Adam was created on the 3rd day

That was what I was asking Juraikken. I'm not saying that plants and animals were created twice. The order is important sence we are dealing with Biblical accuracy. For you it may not be pertinent or shake your faith, but for an unbeliever it might make the difference.The scientific order is another matter. The Bible must agree with itself before it can agree or disagree with science. They are both part of the same Bible. The New is the Old revealed and the Old is the New concealed. If I can't refer to the New then you got me tied down with your lasso.

Biblical accuracy is the question, not the answer. The two different stories are just one indication that the Bible isn't consistent, never mind accurate. Nobody can look at the Bible thoroughly and honestly and conclude that it's historically or scientifically accurate. If anybody's faith depends on the lie of inerrancy, it's a very weak faith indeed. They're better off without it. And of course, the Bible doesn't agree with itself, right in the first two chapters. You'd almost think the authors had put up a big sign saying, "Don't take this literally."The fact is, there are three orders: the chapter 1 order, the chapter 2 order and the right order. There is no way of reconciling either biblical order with the right order. As I said, you're better off forgetting about the order. I can't set the rules for you in your own topic. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to use The Catcher in the Rye to explain Treasure Island or to use Fahrenheit 451 to explain Don Quixote. If your "reconciliation" of Genesis makes no sense on its own, how can an outside source help it? Not really. There are 66 books (more or less, depending on your canon of choice) - some of them related and some of them not. Each book needs to be understood individually before the interrelationships can be understood.Rule of thumb: If your interpretation doesn't make sense on its own, other books won't prop it up, they'll just weigh it down.The bottom line still is: Genesis 1 states as plain as day that man was created on day 6. Your fiction just adds more contradiction.Edited by Ringo, : Spellink.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Inerrancy is not a lie. To believe the Bible this day and age with all the "contradictions" going around I think requires strong faith. To the skeptic seeing is believing, to the weak of faith (or blind faith) believing is without seeing, to the strong of faith believing is seeing. While faith does come when we are still in the dark, we must enter into the light where things are revealed that were kept hidden in the darkness. The Bible does not require you to take it literally. It is a spiritual book. Literal is not a requirement for it to be accurate. I think books in a series would be a more fair comparison. Unless its the Authors intent to keep things hidden from the wise and reveal them to babes. We must convert and become as little children (have a little blind faith) before we can grow in the Lord and seek out the deeper truths of the Word of God.

Faith is not intended as a substitute for seeing:

quote:

---

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Faith never trumps what we do see.What we do see is that both accounts of creation get the order laughably wrong. It is a lie to insist that the Bible is inerrant when the errors start piling up right on the first page. Then why insist on taking the order of creation literally? Why, especially, when there are two obviously conflicting versions?Take the spiritual truths from it and turn away from the "accuracy" silliness. But there's no "series" about it - different authors, writing at different times in different styles about different subjects. It's unfair to the authors to distort their work to try to make them all agree. What a silly notion. What makes you privy to the authors' intentions?-------------So we're still left with the same bottom line: Genesis 1 plainly contradicts your interpretation.Any defense of your OP beyond a general descent into inerrancy?Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

While a spiritual book, the spirit reflects the natural order. Also spirit must line up with spirit. Otherwise, you not only cant take it literally, but how can you believe the Spirit?1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Not really... other than the 7 pages following it.Edited by graft2vine, : No reason given.Edited by graft2vine, : added scripture reference

You conveniently neglected the context:

quote:

---

Mat 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee.

---

Jesus was talking about judgement. He was saying (probably sarcastically) that the "wise and prudent" can come up with all kinds of excuses for their wrong-doing, but a child has learned a simple code of conduct.He wasn't giving you an excuse to turn Genesis upside down. Feel free to refer back to anything you have said that undoes your blatant contradiction of what the Bible says.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thought I'd save your skin.Again, what Jesus says is Spirit. It's application can extend to more than just the context. If everything was just about context, the Bible would be completely irrelevant today.

Hi. I'm new here, but I've been reading in these forums, so I decided
to join.I've been reading what you've been saying, and you are so close to the truth, except you can't put man as being created on the 3rd day. It absolutely does not line up with scriptures. It won't work no matter how hard you try.notice in Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:.Now look at Gen 2:5 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.This is when God made man in Gen 1:26Now notice in Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he themNow look at Gen 2:21-24 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam 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.This is when Gen 1:27 takes place in Gen Ch 2.I agree with you that there are no contradictions between Gen ch 1 and Gen ch2, but only if interpreted correctly. As per context, we have to discern when the author is speaking in the present, past or future tense. An example would be when we start reading Gen ch 2. It appears that God forms the man then plants a garden. But is this really what the author is saying? If we know that God created man last, on the 6th day, then the only logical conclusion can be that God planted the garden before he formed man. The same way with the animals in ch 2. We already know from ch 1 that God created the animals before man, so in Gen ch 2, it's just a matter of once again discerning from prior evidence(gen ch 1), when the author is speaking in past, present, or future tense according to the context.

Welcome highskies,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

If an application extends beyond the context, you have to show that, not just assert it. I didn't say "everything" was "just" about context. I said you can't ignore the context and make up whatever extensions you want.Show your work. I don't share your low opinion of the Bible.-------------So, are you deliberately avoiding the question?How can you blatantly contradict what the Bible says? Man was created on the sixth day.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi, Highskies, and welcome aboard! This can be a fun place, or at least a stimulating one.... Not the only logical conclusion. One could also conclude, like several generations of "mainstream" Bible scholars have, that we have two old origins stories there in the first three chapters of Genesis, and that they were merged a long time ago by some rabbis that probably had what they felt were good reasons for doing so.

I am not avoiding your question, but have answered you twice. See my responses in posts 37 and 89.

Message 89 just refers me back to Message 73 which in no way answers the question. You didn't "explain that there are two creations of Adam" at all. You just asserted it.(As I have suggested earlier, the New Testament first/last Adam makes a nice sermon, but it's strictly after-the-fact. It was never meant to "explain" the original story. In any case, the "last Adam" doesn't refer to Genesis at all.)In Message 37 you asserted: which is pure fiction - not supported in any way by Genesis.You're going to have to re-explain or even rethink, 'cause what you've done so far ain't workin'. Take your time. It took centuries to build in the contradictions that are already there. Don't expect to build a new contradiction overnight.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

High Skies,Greetings! Since you have been reading my thread I assume you know that I am saying there are two creations of Adam (the first Adam and the last Adam). So, can you show me that the Adam in Gen 2:7 made of the earth is the same Adam as in Gen 1:26 made in the image of God? Same thing here. The woman in Gen 2 is not said to be made in the image of God, but after man "bone of my bone" "flesh of my flesh" "taken out of man". The tense is determined in the Hebrew within Genesis 2. We don't need to go back to Genesis 1 to determine the tense. Gen 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."formed" tense is imperfect. Imperfect refers to an incomplete action."breathed" imperfect.Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."planted" imperfect"he put" imperfect"he had formed" tense is perfect. The perfect tense refers to a completed action in the past.From this we can see that the action is taking place as God says it. The tense is imperfect from the creation of Adam in Gen 2:7 through the creation of the Garden in Gen 2:8, then switches to the perfect tense with "he had formed" refering back to Adam that was completed in the previous verse. Based on the tenses, Adam was created before the Garden and then placed in the Garden after its completion.Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."to grow" imperfect. We are back to the imperfect tense. Adam was made first, then the Garden planted, Adam placed in the Garden, now the Garden starts to grow."that is pleasant" tense is Participle. Corresponds to the English verb "to be" with the present participle. May be present, past or future time. Gen 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."formed" imperfect"brought" imperfect"what he would call" imperfect"called" imperfect

So you don't take my word for it, this is from a wikipedia article that explains the Hebrew tenses (aspects) pretty well:

quote:

---

Biblical Hebrew had only two aspects (not tenses). The perfect aspect was used for completed actions, and generally implies past time. The imperfect aspect was used for uncompleted actions, and thus could imply present or future time. Modern Hebrew uses the participle for the present time and reserves the imperfect for future time. The Hebrew imperfect is noteworthy for having not only suffixes but also a syllable added at the beginning of the stem, and thus is often called the prefix conjugation.

---

Imperfect - Wikipedia