Adam was created on the 3rd day

In Message 73, That's your basic error right there. No, it doesn't say they were created twice. Neither was the Big Bad Wolf killed twice. It's two separate stories.The different orders in Genesis 1 and 2 are a clue that the stories are different, but the orders themselves aren't even particularly important. Neither order is central to the story and neither order comes close to the known scientific order.You'd be better off forgetting the order altogether and not trying to reconcile the two different stories.Your New Testament references - Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians and Peter - are irrelevant. You can't use the New Testament to rewrite the Old.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it's my assertion that the New Testament doesn't rewrite the creation story. Uh... the "last Adam" in Corinthians refers to Jesus. He represents a new beginning, a spiritual beginning as compared to the fleshly beginning represented by the "first Adam".The "first Adam" also refers figuratively to all of us in our fleshly "old life" and the "last Adam" refers figuratively to us in our spiritual "new life".I have no idea how you manage tp project any of that back to Genesis.

---

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

That doesn't work either. Genesis 1 says very plainly that the earth brought forth plants:

quote:

---

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

---

It sounds like He created them mature - already yelding seeds and fruit. Certainly, there is no possibility that they were just seeds in the ground.(By the way, the "it didn't rain" scenario doesn't work either. The water cycle had to start as soon as there was water.)

---

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

At first glance, two rather spectacular flaws:

1. You presume to know what was "intended" by the authors. The proper methodology would be to infer intent from what they wrote.
   ​
2. The proposition, "X wasn't mentioned because __________," works for any value of X. You could say that Napoleon wasn't mentioned on Day 3 because God didn't want to confuse the Hebrews with French history.

---

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

In Message 107, I pointed out that the "last Adam" refers to Jesus - and you never responded.The "first Adam", of course, refers to the only Adam mentioned in Genesis - created on Day Six.Edited by Ringo, : Spalling.

---

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

The new beginning, initiated by the last Adam, cannot possibly be before He came to earth. The new beginning of the individual has nothing to do with the beginning of the world. No. God's image is man, the earthly man created on Day Six, as Genesis plainly says. God made man in His image on the sixth day of creation. Remaking man in His "spiritual image" has nothing to do with the earthly creation of Adam.Seriously, how can you justify flat-out contradicting what the Bible says?

---

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

Nonsense. There's no hint of "prophecy" in Genesis 1. It's a plain, straightforward narrative. Everything created on the sixth day was earthly - the cattle, the creeping things, the beasts of the earth. There is nothing in the plain text to suggest that anything created on the sixth day was not earthly. Nor any mention of anything not being earthly. Nor any mention at all af man before the sixth day.If there is "no mention" to the contrary, you have to take the most sensible reading: that there were no men at all before Day Six and that the men created on Day Six were as earthly as everything else created on Day Six. That's the problem here. By slicing and dicing the text to suit your hare-brained purpose, you're not dealing with the contradictions at all.

---

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

It doesn't refer to the beginning, i.e. Genesis. Notice that Isaiah said, "from ancient times". He was refering to prophecy in general, not saying that Genesis 1 was prophecy. When man is mentioned in the same breath with earthly things and there is no hint whatsoever that he is not earthly, yes you can assume that man is earthly too. Nothing in the text indicates that they are "separate creations". God is heavenly. His image is earthly.

---

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

I didn't say there's no possibility of prophecy in Genesis 1.
There's no sign of prophecy in Genesis 1. That doesn't follow at all. God saying "it was good" is in no way an indication of a "different" creation. Of course I can, and I do. There was only one creation, it took six days and man was created on Day Six. That's very plain in the text. Your embellishments change nothing. Man is earthly - made of dust.Man is made in the image of God.Image of God is earthly.-------------Try reading what the text says instead of burying it in fiction.

---

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

That is certainly not in the text.

---

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