The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View

quote:

---

I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

---

My bad - I only gave you about 50 quotes from the OT.

I still need the Chapter and Verse for the Genesis calendar, or is this just more of your made up shit and misrepresentations?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I still need the chapter and verse from Genesis that supports a calendar, not a cut-n-paste from some website.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

see that great big "mem" on the beginning of the second one? in general, it's a prefix that means "where."

---

"FROM"

quote:

---

heaven is created on day two.

---

My bad - my version says V.1.:'Gen. 1/1:"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH'.

quote:

---

it rather clearly applies to the rest of the chapter which follows and not a creative action of its own.

---

'Its a heading, like a preamble, to the follow-up context, which expands on the chronological aspect of how the creating process was made - the reason I say this is a scientific document. "Everything" occured in the one instant - but was revealed later in its due time. The entire OT writings follow this correct mode:'AND I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAINS AND THE LATTER RAINS"'THERE IS NOTHING NEW'.The hit songs to be written tomorrow already exists. Else they could not be written. Your reading makes the first verse superfluous - a no go.

quote:

---

The word 'olam' = world in generic

​

that's modern hebrew. in biblical hebrew, olam means "eternity."

​

while the earth = both this planet, and earth as in physicality and matter.

​

eretz means "land" or "country" or "ground." the concept of a planet, in the modern sense, just does not exist in the bible.

---

Eretz = earth, also used as land. Olam = world, generically, as in the world to come ['olam haba']. The term planet is a recent knowledge, and would be inappropriate here, notwithstanding there is no evidence of another populated world elsewhere.

quote:

---

It would have been grammaitcally wrong to mention the universe to the people of that spacetime; thus the OT uses words which can be understood by all generations.

​

"grammatically wrong?"

---

Yes. There is both the object and the subject which must be regarded. It would be inappropaite to talk to a new born baby about the universe. Later generations can conclude its relevancy today by deliberating the texts correct.y - by intergrating all other verses.

I gave these. When the relevent verses are examined, it forms the basis of a calendar, devised and active for 3,500 years. Unlike other calendars, the OT calendar required counting days of the year - for annual festival observances; years passed for the 50 year jubilee; and days of the week, and critical times of the day of the sun sets for the sabbath. Thus this the first calendar based on solar [for years], lunar [for seasons], and earthly movements [for days and time measurements]. It was a new thing.

Hi Joseph,If I read correctly you are attributing the following quote to me. If so I would like to correct this misconception. You left the 3. off of the quote which designated that was point 3 in the OP.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

You left the 3. off of the quote which designated that was point 3 in the OP.

---

V3 refers to light per se, as an independent entity, as opposed to starlight.

Hi Joseph, Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement.In the beginning.....That tells us when.God created.....That tells us who.(The greek septuigent uses the word made instead of created.)the heaven and the earth.....this tells us what God made or created.If the sun, moon, stars, amd galaxies surround the earth they must be considered a part of the heaven. They are definetly not part of the earth.This then tells me that everything you can see in the universe and on or in the earth was here that day.I believe that Genesis gives us an exact account of that day.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Joseph,Now you have got me confused.In Message 16 You quoted from my message Message 11 where I had quoted willetdog. Where he/she said in the opening post: My response to willetdog was: You quoted my words and then answered me with a Bibical answer not a Christian evolutionist answer. As far as I can see this has nothing to do with the answer of fool proof evidence I was asking willietdog for.As far as Genesis 1:1, I know what it says and You did get it part rightHave fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

yes, in most cases. in this case, it indicates a source of light, not simply luminosity. keep reading.

quote:

---

And God made the firmament, ... And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

​

Genesis 1:7-8

---

heaven is created on day two. well, no. it's a dependent clause. it reads, "when god began creating heaven and earth ... 'let there be light.'" again, demonstration for this point can be found in the thread linked above, which you neglected to respond to.even so, reading it the other way, as a "preamble" which expands the context chronologically (really not that different), heaven is still created on day two, earth on day three, and the sun and moon on day four. this is what the text says, and i don't see any point in arguing that it says something else. everyone can plainly read it. "in the beginning" must encompass these acts. my reading does not make the first verse superfluous. it's a dependent clause that sets the timeframe. your reading makes the rest of the bible superfluous. if everything is done in the first instant, why have the rest of it? you are clearly reading it wrong. "earth" as in ground or soil, not the planet. eternity. look at the contexts it is used for in the bible. "world" is what it means in modern hebrew. it does not mean this in biblical hebrew. it's sort of like reading livyatan as "whale" in the book of job. it rather clearly doesn't make sense, because it simply did not mean "whale" when job was written even if it does today. meanings change. or by making stuff up, like you?

---

genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. genesis gives us an account of seven days. heaven is made on day two. earth is made on day three. the sun and moon are made on day four. do you disagree?

---

Hi arachnophilia, Yes I disagree. The only thing Genesis 1:1 is dependant on, is God doing what the writer declared that He did.Either God created the heaven and the earth or He did not.Did God create the Heaven and Earth? or Did God not create the Heaven and Earth?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

And God made the firmament, ... and God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

---

quote:

---

And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, ... And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

---

quote:

---

And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

---

seems pretty clear to me. i'm not sure how you can disagree that this is what it says. because there it is. no, dependent grammatically. it's not a complete statement. in seven days. not a single instant.

---

Hi arachnophilia, Genesis 2:4 declares it was in a day.We have been over this twice before I am not going over it again with you. If others want me to I will.You know what you believe I know what you believe. I am not going to change your view and you are not going to change my view.
What I believe is different than your version so let's just leave it at that.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

good, because teaching people basic reading skills over and over is rather tiresome. not only is genesis 2:4b onwards an entirely separate and somewhat contradictory story, but it also begins with a dependent clause that you are intentionally misrendering. b'yom does not describe a literal day, it means "when." your view contradicts the bible.

---