Creation

Well, thanks for spelling all that out. I can see there's no point in trying to persuade you out of it, but I'm not sure why you seem to want to persuade others into it. It's obviously just your own mistaken reading of the Bible when you were only ten years old, your own personal reading that is shared by no one else, right? You come up with two human creations which is similar to jar's two different creation stories. I see one man, I see one creation, the same man and the same creation described in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and so do most theologians. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read it to say everything was created by the end of Genesis 1, and Genesis 2:1 pronounces it all finished. I read it to say that Genesis 1 is about the order of the Creation, the series of steps from one created thing to another; and Genesis 2 is a focused discussion, including the detail of the mist that watered the earth, and especially the creation of humanity, where the order of things isn't relevant. So Genesis 2:7 is saying HOW the man was formed -- from the dust of the ground -- and it's not about WHEN the man was formed -- that was dealt with in Genesis 1. Because it's possible to get all kinds of things out of the Bible if a person has a mind to and all one can argue is that this or that interpretation is more reasonable than another, and that's the hardest kind of argument there is. Also as the previous discussion on this thread shows it's a very lengthy argument and it involves referencing many other parts of the Bible. I'm just not up to that on this particular subject. Especially since I know nothing about Hebrew. If I have to consider the Hebrew I'm going to trust more seasoned theologians than anybody at EvC.As for dismissing your argument, I also dismiss jar's, because both are basically the interpretations of a single person and seem to be imposing modern assumptions about how we would write history on the ancient writers. I just saw that arach has two stories and two different Gods so of course I'm going to dismiss his argument too. I'm not sure about Gap Theory yet, I do think it's interesting to consider that there might have been a creation prior to the six days of Genesis 1 in which the drama of Lucifer plays out. I have no reason to expect it will change anything I think about evolution or Geology or the Flood because all that is easily accounted for from Genesis 1:2 on. I've been reading Barnhouse but I think I'm going to switch over to Pember. Not in my experience. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew. I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.I am just now beginning to consider Gap Theory because some worthy Christian theologians believe in it. I doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[ Hide content of mostly duplicate post. See next message. --Admin ] Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.Edited by Admin, : Hid content of duplicate post.

You mean not expecting to agree with them in the end? It's not set in concrete, I've already come to the point of considering there may be something to their arguments. I think I can read honestly enough to decide one way or the other in the end, right or wrong I'll have an independent opinion. Besides, when does anybody come to any study whatever without a preconceived idea? But that is something I have in mind as I read. I know Gap Theory was developed in response to the challenges of science which is why I wasn't ever interested in it, and why I doubt they'll change my mind. But it's quite a list of the best of the best theologians who accept Gap Theory, which I know from other work they've done, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are reading the Bible honestly.The authors of these books I'm reading go into quite a bit of detail about how they arrived at their view of gap theory from the Bible. There's quite enough there for me to form my own opinion of it. I've also read the discussion at Blue Letter Bible, also Biblically argued, that the gap theory is wrong. I don't feel I'm in any danger from reading apologists, I want to know what they think and how they came to their conclusions.I wasn't interested in Gap Theory until I saw that the first verses of Genesis do seem oddly disconnected from the rest, which I hadn't noticed before. That is an interesting fact that makes me interested in the arguments that underlie Gap Theory, (or theories, since there seem to be different versions of it.) The procedure is always to pray as you read, figuring that if you sincerely want to know the truth God will lead you to the truth.One thing I know, I'd be in a much worse position if I tried to learn some Hebrew because it takes years in a language to know enough to judge its idioms and idiosyncrasies and exceptions to rules. A beginner is only risking making very crude mistakes in understanding. The writers who discuss Gap Theory ALL discuss the Hebrew. No need for me to add my errors to the mix. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Trinity was the answer to the heresy of Arianism that denied the deity of Christ. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How do you account for the Biblical view that death entered the world by one man, Adam?Romans 5:12:

• If there were human beings before Adam and Eve, they couldn't have died until Adam sinned.
• If there were women before Eve how could she have been called "the mother of all living?"
• Are you one of those who argue that animals died but not humans? But doesn't scripture say animals can't sin? So how could they die except through the sin of human beings as scripture says?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Romans 5:14-21

Just for the record since nobody else will point it out:First you accused me of making ___up and adding to the Bible, then when I proved what I said really is in the Bible, instead of admitting you were wrong you switched to accusing the Bible itself, Paul its writer, of making ___up. And for some reason time and time again you get away with your anti-Christian assertions.

Yes, "from Adam to Moses." I emphasized Adam, obviously, because you denied that it was his sin that was the origin of death. Moses is in the passage because Paul is talking about how sin -- and death its result -- reigned even before the Law was given to Moses. But I suppose you like to sling accusations because, even if they are lies, if nobody opposes them somebody will believe them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The New Testament interprets the Old Testament, that's what Christians have understood from the beginning. Paul was one of those appointed by God to teach us the meaning of the Old Testament. Your reading is false and irrelevant.

As usual you've got it all twisted. The Tree of Life was available to Adam and Eve UNTIL they sinned and brought death into the world. If they ate of it AFTER the Fall they would never have been able to be saved, they would have been immortally evil like the devil. THAT is why God took it away from them. It will be restored to those who are saved through the Messiah He promised to send, who has now arrived.

So you apparently agree with others here that Paul was lying when he said in the Romans passage I quoted in Message 280 and Message 283 that death entered the world as a result of Adam's sin?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Spiritual death is just the beginning of all death. Of course I already knew you were just juggling scripture to justify evolution when you denied the history of Biblical interpretation by separating the creation of human beings between Genesis 1 and 2. If a person is going to hold on to one side of the conflict between the Bible and Evolution surely it would be more defensible to hold onto God's word even in the teeth of all the ridicule that will inevitably follow, rather than make friends with the world to avoid that sort of persecution.