|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam was created on the 3rd day | |||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
iamjoseph writes: Not when the texts is contextual, as opposed chronological, which it is not. The text is clearly steering the reader away from the 123/abc mechanical factory view - as with the sub analogy. I believe the text is both contextual and chronological. Day 1, day 2, day 3, shows chronology. The context of ch 1 is the creation as a whole, while the context of ch 2 is focused on man. The creation order is the order of completion. God says "it is good" showing that entity as being whole and complete, tested and put in action. Adam was not a complete vessel on day 3, untested, and therefore not mentioned in the finish order until day 6.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
iamjoseph writes: vegetation comes before humans; but what constitutes humans came before vegetation. Thus static vegetation came before sunlight - this is 100% science here. There was light on day 1, which was partially blocked by the waters above the firmament. Enough light came through for the vegetation to grow on day 3, though no full sunlight until day 4. If there were static vegetation, yes it would be static until all the ingredients were there. The ingredients are sunlight (day 1) oxygen (day 2) earth (day 3) rain (day 3) and man (day 3). Man is to dress and keep the garden. One other thing man does is produce carbon dioxide which plants need for photosynthesis.
There's only two ways humans could have emerged. Via self-generating accumulated process (TOE), or wholely as a human, requiring only a 'click' to be switched on - as with a complete, new TV set one purchases (Creationism). The batteries were not included but made available. As with the TV set, there is only one way for humans to emerge, and that is to be assembled (formed) once you have all the parts (earth, water). The exact process of assembling life is unknown to science.
That is the meaning of the sunlight appearing in day 4: these are six cosmic days, not 24-hour days. It is 100% scientific - stars do not give out light (luminosity) till they reach a certain critical maturity. Agreed. It just apeared you were saying the days switched from cosmic to 24-hour after day 4? Yes, time could be measure in terms of 24 hours on day 4, but the creation days remain "cosmic". I am not sure really what a cosmic day is, but really its God's timing... can't nail it down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
ringo writes: I guess your post is not relevant. I found some relevance to his post in my reply message 181... basically repeating what I have said before. I agree that the no mention of Adam on day 3 is the weakest part of my position, and therefore what you are going to go after. I do see my answer as sufficient and will continue to address it, however don't want to stagnate the discussion in this area. The title of this topic is "Adam was created on the 3rd day", but the whole post under it is relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
autumnman writes: If the "image" and "likeness" is construed as a "physical form" then one is anthropomorphizing {i.e. humanizing} the Deity, God creating man in his image does not amount to us humanizing God. God is creating man for sonship, and that is what the image and likeness is all about. Adam's sons are said to be in Adam's image and likeness. So, God making man is no more of an idol than my daughter is an idol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: What I do not follow, even tho I've read of this, is why you conclude the rains activation of ch. 2 is seen as 3rd day. Here, you have picked up on the verse, "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" as applying to the day of the rains. In Gen 1:1 God created "bara" the heavens and the earth. "bara" meaning that he created the materials out of thin air and not necessarily gave them form yet. verse two makes it clear that the earth was without form. Gen 2:4 is about when God made "asah" the earth and heavens. "asah" meaning that God fashioned, gave the earth form which it did not have before. This is at a different point than on day 1. Day 3 is when the earth took on form with the dry land appearing. Day 3 is also when the hydrologic cycle (that began to take shape on Day 2) is ready for rain. Hope this helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Otto,
Do you want to discuss the discrepancy between Genesis -- particularly the two points you summarized above -- The focus of this thread is Adam and the third day, but yes I did mention that in the opening post. The Heavens and the Earth were created in the beginning. They were created together, the unformed elements came about at the same time, but it is said in that order, heavens and the earth, and in general that is how it happened. Genesis is a summary. Stars were formed before the earth, but if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, yes the moon came after the earth, and you could also say some stars are still being born today. Based on your perspective you could say that the earth is part of the heavens. You could also say that the earth did not take on its current form with the separation of the land and seas until after the moon was created. No? That was part of the creation, forming of the earth, and the moon had effect on that. The Bible is accurate as a summary. I would agree that it is not meant as a science book, down to the nitty gritty, that is not the focus. So, I don't think there is really any argument here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
ramoss writes: Actually, 'bara' does not mean 'create' per say. If you look at how that verb is used in Samuel, it is used as 'fatten' some oxes ,or fill up.Therefore god began to fill up the heavens and the earth,not create. Bara is the root word, and its meaning changes based on the verb stem. In Genesis 1:1 the stem is "Qal" and means to "shape, fashion, create". In 1Sa 2:29 the stem is "Hiphil" and the meaning changes "to be fat". Here is some help on Hebrew verbs: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/...uction/introduction.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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: The whole earth was watered, not just eden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
That and the fact that your Bible asserts it had not rained, leads me to believe that you need further study. It only says that because the ground is where all the water started. It's not going to stay in the soil but will evaporate or go deeper in the soil. The mist went up from the ground and that is what started the hydrology cycle. You need just extrapolate from the scripture based on basic principles if hydrology and irrigation - evaporation, rain, runoff, rivers, irrigation. I am comfortable with the way it reads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
there's plenty of proof for evolution, and we know abiogenesis occured. Maybe evolution is not the word I am looking for sense it is such a general term. The idea that humans evolved from other animals? Abiogenesis is certain in that Adam was created from the ground.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024