The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

quote:

---

15. God brought the animals to the man to see what he would call them. Gen 2:19.
16. Adam gave names to all beasts and fowl, but no help found for him. Gen 2:19.

---

Scientific fact: a vast number of animal species were extinct long before man existed. God could not have brought all of them to Adam.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The best information that science can produce is that man did not exist 4 billion years ago. If you're going to contest that, you might as well give up all pretense of not second-guessing science. It has been "proven" as definitively as anything can be "proven". Having somebody there to observe the events would be much less reliable than the evidence we do have. Being able to duplicate the events would "prove" nothing about what did happen. The evidence left behind is a much better indicator of what did happen. All "scientific facts" are essentially equivalent. They are all based on the same methodology and logic. You are asking for a different standard to be applied to the beginning of life and the universe.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Those questions are off topic.You're just doing exactly the same as the YECs are doing. They compress time to fit their convoluted interpretation of Genesis. You stretch time to fit yours.Your whole effort seems pointless to me. If you reject science, why accept the true age of the earth?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, you don't have a theory. A theory has to be tested and confirmed by empirical evidence.At best, you have a hypothesis (which doesn't fit the Bible any better than it fits reality).

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As long as we're clear that your notions don't resemble science in any way.Which brings me back to my original question: Why bother accepting anything from science if you're going to reject most of science? I can see why some people mangle the Bible to prop up their gap "theory", if they're trying to reconcile the Bible with the true age of the earth.But you're still rejecting the true age of the earth. Why not go with YE Creationism? At least it's somewhat consistent with the Bible.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As I understand it, the maximum age of the universe can be derived by extrapolating the motion of every particle in the universe back to the Big Bang. That gives a maximum age of around 14 billion years. That doesn't answer the question. What's the difference between YECs' rejection of the accepted ages and your rejection of the accepted ages? Yes. Yes. Yes.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't know what you mean by that.We can see light from objects that exist now and objects that used to exist. We can extrapolate back to the Big Bang just like we can extrpolate the space shuttle's flight back to the surface of the earth. The space shuttle's flight began at the earth and every visible object's "flight" began at the Big Bang. But science doesn't "believe" there is that possibility. According to science, the age if the universe can not go back before the Big Bang.That's why I say you reject the accepted ages. Your belief in that possibility confirms your rejection of science, just like a belief in geocentrism or a flat earth would confirm one's rejection of science. So you admit, then, that the Bible confirms the YEC position and contradicts yours.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If you're accepting the Big Bang, then you ought to be accepting the ages derived from the Big Bang too. If you accept that elephants exist, you ought to accept the measurements of their weight. And you understand those assumptions better than the professionals who use them every day? I still have no idea what you think that means. As I understand it, the steady state theory and static universe have pretty much been "disproven" by mainstream science. So you seem to be rejecting mainstream science in favour of out-there, might-be, unsupported-by-evidence hypotheses. Genesis 5 talks about Adam who was created on Day Six (Gen 1:27). Genesis 5 takes place years later, when Cain and Abel had already been born and grew up. Yes. It's talking about the same man but the events of Genesis 1 and the events of Genesis 5 are years apart. Nothing there indicates a gap in Genesis 1, before Adam was created.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And Genesis 1 also called them male and female when they were created on Day Six:

quote:

---

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

So what? Because neither Cain nor Abel was in that genealogy. Abel had no children, as far as we know, and Cain was cursed. No need to mention them because they weren't in the line of descent.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. There are several different stories mixed together in various ways - but they are all about one creation event. That event lasted six 24-hour days, if we are reading Genesis literally.By analogy, we have four different gospel accounts in the Bible. Some of them leave out this detail and some of them leave out that detail - but they all describe one life of one person. In all the gospels, Jesus = Jesus.And in all of Genesis, Adam = Adam.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

How not so?The topic is supposedly about the literal Genesis account of creation. The onus is on you to show that a literal reading of Genesis indicates more than one creation event. Until you can show it rather than just claim it, the literal reading is that creation = creation - i.e. one creation event. Well, no. Genesis 2:4 isn't talking about a literal 24-hour day, so you can't directly compare that figurative "day" with Genesis 1. And a literal reading of the text doesn't indicate where the literal 24-hour Day 1 started either. Comparing two figuratives does not a literal make. Well, sure, the word "adam" is used in Genesis 1 for "mankind", including womankind. But in Genesis 2 and thereafter, the word "Adam" certainly is used as a proper name. It refers to one man, one specific character in the story, the one man who was the start of all the generations that followed.Really, what is your point here? So far, you have said nothing to back up your claim that a literal reading of Genesis indicates a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Nothing you have said establishes that any events described later in Genesis occured in Genesis 1:1.As per the OP:

quote:

---

2. At a much later date possibly millions, billions or trillions of years later we find earth in the condition it is in, in Genesis 1:2. Thus the 7 days of Moses in a re-creation. Beginning at Genesis 1:2 going through Genesis 2:3 then jumping to Genesis 5:1 and continuing.

---

Show us where Genesis indicates that literally.Show us why Genesis 1:4 to Genesis 4:26 should be omitted from a literal reading.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Are you being deliberately obtuse? What "information" are you unable to find? That "Adam" is the specific name of a specific character in the Bible who had a specific wife with a specific name and three specific sons with specific names? Sure it does. In Genesis 1, we have a list of six days, each with an evening and a morning. In Genesis 2:4, we have the same time period and events refered to as "the day". One of them has to be figurative. The best candidate would be the day made up of other days. Not at all. "In the beginning" denotes "before all other times", but there's nothing specific about it. Your own claim is that it could be billions or trillions of years before Genesis 1:2. How can you call that a "specific time"? Again, you haven't done anything to show that it's the same time. A literal reading suggests that "the day" in Genesis 2:4 covers the whole time period from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3. Which is clearly a different time than Genesis 1:1. I don't see how you think that supports your point. That's what I've been saying. You haven't shown that. Non sequitur.And it still doesn't follow that the man in Genesis 2:7 has anything to do with Genesis 1:1.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

One of them has to be figurative (or idiomatic, as arachnophilia says) because they can't both be literal and be different from each other. I'm just wondering how you can call it a "specific" time when you can't "specify" when it was. And the [time period] in which the Lord God made the earth and the heavens was Day 1, Day 2, Day 3... according to a literal reading of the text. That's a different topic, but I don't find "Satan" anywhere near there. You don't find Day 2 in the life of Adam because neither Adam nor any other member of mankind was created until Day 6. Who said it did? You don't have to make a "point" of the @#%$ing obvious. You're pointing to contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to suggest that "the man" in Genesis 1 is not "Adam" in Genesis 2. I don't think I said they were.We've been talking about "Adam" in Genesis 2 and "Adam" in Genesis 5. I was under the impression that you were claiming that those two Adams were two different men.I'm sorry, but your argument is terribly incoherent. I'll ask again: What point are you trying to make?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Umm... I wasn't talking about the "accounts". I was talking about the usage of the word "day". If it means a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1 (as I think you would agree it does), then the whole period of creation refered to as a "day" in Genesis 2:4 doesn't.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay, I see your point. I've been trying to approach this topic from a position of not pointing out that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. The typical "literalist" (and somewhat illiterate) reading would have Genesis 2 describing the same events as Genesis 1.As near as I can tell, ICANT wants to excise Genesis 2:4 to Genesis 4:26 and insert it at Genesis 1:1a. That's the topic I'm trying to address, but he (with your help) keeps dragging in irrelevant comparisons of the two "accounts".I'm tempted to use the phrase, "palming the pea".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC