Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 166 of 233 (413635)
07-31-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by graft2vine
07-31-2007 6:10 PM


graft2vine writes:
You are skipping over some points in the text. Namely that the natural (earthly) man dies, and is raised a spiritual man. It is the spiritual man that is made in God's image.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2007 6:10 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2007 6:45 PM ringo has replied
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 2:44 AM ringo has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 167 of 233 (413638)
07-31-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by ringo
07-31-2007 6:28 PM


1Cr 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Cr 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Cr 15:47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
1Cr 15:48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
1Cr 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 07-31-2007 6:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 07-31-2007 6:51 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 233 (413641)
07-31-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by graft2vine
07-31-2007 6:45 PM


Haven't we been through this before?
"The text" is Genesis. You can't bring in Corinthians to undo what Genesis says. Genesis was around long before Corinthians and it had to stand on its own.
By bringing in a particular interpretation of Corinthians to mangle Genesis, you're accentuating the contradictions in Genesis. You're tacitly suggesting that Genesis didn't make sense until Corinthians came along to "explain" it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2007 6:45 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 12:06 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 169 of 233 (413791)
08-01-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
07-31-2007 6:51 PM


Ringo,
We just got done talking about how the creation is all one creation... It is the same with the Bible, it is all one text.
Just as plants, animals, people give more definition or character to a bare landscape, Corinthians gives more definition to Genesis.
Genesis stands on its own just as the dry ground stands on its own, is solid. So Corinthians does not undo what Genesis says, but better defines it to give it a correct interpretation. Corinthians speaks that "it is written" of two creations of Adam, which I am showing that Genesis does in fact speak of.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 07-31-2007 6:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 12:36 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 170 of 233 (413795)
08-01-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by graft2vine
08-01-2007 12:06 PM


graft2vine writes:
We just got done talking about how the creation is all one creation... It is the same with the Bible, it is all one text.
No it isn't. It's a collection of (around) 66 books, written by different authors at different times. Inerrancy is the question in this forum - it's not a given.
You can't rely on a book written hundreds of years later to "correct" the interpretation of Genesis. You might as well use Lord of the Rings to correct geographical errors in Treasure Island.
Corinthians speaks that "it is written" of two creations of Adam, which I am showing that Genesis does in fact speak of.
If Genesis did "in fact" speak of two creations of Adam, then you could show that using Genesis. In fact, Genesis clearly does not mention two creations of Adam, so your interpretation of Corinthians must be wrong too.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 12:06 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 1:15 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 171 of 233 (413804)
08-01-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by ringo
08-01-2007 12:36 PM


ringo writes:
If Genesis did "in fact" speak of two creations of Adam, then you could show that using Genesis. In fact, Genesis clearly does not mention two creations of Adam, so your interpretation of Corinthians must be wrong too.
If you take a look at my opening post, there is no other reference other than Genesis. God did in fact show it to me originally using just Genesis, and later Corinthians came in as further evidence.
Seeing it in Genesis is what opened up my understanding to other scriptures, not the other way around. I can see it using just Genesis, but I cannot make you see it unless God shows it to you.
I have done my best. Your part requires faith, first assuming inerrancy... inerrant until proven errant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 12:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 1:27 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 172 of 233 (413807)
08-01-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by graft2vine
08-01-2007 1:15 PM


graft2vine writes:
I can see it using just Genesis, but I cannot make you see it unless God shows it to you.
Such arrogance.
How do you know God hasn't shown me that you're wrong?
Why isn't your view standard theology? Are you the only one God reveals The Truth™ to?
Your part requires faith, first assuming inerrancy... inerrant until proven errant.
No, that's not the way it works.
When we can plainly see an error, no amount of faith will make it disappear - only blindness will.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 1:15 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 1:36 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 173 of 233 (413810)
08-01-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
08-01-2007 1:27 PM


ringo writes:
Such arrogance.
I say it with all humility. God shows what He wants to show to who He wants to show it. It is of no merit of my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 1:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 1:48 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 233 (413813)
08-01-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by graft2vine
08-01-2007 1:36 PM


graft2vine writes:
God shows what He wants to show to who He wants to show it.
Then I ask again: Why do you assume it is you who is enlightened and hundreds, thousands of theologians who are not? Instead of playing the God-told-me-so card, why not discuss the issue on its merits? Why not try to see where your interpretation might be wrong?
Don't run away from your own topic.
Let's try again: If Adam was created on the third day, why does Genesis 1 absolutely not mention Adam at all on the third day?
(And you said you could do it from Genesis. Do it from Genesis.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 1:36 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 2:20 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 175 of 233 (413823)
08-01-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
08-01-2007 1:48 PM


ringo writes:
Let's try again: If Adam was created on the third day, why does Genesis 1 absolutely not mention Adam at all on the third day?
Like I said, I have done my best. No mention is about equivilant to the bare earth. It stands on its own... a no mention is not a contradiction.
Enjoyed the discussion Ringo. I am not running away, but will turn to Joseph before I forget.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 1:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 2:30 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 176 of 233 (413826)
08-01-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by graft2vine
08-01-2007 2:20 PM


graft2vine writes:
... a no mention is not a contradiction.
No mention is a pretty damning indictment of your interpretation.
No mention of submarines during the flood is a pretty good first clue that there weren't any. No mention of Napoleon at the last supper is a pretty good indication that he wasn't there. No mention of Adam on Day Three - coupled with the plain statement that man was created on Day Six - is a pretty good indication that he wasn't there.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2007 2:20 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 2:36 AM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 177 of 233 (415003)
08-07-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by IamJoseph
07-30-2007 8:21 AM


Greetings Joseph,
This is a barrier marking a treshold, and impacts all things on all levels (light/darkness, day/night, man/woman, etc) - namely the connectivity of all things from one source, is also 'separated'
I agree. Creation being the separating out and forming of all things that proceeded forth from God. Including time and space.
That vegetation came first in its static form (inactive), but became dynamic (activated) with the advent of rain; and the same holds for all entities listed in ch 1. This is based on the concept expressed in the metaphor, 'THE TABLE IS SET AND READY FOR ITS GUESTS'
But why would God create something in a "static" form, when the conditions for it have not been met? It makes more sense to set the table and then bring in the guests. Why have the guests sitting at the table "static" while it is yet being set?
IOW, vegetation and its 'sprouting' (the term used in genesis to indicate activation)- would obviously not depend on rains per se - rather, each cell in vegetation's structure had to recognise and be receptive to the attributes contained in the rains - else nothing would happen.
The vegetation sprouting does depend on a moist ground which is accomplished through the rains.
'NOW (meaning although vegetation was at hand) - NOTHING GREW - THEN A MIST ROSE UP AND THE RAINS CAME';
You say nothing grew, when clearly things grew on day 3 in Genesis 1.
Eg: man requires light, darkness, water, land - the seperation of them; vegetation, fish, birds and animals for domestic and consumption purposes. 'The table is set' applies.
Man requires everything up until the vegetation. Fish, birds, animals, are not required for man to exist, but are "helpers" as indicated in Genesis 2.
Here, rest means 'ceased' creation (closure); humans are the last entity created. This also means, all that was required for the universe to function, has ended, and nothing else is needed save for each created entity's due time appearing.
In Genesis 1, the time of appearing is when the entity is created. God looks at what He creates and "sees that it is good".
It appears logical that even man was created in a potential, static form, and made dynamic in the next chapter, as with vegetation;
Interesting thought, but no, that doesn't really make sense for me, considering that it doesn't with the vegetation either.
The days in the first chapter are not 24-hour days, but epochs of time (pre-sun luminosity periods). Luminosity appears after the sun's creation, namely in day 4 - which are cosmic days, as opposed earthly days. This allows for speech endowed humans to be 6000 years old, and the universe being many billions of years old, with no discrepencies with protoypes of humans.
I agree that the days are not 24 hour, but perhaps a thousand years or more. The cosmic day did not change to an earthly day on day 4 in the middle of the creation. Adam was the first human, and there were no prototypes before him. His earthly days began being counted in the day he ate from the tree of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2007 8:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 3:11 AM graft2vine has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 178 of 233 (415074)
08-08-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ringo
08-01-2007 2:30 PM


quote:
No mention is a pretty damning indictment of your interpretation.
No mention of submarines during the flood is a pretty good first clue that there weren't any. No mention of Napoleon at the last supper is a pretty good indication that he wasn't there. No mention of Adam on Day Three - coupled with the plain statement that man was created on Day Six - is a pretty good indication that he wasn't there.
Not so. 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. Genesis works on a variant evolution than darwin; namely the graduations of life forms are subject to a triggering action based on its due time, as opposed to a self-generating accumulative one. Knowing the 3rd or 6th day here is not relevent - notwithstanding these are 'cosmic' days [pre-sunlight], namely epochs of time. History and time have not yet begun at this point, and all of creation is yet static, thus the trigger factor applies. A better analogy is a chef, which has prepared all ingredients, and uses each in its due time, to effect an end result: does it matter when the spinach was cut?
It must be viewed as humans NOT being derivitive of the Darwin mode, but essentially new entities which have never been seen any place - being speech endowed, and thus, yes - believe it or not - a special 'kind'. There is an unintended comprehension glitch of an exacting and complex mathematical text, when one becomes unable to view aside from TOE. Gnesis correctly manifests that speech is not derived by accumulative, self-generating evolutionary factors - but one can wait a million years to know this blatant fact. It is not factored in TOE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 08-01-2007 2:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by graft2vine, posted 08-08-2007 11:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 08-08-2007 12:30 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 179 of 233 (415076)
08-08-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by ringo
07-31-2007 6:28 PM


quote:
graft2vine writes:
You are skipping over some points in the text. Namely that the natural (earthly) man dies, and is raised a spiritual man. It is the spiritual man that is made in God's image.
Ringo:
That is certainly not in the text.
There is a deficiency here in understanding an exacting, mathematical text. Consider what would happen if you disregarded a factor in a math treatise, like disregarding a + or - sign? Thus it says, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT.
Than humans have an extending existence after death is signified in this verse, and note the reverse order here:
'I TAKE LIFE - AND I GIVE LIFE' (Exodus).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 07-31-2007 6:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 180 of 233 (415082)
08-08-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by graft2vine
08-07-2007 4:58 PM


quote:
I agree. Creation being the separating out and forming of all things that proceeded forth from God. Including time and space.
The separation factor applies on all levels. Its proof is we have yet not been able to break this barrier, and know nothing about the origins of anything. This cannot be a deficiency of our minds. The thing is barred from the wirings of our brain. Its like we cannot imagine a new color.
quote:
But why would God create something in a "static" form, when the conditions for it have not been met? It makes more sense to set the table and then bring in the guests. Why have the guests sitting at the table "static" while it is yet being set?
Knowledge can destroy us - if it impacts before its due time; nor would there be any understanding of knowledge or science without the protocol of process. The guests are not sitting static - they only arrive when the table is ready, and the 'dinner ahoy' bell is rung. It means the rest of the ingredients had to come before the guests. vegetation comes before humans; but what constitutes humans came before vegetation. Thus static vegetation came before sunlight - this is 100% science here.
quote:
You say nothing grew, when clearly things grew on day 3 in Genesis 1.
The vegetation grew (sprouted) later, as per the texts; the cycle being triggered by mist and rains (an example only). Ch 1 is thus pre-mist and pre-rain. Here, in day 3, only the attributes infused in vegetation is described.
quote:
Man requires everything up until the vegetation. Fish, birds, animals, are not required for man to exist, but are "helpers" as indicated in Genesis 2.
Correct. The vegetation includes all sustainance, and is as meat (ch 1).
quote:
In Genesis 1, the time of appearing is when the entity is created. God looks at what He creates and "sees that it is good".
Good = finished, complete, adequate.
quote:
Interesting thought, but no, that doesn't really make sense for me, considering that it doesn't with the vegetation either.
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.
quote:
I agree that the days are not 24 hour, but perhaps a thousand years or more. The cosmic day did not change to an earthly day on day 4 in the middle of the creation. Adam was the first human, and there were no prototypes before him. His earthly days began being counted in the day he ate from the tree of knowledge.
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. The sun was created in the opening first first - simultainiously with all components of the universe - while its adaptation occured later. There is no alternative to this, and it says that the attributes of each universal component was ushered in complete with an inherent attribute, as opposed the self-generating accumulation premise which says your PC is the result of particles banging randomly for a very long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by graft2vine, posted 08-07-2007 4:58 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by graft2vine, posted 08-08-2007 12:49 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024