Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 181 of 233 (415130)
08-08-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by IamJoseph
08-08-2007 2:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 2:36 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 182 of 233 (415137)
08-08-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by IamJoseph
08-08-2007 2:36 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Knowing the 3rd or 6th day here is not relevent....
Well, that's the whole topic here, so I guess your post is not relevant.

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 178 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 2:36 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by graft2vine, posted 08-08-2007 1:39 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 183 of 233 (415141)
08-08-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by IamJoseph
08-08-2007 3:11 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by IamJoseph, posted 08-08-2007 3:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 184 of 233 (415153)
08-08-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
08-08-2007 12:30 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 08-08-2007 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-08-2007 2:05 PM graft2vine has replied

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


Message 185 of 233 (415157)
08-08-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by graft2vine
08-08-2007 1:39 PM


graft2vine writes:
I do see my answer as sufficient and will continue to address it, however don't want to stagnate the discussion in this area.
Well, the discussion has stagnated for quite a while, largely because (I think) you handwave away the objections to your position. IamJoseph "basically repeating what you have said before" doesn't move the discussion forward either. (I suspect that you won't want to hold hands with him for very long in any case.)
To move the discussion forward, you need to address in a meaningful way the missing mention of Adam on Day Three.

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 184 by graft2vine, posted 08-08-2007 1:39 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by graft2vine, posted 08-08-2007 3:30 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 186 of 233 (415171)
08-08-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ringo
08-08-2007 2:05 PM


OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ringo, posted 08-08-2007 2:05 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 187 of 233 (415429)
08-10-2007 2:28 AM


Third day is an improvision notion, resultant from disecting a complex and exacting mathematical text, dealing with the deepest issues, in a mode for all generation's contemplations.
Genesis also says, ALL was created at one instant, requiring no further input, and ALL appears in their due time, signified by the term RESTED (ceased all creation). The items listed in Genesis' days of creation refer to what appeared in its due time, else the verse 'I will give you your rains in its due time - the early rains and the later rains' - becomes superfluous. This is so even though the technical term of 'created' is used in these listings - namely, it is explained from a retrospective human view.
Thus man and vegetation were both created in verse one, and in its due time, activated, statically (not yet alive and active, but fully constructed), and made dynamic (alive/active) when other created structures like the sun's luminosity, rains, etc were ignited. There is no alternative to this - it means Penecilin, discovered 200 years ago, already existed since Creation, as do the notes of a song, but can be evoked only in its due time - else these could not be possible to discover.
The resting of creation with the Sabbath is not a chronological factor - the Sabbath is alligned with the first verse in Genesis, and Liberty and inalienable human rights, signifying that all of creation is by the Creator. Thus the first two words of The Ten Commandments were in ancient Egyptian (I am/Anno chi), directed at the Pharoah who called himself divine, while negating Liberty and one day of rest.
'THERE IS NOTHING NEW' - K. Solomon.

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2007 2:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 188 of 233 (415431)
08-10-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by IamJoseph
08-10-2007 2:28 AM


joseph, this was garbage when you first argued it, and it's still garbage. it requires tiwsting the text incredibly far away from its plain and simple meaning, discounting an entire chapter in favor of misreading a single verse.
please, take this claptrap to the appropriate thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by IamJoseph, posted 08-10-2007 2:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 08-10-2007 2:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 189 of 233 (415433)
08-10-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by arachnophilia
08-10-2007 2:33 AM


quote:
tiwsting the text incredibly far away from its plain and simple meaning
Explain the plain and simple meaning of the first verse in Genesis: how is the heavens and earth different then from now? Did oxygen, for example, exist in its propencity form, and could it come about if it was not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2007 2:33 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2007 3:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 233 (415434)
08-10-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by IamJoseph
08-10-2007 2:46 AM


please take it to the appropriate thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 08-10-2007 2:46 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 233 (422900)
09-18-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by graft2vine
07-29-2006 7:57 AM


Re: No contradiction.
graft2vine,
graf2vine writes:
I agree, each account gives more details that the other does not. The focus of chapter one is the days, and in chapter two the focus is the creation of man. But the creation of man should not contradict the order of events in Genesis one. Namely the implication that man was created first, then the plants and the animals.
When reading the Bible it is not good to read it expecting a literal communication. The Bible has gone through a long development in order for us to be able to read it in english and in a book format. Please understand that scriptures contained in the Bible probably were not written in the format of chapter 1, 2, 3, etc originally. Also understand that some believe that the first account (G1) was a spiritual creation and the second account (G2) was the actual physical creation. I think a good idea for you is to perhaps research the spiritual creation/physical creation idea.
Edited by trossthree, : error

Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by graft2vine, posted 07-29-2006 7:57 AM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Brian, posted 09-18-2007 5:42 PM Force has replied
 Message 197 by BobAliceEve, posted 09-20-2007 6:34 AM Force has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 192 of 233 (422902)
09-18-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Force
09-18-2007 5:30 PM


Re: No contradiction.
Please understand that scriptures contained in the Bible probably were not written in the format of chapter 1, 2, 3, etc originally.
There is no 'probably' about it, the Bible was not split in to chapters and verses until the 13th century, by Cardinal Caro.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Force, posted 09-18-2007 5:30 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Force, posted 09-18-2007 5:57 PM Brian has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 233 (422906)
09-18-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Brian
09-18-2007 5:42 PM


Re: No contradiction.
Brian,
I know, I didn't want to open any other arguments. I try to be carful with what I say.

Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Brian, posted 09-18-2007 5:42 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2007 7:37 PM Force has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 194 of 233 (422921)
09-18-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Force
09-18-2007 5:57 PM


ID Issue
trossthree,
From your IP you appear to be the member formerly known as FitzgeraldR who hasn't posted since 2005. If this is true, we need to merge the accounts so that you aren't in violation of Forum Guidelines.
Please let me know via the Moderation Thread if I am correct. If yes then also decide which ID you wish to use.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Force, posted 09-18-2007 5:57 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Force, posted 09-18-2007 8:58 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 233 (422939)
09-18-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by AdminPD
09-18-2007 7:37 PM


Re: ID Issue
adminpd,
I used that name once. However, I would rather you delete FitzgeraldR.

Thanks
trossthree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2007 7:37 PM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 09-18-2007 9:04 PM Force 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