Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 319 (494970)
01-20-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by ICANT
01-19-2009 12:35 AM


Re: Day
I've found another inconsistency of your's, ICANT
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
This man had no son named Cain.
He had no son named Abel.
How do you know that he didn't? Because it doesn't mention it?
There's also no mention of anything happening between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
On one hand you use the lack of mention to say that something could have happened and on the other hand you are (presumably*) saying that the lack of mention means that something could not have happened.
This inconsistancy is in addition to both Adams in Gen 4 and Gen 5 having sons named Seth who had sons named Enos.
*that is unless there's something else that says that he didn't have sons Cain and Abel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2009 12:35 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 8:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 319 (495162)
01-21-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
01-20-2009 8:57 PM


lineages
The first born son is the one the linage is always given through.
That linage is: Cain had a son named Enoch whose son was Irad whose son was Mehujael whose son was Methusael whose son was Lamech whose son was Jabal by Adah and Jubal by Zillah also Tubalcain and his sister Naamah by Zillah.
There is no mention of age for any of these people.
Why is that?
Because God gave them a new lineage:
Gen 4:25
quote:
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Why are they not mentioned in chapter 5 with their ages if the man formed in Genesis 2:7 and the man who was spoke into existence in Genesis 1:27 are the same man?
Not a third born son.
For the same reason. Adam’s lineage goes through Seth, the new seed that god appointed to them.
Catholic Scientist writes:
There's also no mention of anything happening between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Sure there is.
It is explained in Genesis 1:2.
The earth become formless and empty.
No, what? That IS Gen 1:2. Something happening in Gen 1:2 is not something happening before Gen 1:2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2009 8:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 319 (495194)
01-21-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by ICANT
01-21-2009 1:17 PM


Re: lineages
Catholic Scientist writes:
For the same reason. Adam’s lineage goes through Seth, the new seed that god appointed to them.
Then what happened to the people who descended from Cain?
It doesn't matter.
Also, I don't see where the Bible really says anything about what happened to them other than what is covered in Gen 4:
quote:
16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
It looks like they were in the land of Nod in the city of Enoch.
But again, it doesn't really matter to my position and doesn't challenge my refutation of your interpretation.
Was that just a Gish Gallop?
Genesis 1:1 says the earth was created.
Genesis 1:2 says it became formless and empty.
That says it had changed from what it was in Genesis 1:1.
the KJV version says this:
quote:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There's no implication that anything happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
If you want to claim some mistranslation and that it should be that the earth became without form, then why not accept the same mistranslation that the first verse should really say "In the beginning while god was creating the heavens and the earth..."?
And really, if you're claiming the text is flawed, you're not reading it literally anymore and then you can just make up whatever interpretation you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 1:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 319 (495226)
01-21-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
01-21-2009 4:49 PM


Re: lineages
Catholic Scientist writes:
Was that just a Gish Gallop?
If it was you took it.
Then you are a dishonest man. (but I knew that already)
I stated the only things about those people was recorded in Genesis 4.
Then you quote Genesis 4:16-24.
Is there a typo in there or something. What kind of reply is that? Of course we're talking about Gen 4.
Let me recap for you...
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
This man had no son named Cain.
He had no son named Abel.
How do you know that he didn't? Because it doesn't mention it?
The first born son is the one the linage is always given through.
That linage is: Cain had a son named Enoch whose son was Irad whose son was Mehujael whose son was Methusael whose son was Lamech whose son was Jabal by Adah and Jubal by Zillah also Tubalcain and his sister Naamah by Zillah.
There is no mention of age for any of these people.
Why is that?
Because God gave them a new lineage:
Gen 4:25
quote:
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Why are they not mentioned in chapter 5 with their ages if the man formed in Genesis 2:7 and the man who was spoke into existence in Genesis 1:27 are the same man?
Not a third born son.
For the same reason. Adam’s lineage goes through Seth, the new seed that god appointed to them.
Then what happened to the people who descended from Cain?
It doesn't matter.
Also, I don't see where the Bible really says anything about what happened to them other than what is covered in Gen 4:
quote:
16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
It looks like they were in the land of Nod in the city of Enoch.
But again, it doesn't really matter to my position and doesn't challenge my refutation of your interpretation.
So.... you're interpretation is refuted. Care to defend it?
Adam's lineage goes through Seth, who is the new seed given to him by god after Cain killed Abel, and it is recorded in Gen 5.
The text is not flawed the misapplication of words in translating is what is flawed.
Gotcha, the KJV is not literal and inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 319 (495237)
01-21-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
01-21-2009 6:06 PM


you could have conceded explicitly
I see you avoided the entire point of my post which was the refutation your interpretation of Gen 4 and Gen 5 talking about 2 different Adams.
I'll take that as a concession.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2009 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 12:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 319 (495393)
01-22-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by ICANT
01-22-2009 12:20 AM


Re: you could have conceded explicitly
When you prove the man in Genesis 2:7 was made in the image/likeness of God I will conceed the point that they are the same man.
The Adam in Gen 5 was created in the image of God.
quote:
Gen 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
This is the same Adam that is mentioned in Chapter 4.
quote:
Gen 4
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
We know this because in Chapter 5, it lists the lineage of Adam's new seed Seth.
quote:
3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
It should be obvious that the Adam in Chapter 4 is the same as the Adam in Chapter 2.
Therefore, the Adam in Chapter 2 was created in the image of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 12:20 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 2:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 319 (495550)
01-23-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by ICANT
01-23-2009 2:37 AM


Re: Same Adam
Here’s how you interpretation goes:
You start with:
quote:
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.
And compare that to:
quote:
5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
to conclude they are the same man (which makes sense)
Then you compare:
quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
to say that this is a different man (which also makes sense).
But when we get to the end of Chapter 4:
quote:
4:25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
And the beginning of Chapter 5:
quote:
5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos
We see that this is the same man as Chapter 4, which makes it the same man as Chapter 1.
So the interpretation that the one in Chapter 2 is different than the one in Chapter 1 cannot be correct.
But the only way that you can argue against this is to use circular reasoning by going back to the beginning by starting with:
quote:
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.
And comparing that to:
quote:
5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
to conclude they are the same man
Then you compare:
quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
to say that this is a different man.
Do you not see how this is circular reasoning?
You do not have any other reasoning to conclude that the men in Chapters 4 and 5 are different other than your premise that they must be different from comparing Chapter 1 and 2 with Chapter 5.
That is fallacious logic, ICANT.
So the only defense of your position is to twist the text to fit you pre-conceived notion that they are different.
You shouldn't change the meaning of the text to fit your interpretation, you should change your interpretation to fit the meaning of the text.
What you are doing is dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 2:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 319 (495551)
01-23-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by ICANT
01-22-2009 9:10 PM


The earth existed in Genesis 1:2 as it starts with "and the earth".
OMG that is idiotic.
What it is saying is:
"and the earth didn't exist"
Oh, but that says "and the earth" so it must meant that the earth existed!
Seriously?
If someone tells you that they don't have money do you conclude that they must have money because they said "have money"!?
You can do better than this ICANT....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:10 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 319 (496306)
01-27-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICANT
01-23-2009 7:52 PM


You did the same circle you always do when you discuss this.
That's because you have never rebutted it.
All you ever do is run away when we get to it.
Why did you not address my reasons for them being different.
Learn some logic. Its called: Reductio ad absurdum (aka Proof by Contradiction):
quote:
proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
.
Please explain how these two men and women can be the same.
It remains unnecessary even though I've proved that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 7:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 319 (496383)
01-27-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by ICANT
01-27-2009 7:52 PM


I was playing around with numbers a little and I think you haven't proved your absurd point yet.
This game of keeping the Bible literal and inerrant by making up whatever you want, as long as you can still twist the Bible verse to fit it and you don't contradict science, in order to maintain the inerrancy is bad theology, ICANT. Its dishonest and shameful. You should realize that it is not inerrant when literal, and learn from all that it has to offer as it is what it is.
Don't you see the ridiculous mental gymnastics that you have to perform in order to maintain the literal inerrancy?
So no the man in Genesis 2:7 and the man in Genesis 5:3 can not be the same man.
So now that you have proven that they cannot be the same man and I have proven that they cannot be different men, can you finally realize that if we read it literally then it cannot be inerrant?
And that it can only be inerrant if we do ridiculous mental gymnastics in the sole attempt to maintain the inerrancy by making up non-literal interpretations that defy logic?
If not, is there anything at all that is even possible of convincing you of this bad theology that you are employing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 7:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2009 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has 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