Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Tanypteryx (4 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,716 Year: 18,752/19,786 Month: 1,172/1,705 Week: 424/518 Day: 42/58 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 260 of 607 (563733)
06-06-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
05-10-2010 11:52 AM


A Question of “Days”
Dear ICant,

Like the new string. :-}

Sorry I could not get in on the first few postings; this past month has been a busy one for me.

ICant writes:

The reason you have evening is because a light period has come to an end.

The only reason for having a morning is the end of a dark period.

Peg writes:

The evening is a period without light,

Actually evening is the period between the light period and the dark period.

GreySeal and I have had an on-going discussion on this point. You are equating the words “Day”, “Evening”, and “Morning” with there primary definition completely ignoring that there are other usages (other definitions) for each word.

Without posting three pages of material let me just give you an example of what I mean:

The word ‘Day’ can be interpreted ‘literally’ as:

Day:

4. An analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.
5. The portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.
8. A time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.
9. A day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.
10. Often, days. A particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. Period of life or activity: His days are numbered.
12. Period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.
13. Light 1 (def. 19a).

—Idioms
14. Call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day.
15. Day in, day out, every day without fail; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, day in and day out.

Each of these definitions (taken from Dictionary.com) is a ‘literal’ ‘interpretation’ of the word ‘Day’.

So, the word ‘Day’ can be interpreted ‘literally’ as ‘Era’, ‘Age’, etc.

Also note that Hebrew (as I understand it) does not have one word for ‘day’ (add an ‘s’ for ‘Days’), another word to describe Eras, ages, etc.

So your suppositions that:

The reason you have evening is because a light period has come to an end.
The only reason for having a morning is the end of a dark period.
Evening is the period between the light period and the dark period.

only apply using one specific definition of each word.

So, my question is:

Is it not possible that “Day ”, “Evening ”, and “Morning ” in this context may be referring to ‘unspecified periods of time ’ and not to ‘Sun up to Sun down ’ ‘Days’?

If Not; Why Not?

The best way to misinterpret what someone is saying is to presuppose what they are going to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2010 11:52 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2010 5:13 PM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 262 of 607 (564274)
06-09-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ICANT
06-06-2010 5:13 PM


Re: A Question of “Days”
Dear ICant,

Thank you for your response; and thank you for giving a well thought out and logical answer to my question.

I wholeheartedly agree that “God's definition trumps any other definition or usages.

So, with that in mind; I have a few questions on other things that relate to this question of ‘Day’s’.

Do you believe that our ‘Sun’, ‘Moon’, and ‘Stars’ were created on the fourth day? (Genesis 1: 14 - 19) – If so Why; if not Why Not? –

God tells Adam, in Genesis 2: 16 - 17, that the ‘Day’ that they eat of the fruit of the tree of ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ they would “surely die.

The Bible also states: “5So altogether Adam lived 930 years, and he died. ” (Genesis 5:5)

How do you reconcile these two passages?

When, do you believe, the Seventh day (when God rested from His creation) ended; and why do you believe that way?

Thank you for your time and effort in these matters,

God bless us, every one,
JRTjr

P.S. Please note here that all of these events are recorded in the book of Genesis.

{all Biblical references are taken from the Amplified Bible}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2010 5:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2010 10:00 PM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 382 of 607 (566474)
06-24-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by ICANT
06-09-2010 10:00 PM


Re: A Question of “Days”
Dear ICant,

Thank you again, for your responses.

ICant writes:

In the original text bara' was not used concerning the sun, moon, and stars.
The Hebrew word bara' means: 1) to create, shape, form.
Forming is the act of bringing into existence.

You are absolutely correct; which shows me that you can put things into context. I have found many who refuse to take this simple step.

Thank you.

ICant writes:

… if I am correct in what I have presented in this thread he died the same day that he was formed from the dust of the ground.
If he did not die that day God lied.

I would like to suggest here that you do some research on what God means when He speaks of ‘Death’. {I believe Luke 9: 60, Ephesians 2: 1, and Colossians 2:13 would be a good place to start.}

ICant writes:

These verses do not refer to the man that was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form. Nor is it talking about the woman who was made from the rib of the man after all other life forms. This couple was placed in a garden. The man was forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is the man that was told he would die the day he ate the fruit.

I am not aware of an ‘Adam 2.0’ created after the first ‘Adam’ created by God.

If I am understanding your hypothesis correctly; you’re saying that we are descendants of ‘Adam 1.0’ {Genesis chapter one} and that ‘Adam 2.0’ {Genesis chapter two} physically died in the 24-hour ‘day’ that he eat from the tree that God told him not to. Correct?

If this is so, I have a few more questions for you.

If “‘Adam 2.0’ physically died in the 24-hour ‘day’ that he eat from the tree that God told him not to” then why would God tell ‘Adam 2.0’ that, as part of his punishment for eating the forbidden fruit he would have to “toil” the ground “All of the days” of his life? {Genesis 3: 17}

It also accurse to me that the Bible states that sin came into the world through Adam’s sin.{Romans 5: 12} If “‘Adam 2.0’ physically died in the 24-hour ‘day’ that he eat from the tree that God told him not to” then how was his sin transmitted?

Since Genesis is one document (not a collection of documents) would it not stand to reason that if a person is named in the beginning of the document that that name would refer to the same person throughout the text unless specifically stated otherwise?

Chapter three closes with ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ being kicked out of the Garden of Eden; chapter four starts with ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ having children. It seems obvious that these are the same ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’; are they not?

There is more I would like to comment on in reply to your post but I am trying to keep my posts short and only deal with the primary subjects.

I pray I have given you food for thought; you certainly have given me many things to consider.

May God bless,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2010 10:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 3:03 AM JRTjr has responded

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 430 of 607 (567266)
06-30-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by ICANT
06-25-2010 3:03 AM


Adam or adams
Dear ICant,

Thank you for your responses.

ICant writes:

There is no Adam 1.0 or 2.0.

There is a man formed from the dust of the ground that God breathed the breath of life into and that form became a living being. Genesis 2:7.

There is mankind that is created male and female in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:26, 27.

Adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for mankind, or man. It is not a proper name like Cain or Abel.

The translators did not translate the Hebrew word they used the English letter equivalent of the Hebrew letter.

Please provide your evidence for this.

‘Genesis 2: 19’, ‘Genesis 3: 17’, etc. treat ‘Adam’ as an individual (Proper Noun) not a ‘Pronoun’ (like ‘them’, ‘they’, ‘mankind’, etc). So I would have to say that ‘Adam’ was a specific individual person.

You stated that: “the man that was formed from the dust of the ground in the beginning during the light period God created the Heaven and the Earth is not the man that spoken of in Genesis 5:1, 2.

v2 refers to ‘Adam’ in the plural sense (I.E. Mankind) However, in v3 the text refers to ‘Adam’ as an individual person. There are many places in these first chapters where ‘Adam’ is spoken of as an individual. (Examples: ‘Genesis 2: 19’, ‘Genesis 3: 17’, ‘Genesis 4: 1’ and ‘Genesis 5: 5’ just to name a few)

Since the Bible refers to each of these individuals as ‘Adam’ there are two possibilities:

Ether all are referring to the same man named ‘Adam’ or they are speaking of different individual men named ‘Adam’.

ICant writes:

Beginning at Genesis 1:3 we have the restoration of the earth as found in Genesis 1:2 that it might be inhabited again by mankind.

I see nothing in these verses that says that the earth was “restored” to a “habitable” condition. (‘Restored’ meaning: it once was habitable, became inhabitable, and then was once again being made habitable.)

ICant writes:

Why does it have to be transmitted?

Sin is not inheritable…

…And yes by one man sin entered into the universe. The penalty for that sin is death.

And yes man was separated from God by the man eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Romans 5:12 (Amplified Bible)

12Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [[a]no one being able to stop it or to escape its power because all men sinned.

In other word’s ‘sin’ was transmitted to all of mankind {“spread to all men”} “through one man” {i.e. inherited from our forefather ‘Adam’ the one man who originally sinned}.

ICant writes:

Had the man formed from the dust of the ground been in the image/likeness of God he would have known good and evil. He would not have become like God knowing good and evil.

I would say that the Bible is using two different phraseologies because these are two different things. (“image/likeness of God” and “become like God”)

Example:

I am in the “image/likeness of” my (earthly) father because I am genetically his offspring. (I bare physical traits that my father has.)

I have also “become like” my (earthly) father because I have picked up mannerisms, ideas, and other ‘learned’ traits that I have seen in him.

So, if I am correct about this:

The Bible says that mankind was created in the “image/likeness of God” baring a three fold personage. (Example: Father, Son, Holy Spirit / mind, body, spirit)

Then the Bible refers to mankind “becoming like God” knowing “[the difference between] good and evil and blessing and calamity.” In other words this is something mankind learned that God already knew; and in that respect “becoming like God”.

I would love to speak to all of your (vary fascinating) points, however, if we did this our posts would become extremely long.

God Bless us; everyone,
JRTjr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 3:03 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by jaywill, posted 06-30-2010 1:41 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 436 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2010 11:59 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019