Also, the Dark was somehow existing following the LIGHT as the Light was separated from the Dark (satan/evil). He called the Light "Day" and the Dark "Night". According to Revelation in the New Jerusalem there will be no Night, only Day, and the Light will be that of the Lamb. Some passages that I consider are Psalm 148 where the one "thing" that is missing from Gods'creation in praising the Lord is the Light ... because the Light is being praised. Also Prov 8:22-36 where Lady Wisdom which we know to be Christ is saying "the Lord possessed (Hebrew: fathered, brought forth) me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth ... For whoever finds me finds Life"

Sorry that this thought is not complete or well articulated. I just wanted to hop on this forum in praise to the Lord for His revelation to those who seek Him. I appreciate the time others have taken for sharing the light they have been given.


    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 622 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 217 of 233 (476374)
07-23-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-28-2006 7:28 PM


FACT versus FANTASY
You overlook, I think, a number of items which might be construed as challenging to your hypothesis.
  1. Mist is NOT rain. Do the etymological thing on that word and you will find that it conjures a vision of fog; like the ‘fog’ which appears when one stirs a smoky fire. See Strong’s #108. Note: The online version at Blue Letter Bible does not include all the information provided in the hardbound edition, which says:
    quote:
    “from the same as 181 (in the sense of enveloping); a fog.
    See also #181. Of which Strong also comments (hardbound edition):
    quote:
    “a poker (for turning or gathering embers).”
    Fog is visually comparable to smoke and such fogs may be observed to arise in arid lands.

    Another view of the pyramids; from the air.

    But,

  2. "Mist," or Fog, does NOT provide enough moisture for crops. Yes, fog gets the ground wet but such humidity as that which "went up ... from the earth" would also evaporate into the air, resulting in a net loss of soil moisture.

    At least one Bible translator, recognizing the facts of this matter, translates the pertinent verse as follows (emphasis mine):

    quote:
    "But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground." Genesis 2:6 Darby
    This explains why,

    “a river went out of Eden to water the garden;” Genesis 2:10

  3. The garden was located near a place which was already named; a location apparently known to, and contemporary with biblical authors. This suggests two things:
    1.) That Noah’s flood was localized: for surely no recognizable real estate would remain after the upheaval imagined for that event.
    2.) That the story is not about the origin of humankind but rather the origin of Hebrew ancestors. And that explains a lot; like:
    a.) A different concept of deity;
    b.) A different method of creation;
    c.) A different role for humanity;
    d.) And a different status for the female.

  4. A hostile desert existed outside the Garden of Eden. This is the ground from which the man was taken.

    quote:
    “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:" ... Gen 3:19
    "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Gen 3:23

He was apparently NOT taken from the irrigated soil of the Garden but rather from the dusty land of “Thorns and thistles.” Gen 3:18

quote:
"dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return."

Something to think about. :)


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-28-2006 7:28 PM graft2vine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by graft2vine, posted 02-24-2010 5:18 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Poor in Spirit
Junior Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-22-2010


Message 218 of 233 (547727)
02-22-2010 12:44 AM


Just doing a little research on the "Adam was created on the third day" question. I saw all of these posts and that no-one has responded since 2008. I just thought that I would add my own comment to the discussion.

The second Adam (Jesus) was raised from the earth on the third day. It makes sense that the first Adam (Adam) would have been raised from the earth on the third day.

Let those of us who put our faith in the second Adam sit back and watch as our Father finishes His plan of redemption on the 5th and 6th day, and what a great day it will be on the 7th.


Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-22-2010 2:18 AM Poor in Spirit has responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 219 of 233 (547731)
02-22-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Poor in Spirit
02-22-2010 12:44 AM


Hi, "Poor in Spirit", and welcome to EvC.

Poor in Spirit writes:

The second Adam (Jesus) was raised from the earth on the third day. It makes sense that the first Adam (Adam) would have been raised from the earth on the third day.

Lots of stories seem to favor threes -- three is a very handy number for rhetorical purposes. ("The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", "A priest, a rabbi and an engineer went into a bar...", "The first time..., the second time..., and then the third time...", and so on.) But I'm sure that's not relevant here.

Let those of us who put our faith in the second Adam sit back and watch as our Father finishes His plan of redemption on the 5th and 6th day, and what a great day it will be on the 7th.

I've always been curious about this apparent flexibility in the notion of how much time is taken up by a "biblical day." Obviously, since the plan you speak of was not fully completed within an actual week after the crucifixion, the three days preceding the resurrection are very different from the 5th, 6th and 7th days that you are referring to (which are apparently still in progress -- and, which day are we on "today"?)

Would you say that your perspective here is consistent with (affirmed by) this passage?

quote:
II Peter 3.8: But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I'd be interested whether anyone can clarify that passage with respect to the words used in the original language. I'm assuming that Peter was not a mathematician, and that whatever word has been translated into King James' English as "a thousand" was really being used to mean "a really big number, the biggest number you can imagine" (i.e. not "exactly 10 * 10 * 10"; numeric zero was not invented till a few hundred years later, and these days it's hard to imagine how people would envision "a thousand" without just picturing a "1" followed by "000").

It would also be interesting to know why some Christians seem to insist on attributing an inflexible, literal, 24-hour meaning to the "days" in Genesis 1, despite this seemingly clear instruction from Peter that they shouldn't do that.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Poor in Spirit, posted 02-22-2010 12:44 AM Poor in Spirit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Poor in Spirit, posted 02-23-2010 12:17 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
Poor in Spirit
Junior Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-22-2010


Message 220 of 233 (547817)
02-23-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Otto Tellick
02-22-2010 2:18 AM


Thanks Otto for welcoming me onto this unique discussion forum.

I don't want to get away from the discussion of whether Adam was born on the 3rd day of creation or the 6th day. I was making the observation that Christ (the second or last Adam; 1 Corinthians 15: 45-47) rose from the earth on the third day. The third day is very important (Luke 24:46-48) and should not be dismissed as a trivial thing that comes in threes such a movie trilogies or the beginning of jokes.

Otto, I take your challenge of finding the actual translation of the Greek that 2 Peter 3:8 was written in. The word "thousand" from 2 Peter 3:8 comes from the Greek word "chilioi" which means "thousand." We can take this even further to Psalm 90:4 where Moses writes "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past and as a watch in the night," which is what Peter was basically repeating in 2 Peter 3:8. The hebrew word used for "thousand" is "elef" and it means "thousand."

My interpretation of Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 comes from the Jewish oral traditions (or commentaries). In the Mishnah, San Hedrin 97-98 which is a commentary on Psalm 90:4, according to the Rabbi's, God ordained each day of creation (7 days) to be prophetic of 1,000 years of the 7,000 year process of redeeming man and the earth from sin, with the last 1,000 years being the Millenial Kingdom of the Messiah.

Otto stated: "It would also be interesting to know why some Christians seem to insist on attributing an inflexible, literal, 24-hour meaning to the "days" in Genesis 1, despite this seemingly clear instruction from Peter that they shouldn't do that."

My response is that you need to take into context what Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:8. Read all of 2 Peter 3 (it's only 17 verses). Peter is not saying that the 24 hour day of creation should not be taken literal, he's telling the people about the great and glorious day of the return of our Lord!

When I said "Let those of us who put our faith in the second Adam sit back and watch as our Father finishes His plan of redemption on the 5th and 6th day, and what a great day it will be on the 7th." I was referring to the last three prophetic days (Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot) that will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words "sit back and watch" but I was using this in conjuction with HumblePie's observation of how wonderful it would have been to be Adam watching in awe as God finished making all of creation on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days.

Again, I apologize if I got off the subject of Adam being created on the 3rd day vs. the 6th day.

Edited by Poor in Spirit, : Didn't finish my thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-22-2010 2:18 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 221 of 233 (547990)
02-24-2010 4:40 PM


Thanks to Ted Walther, L Talbott, and Poor in Spirit for your witnesses! God Bless you!

Poor in Spirit - A funny thing happened in that the Lord directed me back to this thread in time to see your post. I have not visited this forum for a year or more, and while I still had a link to it bookmarked on my home page, just yesterday as my eyes scrolled across it, I had this tug in my spirit to come visit... and I see that you had reactivated this thread just the day before!! Wow, it is amazing how God works sometimes! So much for needing email notifications, just listen to God! lol

To those who would call this a coincidence, well there is about a 0.27% chance (if my math is right) of that happening. And no I did not received any email notifications!

Anyways, it is good and encouraging to see the truth of Adam's creation taking root in you and others.

Otto - While I agree on your point that a thousand can mean just "a really big number". More important than what the words meaning is, is what Peter means in using the word. In my own experience, I believe he means that when spending a day with God, time is of no consequence. While the chaos of every day rolls around me, it is the 7th day all the time in my spirit.

Adam's creation on the third day, I believe is flexible with both the 24 hour day or a longer day, the time frame again is of no consequence, just the order. Evolution is disproven if Adam was created first before any other living thing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-24-2010 9:09 PM graft2vine has not yet responded
 Message 225 by greyseal, posted 02-25-2010 10:15 AM graft2vine has responded

    
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 2813 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 222 of 233 (547993)
02-24-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by doctrbill
07-23-2008 11:05 AM


Re: FACT versus FANTASY
doctrbill writes:

Fog is visually comparable to smoke and such fogs may be observed to arise in arid lands.

Are you suggesting that God watered the ground with smoke? You lost me.

"Mist," or Fog, does NOT provide enough moisture for crops. Yes, fog gets the ground wet but such humidity as that which "went up ... from the earth" would also evaporate into the air, resulting in a net loss of soil moisture.

What goes up must come down. It goes up as mist but comes back down as rain, hence the watering.

The garden was located near a place which was already named; a location apparently known to, and contemporary with biblical authors.

There is nothing to suggest that the place God chose for the garden was already named before God put it there. The name could have been added later.

A hostile desert existed outside the Garden of Eden. This is the ground from which the man was taken.

quote:
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The whole earth was watered, not just eden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2008 11:05 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by doctrbill, posted 02-24-2010 8:55 PM graft2vine has responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 622 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 223 of 233 (548009)
02-24-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by graft2vine
02-24-2010 5:18 PM


Re: FACT versus FANTASY
graft2vine writes:

Are you suggesting that God watered the ground with smoke? You lost me.

According to Strong's lexicon, the word translated "mist" is derived from a term which describes smoke.

What goes up must come down. It goes up as mist but comes back down as rain, hence the watering.

According to the scripture:

quote:
"... the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, ..." Genesis 2:5

The whole earth was watered, not just eden.

According to the scripture, it watered:

quote:
... the whole face of the ground ..." Genesis 2:6

And if that mist supplied moisture enough then why was a river needed for irrigation?

quote:
"... a river went out of Eden to water the garden ..." Genesis 2:10

Ancient authorities do not agree on whether it should read "a mist" (Tanach) or "a spring" (LXX/Vulgate). Modern authorities cannot agree on whether it is about "earth" (most versions) or "land" (English Standard Version). The situation is understandably confusing and creationists do not agree on what it says, much less on what it means. It appears that you could benefit from re-reading whatever is your favorite translation of the story. I say this because I know of none which would lead you to suggest that "the mist" condensed and fell back to earth as "rain." It does not apparently occur to you that your hypothetical rain would be the very same water which had already come out of that ground which needed watering and would thus provide no additional moisture. That and the fact that your Bible asserts it had not rained, leads me to believe that you need further study.

Good luck with that.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by graft2vine, posted 02-24-2010 5:18 PM graft2vine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2010 12:07 PM doctrbill has acknowledged this reply
 Message 230 by Buzsaw, posted 09-16-2010 11:15 PM doctrbill has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2368 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 224 of 233 (548012)
02-24-2010 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by graft2vine
02-24-2010 4:40 PM


graft2vine writes:

Evolution is disproven if Adam was created first before any other living thing.

Fortunately, there's very little chance of that happening.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by graft2vine, posted 02-24-2010 4:40 PM graft2vine has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 225 of 233 (548062)
02-25-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by graft2vine
02-24-2010 4:40 PM


evolution is a fact - abiogenesis is a fact.
Evolution is disproven if Adam was created first before any other living thing.

no, no it really isn't.

"All your base (pairs) are belong to us" said God - there's plenty of proof for evolution, and we know abiogenesis occured. You're free to argue the how and when, but not the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by graft2vine, posted 02-24-2010 4:40 PM graft2vine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by graft2vine, posted 02-25-2010 12:13 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018