Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

quote:

---

i do understand that, but how on earth is anyone going to understand the hebrew bible when they are reading it in a modern english context

​

its absurd.

---

I agree, but that is the parameters that ICANT set.I don't know if these are the same definitions that ICANT has in his dictionary, but I found this KJV dictionary online. Given the information concerning the planet, this online dictionary isn't a transcription of an actual 1611 dictionary. earth
Notice that definition 3 which refers to the planet does not have a Bible verse associated with it; but definition 6 does. In definition 8 we have the meaning of ground. Now we look at ground.

quote:

---

Yet you still insist that earth does not mean planet but means 'ground' even though the hebrew word for ground is not employed in genesis 1. And the writer was not differentiating the erets between the land and sea but rather between the erets and sky.

---

Our English word earth does not carry a meaning of planet. (We have the word "planet" for that job.) The word earth eventually became the name of our planet about 1400CE. I can name my cat, Petunia, but that doesn't mean the word Petunia now means cat. It just refers to a specific cat with that name. When capitalized, the word earth refers to a specific planet with that name. Do you understand the difference between a name and a meaning.As far as Message 159 and Message 179, I don't see that they disagree with each other. (Use the peek to see how I linked to these msgs. It is helpful for readers.)You apparently missed the fact that I've changed my approach to fit the parameters set my ICANT.In Message 184, ICANT wrote: Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible?So in Message 193, I changed my approach. That's why I wrote: OK, straight reading with modern understanding.That's when you jumped in on Message 193 and apparently didn't pay attention to the change. If you don't want to discuss within those parameters, I suggest you address one of my earlier posts that did deal with understanding Genesis 1 and 2 from the viewpoint of their original audiences.

quote:

---

decide on which stand you are taking and let me know because im terribly confused lol.

---

Even with the change in approach, my stance hasn't changed.Genesis 1 and 2 are separate stories with different purposes.If you want to argue the issue concerning eretz and adamah then go to the appropriate thread. Not The Planet
It's really off topic here. This thread is more about creation as presented by Genesis 1 and 2.

quote:

---

however, the outset of genesis says "God created the heavens and the earth" before thtere was any land creaed. So it is refering to the planet earth and not the dirt/ground of the earth.

---

Again, it wasn't capitalized. At the time of the King James Writing the common practice was to capitalize all proper nouns and nouns that referred to important people. Notice that it was capitalized when God named the dry land, Earth and the waters, Seas.The author tells us the names that God gave various items in the story.light is called Day
darkness is called Night
firmament is called Heaven
dry ground is called Earth
gathered water is called SeasSo according to the story, in Genesis 1:1 we have God creating the firmament and the dry ground.Notice that God doesn't speak water into existence.

quote:

---

your link does appear to mean the planet in its first and third definition.

---

It is the name of our planet. It doesn't mean planet. Do you understand the difference?Definition 1 looks at earth as an element. Air, earth, and water. Sounds familiar.

quote:

---

Everywhere in the Bible that we have the statement "these are the generations of" it always preceeds the statement of the generations. It never follows the generations.

---

Amen!I think the story of A&E has caused people to assume the "man" created in 1:27 is just two people. If God made mankind male and female, it is talking about mankind, not just two people. There isn't anything in the story that says only two people were created.

quote:

---

There was no evening and morning in the story from Genesis 2:4-4:25. There was only the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.

---

Seriously? Evening and morning aren't mentioned in the A&E story, but we can't assume that time didn't pass normally in the story.

I started responding to what you wrote, but it is obvious you don't know which century you wish to stick to. You bring up the 1611 KJV, but didn't quote it as such in the OP. You aren't affirming anything. You're running amuck.You take a modern meaning and then apply reasoning to the ancient writer, but don't care what the ancient audience understood. No wonder you're confused.You ask questions that aren't part of what the text says. You want to write your own fiction, just like Peg.I don't have time for an insincere debate.Good luck with your game.Signed Majorly Disappointed.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

The 1611 version is the authorized KJV Bible.

​

The one we normally use is on that the old English has been cleaned up so we can read it easier. But it is not the KJV Bible it is a modified version.

​

I did specify the KJV Bible.

---

And the KJV I have in my hand says it is the authorized version.In Message 102 you said: You didn't specify the 1611 version in the OP and what you quoted wasn't from the 1611. You also didn't provide a line by line in the OP. It wasn't until Message 36 in response to Phillip that you gave a line by line, but you didn't provide quotes from the 1611 version so that we can all be on the same page.Now you and I don't disagree that there are two creation stories, but our reasons for our conclusions are different.We do seem to disagree on what the stories in the KJV are saying in various spots.In Message 36, you simply say that the heaven and earth was created. Now since there are various meanings for the words heaven and earth, this doesn't tell us what you feel is being said. In Message 211 in response to my Message 193, you say that Heaven refers to the universe and Earth refers to the planet. Your view is contrary to what the story tells us and to the KJV Bible Dictionary. The story tells us what heaven and earth refer to.In Message 36, you say that verse two tells you that "it" had become inhabitable. Verse 2 does not indicate that the land had changed from a former condition. Notice the word "and". At this point, the narrator hasn't told us that the land is covered with water as you assume in Message 211. In Message 36, you disagree that verse 3 has God speaking illumination into existence. You feel he just made it visible. The verse doesn't say that. In Message 211, you say the light was just made visible to the water that covered the land. The story doesn't tell us that. You're saying that when God says, "Let there be", that he isn't speaking things into existence as the story implies.In Message 36, you say that you know from verse 4 that when God separated the light and dark, that it was light on half of the planet (I'm using the word planet instead of earth because that is what I feel you are really saying) and dark on the other half of the planet. The story doesn't tell us that either. You're adding.At least in verse 5, we agree that a light period and then a dark period equals a common day (or vice versa).In Message 36, you say that in verses 6,7, and 8 that God brought in atmosphere, which he called Heaven. I can agree that firmament refers to atmosphere. There is no mention of uplifted waters though. The atmosphere separated the waters so that there was now water above the atmosphere and water below the atmosphere.In Message 211, you stated: Since the Earth is surrounded by this expanse of atmosphere it stands to reason that the writer of Genesis knew the Earth was some kind of circular mass. Whether his readers understood this or not is not important.I disagree with your reasoning, but remember that isn't what you want to discuss. You are just affirming what the KJV says. The story doesn't tell us the atmosphere encirles the dry land. The story also doesn't tell us how much dry land there is. If you bring in the writer, then we have to take into account what was known to the writer at the time the story was written. But you said, it makes no difference who wrote it or when it was written. So your reasoning is irrelevant to the discussion.In Message 36 and Message 211, you feel that the gathering of the waters and exposing the land mass would look like your avatar. You have no way of knowing because the story doesn't tell us how much dry land was exposed or whether there was one mass or more than one. Again to be more specific, we would need to look at the maps of the past. That is outside what you want to discuss. So you're making an assertion that is not supported by the text.Up to verse 11 you feel that nothing has been created, only rearranged. So you don't feel that the phrase "Let there be ..." is another way of saying God created. The story implies otherwise. God spoke and things came into being.In Message 36, you claim that the KJV says the seeds are already in the earth. You made the same statement in Message 211. I find that to be can incorrect reading of the text. Due to your error you ask where they seeds came from. Why ask that when it is beyond the scope of this discussion? God said let the ground bring forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees whose fruit has seeds in them. It is a description of the type of plants that came forth. It doesn't say there were seeds already in the ground. So grass, herbs, and fruit trees were the first things grown. No root foods.In Message 36, you say you know that the land obeyed and brought forth the plants called for. You personified the land. The implication of the story is that God caused the plants to grow from the ground. He spoke and it happened.I disagree with your implication that "let there be" isn't creating.InMessage 36 and Message 211 you don't feel that God created the sun, moon or stars. (greater and lesser light) The story doesn't support your contention.In Message 36 and Message 211, you feel that the whales created in verse 21 are the first thing created after 1:1. I still disagree. Look at the text. You keep missing the word "and". God created great whales AND every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth and every winged fowl.Same problem with verses 24 and 25. We agree mankind was created, but we don't know how many.
We agree the story has everyone as vegetarians.
We agree God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it.We also agree that the phrase "these are the generations" refers to what comes after, not before the statement. Message 208I think we disagree that generations refers to the people, not just history in general as you state in Message 211. There is no definition in the KJV dictionary.

quote:

---

I don't know where that conclusion comes from as your analysis does not confirm it.

---

My conclusion that Genesis 1 is basic creation, building the base and then filling it is supported by the story, when read correctly. The first three days create the foundation and the last three fill it.Mankind isn't the primary point of the story. God creating and resting is the point of the story. A law was based on the resting portion, not on the creation of man. The creation and rest was more important.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: Conclusion

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

This part of the verse is telling us the time frame that is covered in the first part of the verse.

---

The time frame is more than just that small part.

quote:

---

There was no misty rain. The ground was watered from beneath.

​

The narrator is telling us that in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth before there was man, plants, animals or rain.

---

That's what I said in Message 193. TBack when God made the earth and the sky, before anything was growing, and before man was around, God caused a misty rain. From the KJV Dictionary. The story doesn't say it was watered from beneath. It says a mist arose from the land and watered the ground. A mist descends according to the KJV Dictionary. It isn't a mist under the ground as far as I know.So we agree how man was formed, although I'm not sure why you have to rephrase.We agree that about Eden.

quote:

---

There is no tree of knowledge.

​

There was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it covered no other knowledge.

---

Seriously? We're reading the same book. You know which tree I'm talking about. I really have to type the whole thing out for you? When I say Tree of Knowledge, I am referring to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil or TKGE.

quote:

---

In which he tells us of all the bodies of water on the face of the earth. There was no sea or seas mentioned.

---

Actually the verse is telling us about the river in Eden and when it parted, not the planet. Notice the regions mentioned. We agree God gave Adam a job.

quote:

---

I agree that God set the boundaries of what the man could eat as He commanded him not to eat of a specific tree.

​

I disagree that God exaggerated the punishment for disobedience.

​

Because that man died in the same light period in which he was formed from the dust of the ground as he did not exist in Genesis 1:2.

---

Neither story gives you that information. The author doesn't tell us that time is understood differently than we understand it today. I can say the threat of punishment was exaggerated because they didn't die when they ate.

quote:

---

God did not realize any such thing. He made a statement it was not good for man to be alone.

---

So he made him a helper. He didn't say why it wasn't good for man to be alone or what the helper would help him with. The story says God made him a helper.

quote:

---

He actually had several helpers but just not one suited for God's purpose for mankind.

---

The story doesn't say that.

quote:

---

Men were not from dirt. Man was formed from the dust of the ground. But that did not make him a man as the form was lifeless. God breathing the breath of life into that form is what caused the resultant living being constituting a man.

---

Dust is fine particles of soil. Dust is also dirt. Also see dust in Strong's. I don't think there is such a thing as clean dust.

quote:

---

So the man said it not the narrator and there is nothing mentioned about a baby.

---

Hard to prove either way since there aren't any quotation marks. It could go either way.Flesh refers to body. Two people can't become one body. So the phrase is referring to something else. I read it as a child. Sex is a joining. Then we find out their both naked. It is one of those phrases that can be taken many ways. There is no concrete answer.

quote:

---

So where do you get the modern perspective from?

---

Not sure I understand the question. I read it the same way I read any story today.

quote:

---

Your commentary does not make it just a story.

---

No, the man created from dust and the woman created from bone are clear indicators. Man searching the animals for a mate.

quote:

---

Your disbelief in the story has no effect on what is recorded in the KJV Bible.

---

You said this wasn't about what is true or false. You said it was about what the KJV says. So disbelief or belief is irrelevant.

quote:

---

But thanks for spending the time to go verse by verse even though you don't believe the stories.

---

Since disbelief or belief is irrelevant per your parameters, this attempt to discredit my reading is beneath you.

quote:

---

Adding there is no 'and' in the Hebrew text it was added by the Masoretes after the time of Christ. I appologize for not presenting the argument from the original text here as time is too precious to go into such discussions but they will be included in the book. I have mentioned some but not argued the points.

---

Another weak point.In Message 1 you said: The Bible will be the final authority as that is what we will be discussing. Since there are several versions and you state in the OP that you will be using three different texts. (KJV, LXX, and Hebrew) In Message 23 you state that these three texts will be the final authority. They all can't be the final authority since, as you've noted, there are differences.The word "and" is in the LXX. Does the majority rule?

quote:

---

Adding again there is no Hebrew words translated 'let there' the Hebrew word hayah is translated 'let there be'. The word hayah definition has been presented in several places. There are only 5 words in verse 3. One each for God, said, be,
light, light. Everything else is added. I will not go into a discussion of the language and construction of the Hebrew sentences here is
as it is too involved.

---

In Message 205, you told Straggler: I am glad you have no interest in debating Hebrew of the Ot which is a dead language with me.But you bring it up for what reason? I don't see that it makes a difference. God said be light. The LXX and the KJV do say "Let there be light..." So either they are conveying what the Hebrew is saying or they are wrong.

quote:

---

Adding If it was not dark on one side and light on the other where was the division of the light?

---

We don't know. The story doesn't tell us. It isn't important to the story line.

quote:

---

Adding If they were not uplifted from the face of the waters where did they come from?

---

Again, not important to the story. The story doesn't tell us how God did it.

quote:

---

Adding The text does say the water was in one place and the land in one place. My Avatar is a modified copy of Pangea.

---

But it doesn't tell us how much was land and how much was water. Your avatar is a guess.

quote:

---

Adding This verse says plants that have their seed inside, upon the earth. What is upon the earth?

---

These things will be growing on the land.

quote:

---

Adding I keep missing the 'and' as it does not appear in the Hebrew text which I am allowed to use to support my position. I will make that clearer in my book. Thanks again.

---

That is convenient, but it does occur in the other two texts and the ancient Hebrew is a dead language. Are you saying the translations are incorrect?

quote:

---

Adding There are definitions in the Hebrew Lexicons from which all in the KJV Bible was derived.

​

Question is the genealogy of a family the family history?

​

If yes why can't the heavens and the earth have a history of the day they were created as declared in Genesis 2:4?

---

Emphasis on family. History of the country or planet is not genealogy. Generations refers to people.

quote:

---

Does the text say the generations of the heaven and the earth?

---

I don't know. What does the Hebrew say?Since generations refers to people, the author may have been personifying the heaven and earth or it is referring to the people that follow.In a modern reading it is difficult to say.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

And I guess you do not have any intentions of trying to discredit my presentation.

---

Not by telling you your hair is the wrong color to understand. We are "affirming" what is written. The words are there for all to see regardless of what one believes.

quote:

---

Does it say the water came from the atmosphere?

​

OR

​

Does it say it went up from the earth?

---

Came up from the ground and fell back down. In modern reading, mist gives a visual of light rain, not something rising from the ground. Not really a major point. The point is the ground was watered. How a reader visualizes the action can vary.

quote:

---

You want me to be specific and I thank you for pointing out where I was not as specific as needed.

​

So why can't I ask you to be specific?

---

I'm asking for specifics when there is more than one meaning and when you are requiring a specific book written in a specific year. There's only two trees in the garden. Seriously.

quote:

---

If this story is what is claimed in Genesis 2:4 as being the history of the Heaven and the Earth in the day they were created.

​

When did that day end. For the end of day to come darkness must appear.

​

There is no darkness stated until Genesis 1:2.

​

There was no man and woman in existence at Genesis 1:2.

​

Therefore they died in the Day (light period) in which they were created.

---

I thought we were "affirming" what the KJV says, not speculating. The story of A&E does not tell us that time in the story passes differently than we understand time today. The reader will assume normal passage of time unless directed otherwise. That's how stories work. You can speculate all you want, but the story doesn't give us that information.Per the OP you are affirming that there are two creation stories. I agree there are two stories, but I haven't seen support that the stories are to be interrelated.

quote:

---

Tell my wife that, Thursday will be our 53 wedding anniversary.

---

You and your wife aren't one body. You are a couple. You are legally joined together in marriage. The story doesn't say anything about legalities. It says cleave, which means join. Sex is definitely a joining and can result in one flesh (children). Marriage is also a joining and can result in one flesh (children) or two people functioning well together. As I said, it can be taken either way. There isn't a concrete meaning for us today.Yes, Adam said "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man"; but the next sentence is doubtful.The narrator is the one who has the overall view, not Adam. It is doubtful that Adam at this time is telling us how things will be in the future. The narrator is telling the audience this is why men and women come together and then the narrator continues by saying "And they were both naked...". (I know, "and" isn't in the Hebrew text, but again, it is in the LXX and the KJV. Something in the Hebrew prompted the translators to use the word "and" or they are wrong.)

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I need the discussion as it points out weak points in what I am presenting. All of this discussion is in preparation for fine tuning my Book "The Real Creation Presented in Genesis".

---

When you make comments like the one in Message 154, you negate the Bible as the final authority, and the specific texts you are using. When writing a book, no matter what position you take; be consistent. You've been inconsistent in this thread. That is a weakness.When I proof papers or manuscripts, that is what I look for. Consistency in style and content.That's also one of the reasons we can tell that Genesis 1 and 2 weren't written to be read together. They weren't written to compliment each other.In the OP, you stated: In this thread I will affirm that there are 2 creations presented in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.Since you tend to be vague, are you saying there are two creation stories or that there were only two specific things created over the course of the two stories?I've noticed you're try to fit the Gen 2 story within Day 6 of the Gen 1 story. The lack of consistency between the two stories tells us that they aren't meant to be "blended" together.I still contend that to understand the point of the story we have to try and understand to the best of our ability what the author was trying to tell his original audience. Since ancient Hebrew is a dead language, some meanings of words, idioms, and slang may be lost to us. There are some things we may never know. They are lost in time.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

One of us has missed something, and I don't think it's me. He is specifically not trying to fit 2ff into day 6. That is the normal fundie position, it is for example what Peg is trying to do. ICANT has recognized the problems with this, and instead is trying to fit 2:4-4:24 into the gap between 1:1 and 1:2, call it day 0.

---

It isn't supposed to fit into the Gen 1 story at all.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I am saying there are two separate stories which are unrelated in any way shape form or fashion and with an undetermined period of light between them.

---

Your theory is that the A&E story (Genesis 2:4-4:24) describes what happened in Genesis 1:1.Where does the Genesis 1 story (Genesis 1:2-2:3) take place given all the descendants from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5?Essentially you're implying that God reworked the planet after the "fall" and created mankind again. That doesn't bode well for doctrine.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

It begins in the evening found in Genesis 1:2 as the light period (Day) God created the Heaven and the Earth in had ended.

​

The creation part ceased when God ceased His creation acts in Genesis 2:2. He will not resume creating until He creates a New Heaven and Earth as John tells us in Revelation chapter 21,and 22.

​

But the story that began in Genesis 1:2 continues until this day and will end when the universe melts with fervent heat.

---

So much for affirming what the text says.

quote:

---

This is the generations of Adam the male and female created in Genesis 1:27 in the image/likeness of God.

​

It has nothing to do with the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.

---

Then what are you going to do with the Genesis 4:25-26? That's part of the A&E story.I suppose the second Adam (Genesis 5) just happened to have a son named Seth who had a son named Enosh.

quote:

---

I am not implying, I am affirming that the text presents the series of events as described in the story in Genesis 2:4-25 and the story in Genesis 1:2-27.

​

Where does it affect doctrine.

---

Your theory shows that God had two chances to get it right and still couldn't stop evil. He then had to use the flood and still couldn't stop evil. That's three.

quote:

---

What I have affirmed takes nothing away from what Paul said.

​

By this one man sin entered into the kosmos that is the entire universe. It is not just mankind.

---

Actually kosmos does refer to mankind and your theory does impact what Paul said. In your theory, the first Adam is the one who brought sin into mankind. He and his family were destroyed and God created new people. Apparently he didn't filter out the "sin" potential from the medium he used. At least with the flood story, one man and his family continued, so it's at least a plausible continuance. With your theory, it isn't.

quote:

---

John telling us God gave the Son to purchase redemption.

---

The redemption was supposedly because of the A&E fiasco. In your rendition, A&E were destroyed and God created new people.

quote:

---

Someone asked why this Earth will melt as Peter tells us and God create a New Heaven and Earth as John tells us. The reason is that sin entered into the universe and must be purged.

---

With apocalyptic language, the planet isn't going to melt. Peter is supposedly talking in apocalyptic language, and not talking about the planet. Odds are he is talking about a new nation and government.

quote:

---

Now if you have some specific doctrine in mind that is affected please share it.

---

The two you provided make the point.Your theory breaks the connection between A&E's mistake and its supposed impact on mankind and the need for Christ.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

It appears in the texts because the Masoretis during the 7th to the 11 century AD added pointings to the Hebrew language that was translated in the texts we have today. Those do not exist in the Hebrew that the Bible was written in. It has no vowls.

---

Still convenient that you can go back to the original Hebrew when the KJV doesn't fit what you want, but dismiss when others try to understand what was originally written or understood. Message 133
Message 15

quote:

---

A dead language means it is a language that is not spoken today but it does not mean it is not studied today.

---

Message 154
You answered your own question. The point of studying dead languages is to understand what the words meant to the people when they were a spoken language.Edited by purpledawn, : Changed Subtitle

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Words have meanings and it makes no difference what some people think about what the words mean.

​

The words used in the Hebrew text had specific meanings.

​

The words had the same meaning whether the people understood the meaning or not.

​

English words have specific meanings. But a lot of people do not and will not accept the meaning of the words supplying their own definition. Example your discussions with Peg.

​

The English words have the same meaning whether people understand the meaning or not.

---

quote:

---

I had not answered this post as I did not see where it was beneficial to the discussion.

---

This wasn't the post that really needed an answer. Message 258 is the one that addresses how your theory impacts doctrine and doesn't really fit in 1:1.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

According to the text:

---

We don't disagree on what words are in the KJV, which is all you can positively assert. Your hypothesis that the A&E story takes place in Genesis 1:1 is not something you can assert without reasonable support. Your hypothesis has less to back it up than the Documentary Hypothesis.

quote:

---

Sometime before a dark period this man died.

​

Now where did I miss affirming what the text said?

---

The implication that man died before a dark period, is not in the text. That is your own hypothesis.

quote:

---

Who said they belong to the A&E story?...

​

These two verses had to be embleshed to make the two stories into one story as most people beleved it to be as most still do.

---

By saying that these two verses had to be embellished takes your argument outside "affirming" just what is written. As written, Genesis 2:25-26 is a continuation of the A&E story.Per the Documentary Hypothesis, Genesis 25-26 are part of the A&E story. Chapter 5, with all those ages that didn't add up, was written by the Redactor. The Redactor additions are the "embellishments" added to make stories fit together.Also the phrase in Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.", was also an addition by the Redactor to blend the stories into one.

quote:

---

God created evil why would He try to stop it?
Without evil mankind does not have a choice.

---

I agree mankind needs the evil inclination as well as the good.

quote:

---

I can't find anywhere kosmos was translated mankind.

---

Sigh! Again, I expect better from you. kosmos
If you disagree, we can hash it out in the appropriate thread: Not The Planet

quote:

---

You don't have to take Peter's word for it as Science agrees with him.

​

Science says the earth is going to melt. Many scientist say the universe and the earth are going to melt in a big crunch and then create a new universe and earth. As they believe that has happened several times already.

​

So I opt for the literal meaning that everything is going to melt as Peter said and God will create a new Heaven and Earth as John said.

---

Now you accept science reality over what the writer was probably saying, but not the reality of what the writer was probably telling his audience. I agree with what the author probably said to his audience. I don't agree with what you think the author told his audience. There's a difference.

quote:

---

Not only A&E but at least 9 generations of people who built at least one city, were destroyed.

---

The text doesn't support this destruction. That is your hypothesis.

quote:

---

Are you now claiming that the penalty of sin is inheritable?

---

Don't confuse threads. We were talking about doctrines that your hypothesis impacts.

quote:

---

Why would my theory break the connection between the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the ground and mankind today.

​

By the disobedience of this man sin entered into the universe.

​

The penalty of sin is death.

​

So by the disobedience of this one man sin and death became a part of the laws of the universe, just like gravity is a law of the universe.

---

This is where your hypothesis makes God look more ludicrous than the atheists' view of current doctrine. We're channeling the other thread a bit, but the sin issue is a good point of how your hypothesis affects doctrine.In your hypothesis the Adam and Eve who ate from the tree and the snake who tempted them were destroyed before Genesis 1:2. So all mankind who suffered the consequences of A&E's disobedience were gone.Your contention is that when the first set of mankind was destroyed that "sin" remained, existing on its own within the laws of nature. You're personifying again. Without choice, there can be no virtue or sin. Planets, stars, space, plants, rocks, gravity, etc. don't have a choice and can't sin.You said God created evil and meant to create evil.So after the destruction of A&E and 9 generations of people, God created new people with the knowledge of good and evil and they were still created mortal. Since God chose to create man with good and evil inclinations and the ability to choose between them; it is God's will that man be able to choose.Since sin is disobedience to the will of God and virtue is to follow the will of God, by making choices, mankind is following the will of God; whether those choices are good or evil. As his chosen people, additional rules were given to the Hebrews to follow.

quote:

---

So where do I have a doctrinal problem?

---

You've broken the connection between the disobedience of Adam and the purpose for Christ. You spin a great tale to get to trouble in River City, but the text doesn't support your hypothesis. You are no longer going by what is written in the text or by what reality supports.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion