Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 205 of 233 (458807)
03-02-2008 10:17 AM


What sort of accuracy are we talking about?
graft2vine writes:
Creation order:
1. Heavens, including sun, moon and stars.
2. Earth, the separation of the land and seas.
This is posted under "All EvC Forums => Science Forums => The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy". Do you want to discuss the discrepancy between Genesis -- particularly the two points you summarized above -- and observations that support the conclusion that the moon came into being after the earth existed?
The description that is most consistent with observed facts about the earth and moon is that the moon was created as a result of a large body colliding with the earth, meaning the earth was present first. To assert that the moon existed before the earth would require some astonishing and fantastic exceptions to easily observed and well-understood principles of physics.
Or would you rather change the interpretation of the text in Genesis? That would likely break some rules of linguistics.
A third alternative is to conclude that the Bible does not accurately reflect this aspect of the physical history of creation. It can still work just fine as a metaphorical or mythical account. Each reader can extract what he/she considers to be the important parts of the story, without having to deny physical fact.
(I hope there's no serious proposal that God did things as described in Genesis, then "fudged" the evidence to make it appear as though things happened some other way. What sort of deity would stoop to those shenanigans?)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by graft2vine, posted 03-04-2008 11:54 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 219 of 233 (547731)
02-22-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Poor in Spirit
02-22-2010 12:44 AM


Hi, "Poor in Spirit", and welcome to EvC.
Poor in Spirit writes:
The second Adam (Jesus) was raised from the earth on the third day. It makes sense that the first Adam (Adam) would have been raised from the earth on the third day.
Lots of stories seem to favor threes -- three is a very handy number for rhetorical purposes. ("The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", "A priest, a rabbi and an engineer went into a bar...", "The first time..., the second time..., and then the third time...", and so on.) But I'm sure that's not relevant here.
Let those of us who put our faith in the second Adam sit back and watch as our Father finishes His plan of redemption on the 5th and 6th day, and what a great day it will be on the 7th.
I've always been curious about this apparent flexibility in the notion of how much time is taken up by a "biblical day." Obviously, since the plan you speak of was not fully completed within an actual week after the crucifixion, the three days preceding the resurrection are very different from the 5th, 6th and 7th days that you are referring to (which are apparently still in progress -- and, which day are we on "today"?)
Would you say that your perspective here is consistent with (affirmed by) this passage?
quote:
II Peter 3.8: But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I'd be interested whether anyone can clarify that passage with respect to the words used in the original language. I'm assuming that Peter was not a mathematician, and that whatever word has been translated into King James' English as "a thousand" was really being used to mean "a really big number, the biggest number you can imagine" (i.e. not "exactly 10 * 10 * 10"; numeric zero was not invented till a few hundred years later, and these days it's hard to imagine how people would envision "a thousand" without just picturing a "1" followed by "000").
It would also be interesting to know why some Christians seem to insist on attributing an inflexible, literal, 24-hour meaning to the "days" in Genesis 1, despite this seemingly clear instruction from Peter that they shouldn't do that.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Poor in Spirit, posted 02-22-2010 12:44 AM Poor in Spirit has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Poor in Spirit, posted 02-23-2010 12:17 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024