Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 1:59 AM
42 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   YEC without the bible, possible?
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 2964 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 121 of 133 (513176)
06-25-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by BobAliceEve
06-20-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Some help from Admin please
Hi BobAliceEve

- did Adam and Eve evolve or were they created

Considering the topic of this thread, let's not even ask.

- when God took them into the garden were they a basic family

God did not bring them into the garden, he created them there.

- if created, were they subject to physical death

that depends on your interpretation

- was the tree of life not mentioned as a concern along with the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it was not a concern because they were already immortal

Depending on how you look at it, the tree of life may have been a way to get spiritually closer to God, a constant drug that Adam and Eve had to take to stay alive, or merely there for contrast. It's up to the reader. (Of course, there may be other possibilities.)

- is the tree of life the antidote to either the physical or spiritual death

See above.

- if they were a basic family and not subject to death would they live forever as a family

Obviously not- the whole apple/Cain and Abel fiascos. (Or where you asking in the case of staying in the garden?)

- is the Messiah's mission to restore to it's original state what God created or to change things

See Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and pretty much the whole NT, (Don't forget Revelation!!)

- when Isaiah says that the lion will eat hay like the ox will that be a restoration of what was before the fall or will that be a change

It seems to point to a futuristic utopia for God's people.
And the wolf will be living with the lamb, and the leopard will take his rest with the young goat; and the lion will take grass for food like the ox; and the young lion will go with the young ones of the herd; and a little child will be their guide.

- is this knowledge valuable to a discussion regarding how the age of the earth is thought of

It has nothing to do with it whatsoever!!!! :-)

Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by BobAliceEve, posted 06-20-2009 11:28 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 122 of 133 (513186)
06-26-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by BobAliceEve
06-20-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Some help from Admin please
Hi BobAliceEve,

BobAliceEve writes:

I am not, for this discussion, concerned about scientific support but I wonder what the prevailing thinking (i.e, established scriptural support) here is on the following:

BobAliceEve writes:

- did Adam and Eve evolve or were they created

According to Genesis 2:7 man was formed from the dust of the earth.

According to Genesis 2:22 woman was cloned from the rib of that man.

BobAliceEve writes:

- when God took them into the garden were they a basic family

The man was in the garden when God brought the woman to him.

In Genesis 2:23, 24 the man gave an oath of joining himself to the woman.

Thus they were husband and wife.

BobAliceEve writes:

- if created, were they subject to physical death

They were not subject to physical death until the man had eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:17

BobAliceEve writes:

- was the tree of life not mentioned as a concern along with the tree of knowledge of good and evil because it was not a concern because they were already immortal

The tree of life was not necessary until after the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the earth.

BobAliceEve writes:

- is the tree of life the antidote to either the physical or spiritual death

Both.

BobAliceEve writes:

- if they were a basic family and not subject to death would they live forever as a family

Had the man that was formed from the dust of the earth not eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he and the woman cloned from his rib would be keeping and dressing the garden today.

They would be the only two people. No one else would have ever existed.

BobAliceEve writes:

- is the Messiah's mission to restore to it's original state what God created or to change things

God came to the earth and allowed Himself to be killed on the cross of calvary so man could be restored to the relationship with God that he had in the garden before he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

He also made it possible for the universe to be restored to the original condition that is spoken of in Revelation 21:1.

Peter tells us in 2Peter 3:10 the present one will melt with fervent heat.

BobAliceEve writes:

- when Isaiah says that the lion will eat hay like the ox will that be a restoration of what was before the fall or will that be a change

There is no reference to this having taken place before other than Solomon saying there is nothing new under the sun. Take that however you want.

But the day will come when the things in Isaiah chapter 11 will come to pass.

BobAliceEve writes:

- is this knowledge valuable to a discussion regarding how the age of the earth is thought of

The only thing relevant to the age of the earth would be the man that was formed from the dust of the earth, and the woman that was cloned from his rib.

When did he exist on planet earth?

That would tell us if it is a young earth or an old earth.

The man created (Hebrew bara) in Genesis 1:27 at the same time as woman appeared on earth at a much later point.

BTW I am old earth. Much older than any numbers put forth by the scientific community.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by BobAliceEve, posted 06-20-2009 11:28 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 06-26-2009 8:36 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Perdition, posted 06-26-2009 12:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 126 by greyseal, posted 09-06-2009 12:38 PM ICANT has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 133 (513202)
06-26-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
06-26-2009 1:28 AM


Behoove Yourself
According to Genesis 2:22 woman was cloned from the rib of that man.
Where in the Genesis 2:22 does it say that Eve was cloned? If Eve were cloned Eve would have been male. If Eve were not male Eve wasn't a clone. If Eve were male then all those bigots saying "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." need to stand down.

Can one say "Here I have taken a photograph of my dog; but I used crayons, made the hair different, and reconfigured it as an industrial wood boring machine." and be correct in ones claim about having taken a photograph of ones dog?

When one uses the trappings of science to make the Bible seem more sophisticated then it actually is it behooves one to know the science so as not to make the Bible seem less sophisticated then it actually is.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammarer.

Edited by lyx2no, : Grammarest.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 06-26-2009 1:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 06-26-2009 2:19 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1314 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 124 of 133 (513217)
06-26-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
06-26-2009 1:28 AM


Interesting Thought
Hi ICANT,

The tree of life was not necessary until after the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the earth.

This begs the question, why was the tree of life created in the first place? If it was not needed until after the disobedience, did God already know they would disobey, and thus made this tree as a solution? If it was a solution, why is it barred from Adam and Eve after they ate of the other? It would seem to be more of a taunting, to me. "You guys really messed up, and here's a way for you to live forever again, but you can't have it, nah nah nah."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 06-26-2009 1:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 125 of 133 (513228)
06-26-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by lyx2no
06-26-2009 8:36 AM


Re: Behoove Yourself
Can one say "Here I have taken a photograph of my dog; but I used crayons, made the hair different, and reconfigured it as an industrial wood boring machine." and be correct in ones claim about having taken a photograph of ones dog?

I believe you can. Do you remember this beautiful portrait by Mr. Bean? - No one can argue that that's not Whistler's Mother.

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 06-26-2009 8:36 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 126 of 133 (522926)
09-06-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
06-26-2009 1:28 AM


Re: Some help from Admin please
BTW I am old earth. Much older than any numbers put forth by the scientific community.

really? older than 4.5 billion years?

why?

I mean, the bible says "6 days", and the literalists have worked their way back from supposed ages of the people in it and given us ~6000 years.

Why on Earth would you ignore the "evidence" they have, and ignore the real evidence than scientists have for saying billions of years as well?

So why, and how old to you think it is?

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 06-26-2009 1:28 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:57 PM greyseal has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 127 of 133 (523026)
09-07-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by greyseal
09-06-2009 12:38 PM


Re: Why
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

why

Why not?

Especially since energy and matter can not be created. It had to exist in some form.

greyseal writes:

I mean, the bible says "6 days", and the literalists have worked their way back from supposed ages of the people in it and given us ~6000 years.

There are those who claim to be able to work back to the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.

But they do not even attempt to work back to Genesis 1:1 which was the beginning.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by greyseal, posted 09-06-2009 12:38 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jacortina, posted 09-07-2009 7:30 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 130 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 5:38 AM ICANT has responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 128 of 133 (523029)
09-07-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:57 PM


Re: Why
Actually, Ussher's chronology claims to go back to the very beginning, placing it on October 23, 4004 BCE.

And from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal quinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced.

J. Ussher, The Annals of the World (1658)

He most definitely doesn't peg this beginning to the creation of man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 4:07 AM jacortina has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 129 of 133 (523049)
09-08-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by jacortina
09-07-2009 7:30 PM


Re: Why
Hi jacortina,

Welcome to EvC.

jacortina writes:

He most definitely doesn't peg this beginning to the creation of man.

Since all Mr Ussher had to go on was the age of the different men back to the man created in Genesis 1:27 I don't see how he didn't tie it to the creaton of man.

Remember man was created on the day six according to Gen 1:27.

Enlighten me as to what he used.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jacortina, posted 09-07-2009 7:30 PM jacortina has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jacortina, posted 09-08-2009 6:38 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 130 of 133 (523056)
09-08-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:57 PM


Re: Why
ICANT writes:

Why not?


"because" isn't an answer. That's a child's answer.

I asked you not just why older than 6 days, but why older than 4.5 billion years. I'm reasonably sure I wanted to know how old, and the reasoning behind it - at least from somebody who is a master of context (as all bible readers obviously are) you should have picked up on that.

I know why the bible bashers say 6000 years - because they can trace how old people in the bible were and can trace certain historical events that are presumed to be accurately placeable to our timeframe - that puts the earth at about a week older than adam when he died so YES they can go back to genesis 1:1 with a reasonable amount of certainty (it doesn't say "in the beginning was god, and he was really pretty lazy so did nothing for eighteen trillion years" so they can assume he went more or less straight to work).

I know why the scientists say 4.5 billion years (dating of rocks, age of the sun, age of the universe - a hell of a lot of calculations I don't understand).

And you?

You say "it's older than that because I say so".

Uh, yeah - I'd take even the bible's estimate over yours at this point - you either disagree that god made the earth (note the lack of capitol letter) or disagree on how long it took for god to stop lollygagging and create everything else on, under or in it.

Without, I add, any sort of justification.

So, again, why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 2:13 PM greyseal has responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 131 of 133 (523066)
09-08-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
09-08-2009 4:07 AM


Re: Why
That's not the point.

You made a claim that none had even tried to work back to the very beginning:

But they do not even attempt to work back to Genesis 1:1 which was the beginning.

You may disagree with Ussher's findings or methods. But that is not at all the same thing.

Ussher specifically claims his chronolgy goes back to the beginning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 4:07 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 132 of 133 (523113)
09-08-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by greyseal
09-08-2009 5:38 AM


Re: Why
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

So, again, why?

I think if you got a little time to read and will go Here you can find my position on creation.

The thread is at 373 posts and taking a lot of my time so I don't have any intention of restating everything here for you.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 5:38 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 2:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1938 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 133 of 133 (523122)
09-08-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
09-08-2009 2:13 PM


Re: Why
forgive me, again, but your position seems to be:

quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

To which you reply:

The same light period God created life.

Now, weaselling around the word "day" by calling it a "light period" isn't very compelling.

what's even less compelling is still why one "light period" (which isn't defined, anywhere by anyone) equates to a definite period of time which is apparently "longer than 4 billion years" according to the post I was responding to.

As I said - the bible has it's chronology which gives us about 6000 years old for everything.

Science gives us about 12 billion years for everything.

Both of these two, at least, have their reasons.

Your reasoning seems to be "because I said so" which, I'm sorry, is even less compelling than the bible (which doesn't stand up when taken literally in light of the facts, unless you call Last Thursday-ism).

Rather than re-stating, I think I'd be happy if you stated even once.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 2:13 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019