Adam was created on the 3rd day

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

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. 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

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? 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

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

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

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

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