Adam was created on the 3rd day

I've never heard the word "likeness" used that way. A "likeness" of somebody is a representation - a painting or a photograph - an image. A "likeness" - a painting or photograph - can't raise its arm. Only if you make up your own definition for "likeness".

---

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

You can't just cherry-pick a definition of "likeness" that you like and graft it onto the Bible.Do you really think the authors of the Bible were using the "physics definition"? You're going to have to show that they intended a distinction between "likeness" and "image".

---

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

You're still cherry-picking which of Strong's "definitions" you like.You have to look at the similarities as well as the differences. Notice that "image" can be rendered as "idol" and "likeness" can be rendered as "model". Not much difference there.You still have not shown that the authors - not Strong - intended a significantly different meaning for "image" and "likeness", in the pertinent passages.

---

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

Have you never heard of redundancy in literature? Authors often use different words with different shades of meaning to describe a concept that neither word covers completely.All you have shown is that the words can be interpreted differently to give the implication that you want. You have not shown that that was the authors' intention."It would be redundant" doesn't fly very high.Edited by Ringo, : Pluralification.

---

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

I didn't say that "image" and "likeness" mean the same thing. I said that the two words may have been used because they have slightly different meanings.Your problem is that you are assuming too much difference without good reason. That's just the point: both "image" and "likeness" are used in Genesis 1:26 with no hint of the distinction that you're proposing:

quote:

---

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

And "image" is echoed in Genesis 1:27:

quote:

---

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

---

suggesting that "likeness" is redundant in verse 26. (God planned to use both His image and His likeness, but in practice He used only His image - because they are the same.) I can point out other problems in Message 13 if you like, but I don't see how more holes are going to help float your boat.-------------By the way, you can see how quotes, etc. are done by clicking the "Peek" button at the bottom of every post.Welcome to EvC. Not everybody around here is as difficult as I am.

---

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

Yep. We're old-school around here. Have you read the thread on The Difference Between Created and Formed? If you're saying Adam was "formed" on day three but not "created" until day six, you might want to man the pumps now.

---

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

Yes, the gist of that thread is that "created" and "formed" are synonymous - i.e. not refering to different "methods". I just wanted you to be aware of that thread in case you were heading down the same road (in your boat - pardon the mixed metaphor ).If you're not claiming a two-step creation/forming of Adam, I don't see how you can conclude that he was created on the third day when Genesis 1 explicitly says that he was created on the sixth day.

---

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

Wrong. Several people saw Him at various times. Moses is an obvious example. Since God is not necessarily invisible, your image/likeness idea falls apart - again.
(I thought you were dropping that anyway. ) Don't do that. Long sermons don't go over very well around here.
You need a captive audience for that. I don't necessarily have a problem with the spiritual implications you are drawing. The point I'm having trouble with is that Genesis 1 explicitly says that man was not created until the sixth day.I don't see how you can conclude a two-step creation of Adam when it is not mentioned in Genesis.

---

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

No....

quote:

---

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

---

quote:

---

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

---

quote:

---

Gen 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place El-bethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.

---

And on and on....God is not necessarily invisible. The whole image/likeness thing is a non-starter. It doesn't mention the Eiffel Tower either. You can't build a theory on what isn't mentioned.What it does mention is that God didn't even think about creating man until the sixth day:

quote:

---

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

After that, He created man:

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.

---

That happened on the sixth day.Are you just trying to reconcile the different orders of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
We had a thread on that.Are you trying to say that Adam was "created" and then "formed" (or "formed" and then "created")?
We have a thread on that too.Otherwise, all I see in your argument is adding a blatant contradiction that isn't even in the text.
Seems like a strange approach to accuracy and inerrancy.

---

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

My point exactly. If people can "see" God, whether literally or figuratively ("spiritually"), then the image/likeness distinction becomes irrelevant. We're not talking about existence - we're talking about timeline.You're claiming, in effect, that the Eiffel Tower was created on the sixth (or third) day, even though there is no documentation. I'm saying that the documentation does say it was built in 1887. You are contradicting the documentation. There are two separate (off)topics there: "Was the earth created for man?" and "Does God have to plan ahead?". I'm not going to address either of those questions here - nor am I going to concede that your answers are correct. Genesis doesn't mention man at all before day six, whether in God's image, in anybody else's image or in no image at all. It says that on day six God decided to create man. He could hardly decide to create something that had already been created.(I'll mention the thread on "created" versus "formed" one more time. Genesis 1 doesn't say that God "converted" man to His own image.) "In His image" impies " a living soul". God's image and living soul are the only distinctions mentioned between us and the other animals. Are you saying that all living things are living souls? That would be another topic and certainly will not be taken as a given here. But the first reference to man does say that he was made in the image if God:

quote:

---

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

---

If man is so important that the entire world was made for him (your claim - not mine), then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?

---

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

You'll get no argument from me on that - but I can't speak for anybody else. According to the Whale Bible they are. Humans are hardly mentioned. Sure it does, if you have no other time-standard to work from. You're claiming the reference order is wrong without even proposing an alternative time-standard.-------------I asked:

quote:

---

If man is so important that the entire world was made for him (your claim - not mine), then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?

---

to which you replied: The "Son" in John 3:35 is Jesus, of course - i.e. the entire world was made for Jesus, not Adam. So what has that got to do with the question?I'll ask it again: If man (Adam) is so important, then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?Edited by Ringo, : Speeling.

---

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

Well, I keep asking the same question because you haven't answered it: Why is Adam's day-three "creation" not mentioned in Genesis 1? How do you explain that your theory is a blatant contradiction of Genesis 1? Now you're bringing Christ into the equation without explaining.Please go much, much, much, much slower.Don't just quote forty verses and then link back to them. Explain what you mean - one step at a time.Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

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

The problem with that view is that, according to Genesis 1, man was not created at all until day six. It doesn't say he was "completed" on day six. It says he was "created" on day six.You seem to be ignoring what Genesis 1 plainly says in an attempt to reconcile it with Genesis 2. That is a spiritual lesson which you are deriving from the text. I have said that I have no particular problem with the lesson you are trying to draw. But it is not explicitly in the text and this forum is about the text.The text says that man - i.e. us, not Christ - was created in God's image. It says nothing about completeness or incompleteness.If this was the Faith and Belief Forum, you'd be okay. But here the emphasis is on Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy.You can not demonstrate the Bible's accuracy by making up theories that are not in the Bible - even if the spiritual implications may be valid. And you can not demonstrate the inerrancy of the Bible by making up theories that flatly contradict the Bible.

---

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

Trying to combine the creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is like trying to conflate the Big Bad Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood with the Big Bad Wolf in The Three Little pigs.The problem there is that the wolf is killed in both stories, so it can't be the same wolf.The problem you have is that the creation of man and the creation of animals is mentioned in both stories, but the order is different. There is no way to reconcile the stories except by torturing them both, like you do.

---

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

Well, I haven't been struck blind yet, which is why I repsonded to your post. Romans 11 makes a nice sermon text and all, but it has nothing to do with the topic. "Belief" is not an excuse for coming up with any bizarro conclusion you want.Bottom line: Genesis 1 clearly states that man (Hebrew: adam) was created on the sixth day, not the third. Nothing you have said changes that.Some people twist Genesis 1 to make it fit Genesis 2. Others twist Genesis 2 to make it fit Genesis 1. The only good thing that can be said for your argument is that you twist both equally.

---

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