|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,810 Year: 4,067/9,624 Month: 938/974 Week: 265/286 Day: 26/46 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam was created on the 3rd day | |||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: arach writes:
except jacob. oh, and moses. and Adam, and Eve, and Abram, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ... oh, and various prophets ... Edited by doctrbill, : Additions and Corrections Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Juraikken writes: how did Moses see God? You tell me. I am merely sharing what I see in the Bible.
how did Aaron see God? You tell me. I am merely sharing what I see in the Bible.
please explain to me every account that saw God, his ACTUAL form, not something that spoke to them through God. No thanks. If you don't know what the scripture says on this subject, or you think there's some reason to doubt what it says, then tell us what you think it should say. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Juraikken writes: what did John mean when he said "no one hath seen God"? What do you mean, what did he mean?
i believe the Bible to be completely accurate ... its not false that John said No one has seen God at any time Yet you recognize that John's statement apparently contradicts Old Testament witnesses who claim to have seen God face to face, wrestled with him, had lunch with him and argued with him. Yes? John also says: "God is a spirit." Spirits are invisible. Thus, by John's logic: God is invisible. Moses might take issue with John's statement but that's not my problem. I could try to tell you everything I know on the subject but where's the fun in that? It would be more enjoyable and far more convincing to discover the answers for yourself. For the purpose of assisting topical study, nothing beats: blueletterbible.org Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Juraikken writes: please give me verses Is your mouse finger broken? I am not a kindly ol' Sunday School teacher. I've given you excellent clues and offered you sophisticated tools. You'll have to do your own homework. I look forward to our next conversation. Goodnight. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
You overlook, I think, a number of items which might be construed as challenging to your hypothesis.
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: Something to think about. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
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 whole earth was watered, not just eden. According to the scripture, it watered: quote: And if that mist supplied moisture enough then why was a river needed for irrigation?quote: 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 - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Hi Buzz,
I see you are hanging in there as well.
Buzz writes: Perhaps the river irrigation was to come down the line after the sin/curse when Adam would have to till the land etc. Perhaps for certain crops more water than the mist afforded would be beneficial for a good yield. Two problems I see with this answer, Buzz. They are the same two problems stated in verse five (vs. 5):
1) - Nothing is growing "because" it hasn't rained. - If the mist had provided adequate soil moisture then surely something would have been growing. And,
2) - There is no one to "till" (work, cultivate) the soil. - The man was created in the first place because "there was not a man to till the ground." In fact, these people were brought in "to dress the garden and keep it." (vs. 15). One cannot keep a garden without working the soil. It is interesting to note (and I had not seen this before now) that the Hebrew term 'abad - translated "till" in verse 5 is translated "dress" in verse 15. Indeed, some modern versions read: "to till it" (NRSV);"to work it" (NIV); "to cultivate it" (NASB). You will note that both the "mist" and the "irrigation" are in place before the fall (vs. 10). Hope this answers your question. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: In context, the statement in question aluded to the timeframe of just before day three when there was no sun and moon, etc and before the plants were made. Chapter one is the only consistently sequential record of creation. And yet, you wish the second narrative to agree with the first. If the second narrative is sequentially inconsistent (inconsistent with narrative one) then what makes you think that narrative one is the "consistently sequential...record." What makes you think the man was made before the woman? Because the story has a flow to it, that's why. God made the man and then the animals and brought the animals to the man to see what he would call them. After surveying and naming all the animals, the man found no mate among them. Then the woman was made; after the man; after the animals. So, actually, the sequence of narrative two IS consistent with the story of narrative two. It is NOT consistent with the story of narrative one. Narrative one; the narrative you say is "the only consistently sequential record of creation" has plants appearing on day three, birds appearing on day five, and animals including humans (male and female) on day six. Telling the story as if the man appears before the plants, before the birds, before the other animals and well ahead of woman is no accident but is important to the story in narrative two. You cannot reorder the events of narrative two without ruining the story told there; and the order of those events is entirely different from what you have called "the only consistently sequential record of creation," i.e. narrative one. BTW, The woman of narrative 2 is made NOT by speaking her into existence simultaneously with the man, as depicted in narrative 1, but rather by cloning her, sometime after, from a surgically removed piece of the man. This is not a random and irrelevant reordering of events but a purposeful and independent description of a very different idea of origins. The fact that it does not mention fish or seas is on a par with the fact that it does not mention sun, moon, or stars. It's all about the land, the garden, the naked people, and the talking snake. Narrative one sounds a bit like an evolution. Narrative two sounds exactly like a fairy tale. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024