|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh I see...
You're pushing The Gap Theory. There's problems with that one... Too bad its off topic in this thread. We've dealt with it in another with ICANT but I can't find it right now. It goes something like this: If you look at Gen 5:
quote: This is the same Adam as Gen 1 (and I think it even uses the same Hebrew word) Its Obvious that the Adam in Gen 4 is the same as the one in Gen 2, because its the same story continuing on. At the end of Gen 4:
quote: And back to Gen 5 again:
quote: So in order for The Gap Theory to hold, there has to have been 2 Adams who each had a son named Seth who each had a son named Enos. Not very likely... It makes much more sense for them to be the same Adam. But lets not drag this thread further off topic by continuing to discuss this here. Maybe you or I could find the appropriate thread if you want to discuss it further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
It says "male and female he created them" Where does it say one each or two? Prior to that, it says him, but then modifies that with the specifics I quoted. It could be two as you say, or two hundred. God created man, but there is no reason that he had to limit himself to two. Gen 5:2 says the same thing, slightly reworded. Again, Adam is the first named, but The Bible allows that he might have been different from the man of Gen 1. If they are the same, then yes, God only created two, and the Bible supports the Young Earth Creationists. From my study, I believe that God created man in Africa and the Garden of Eden could only have been in Southern Turkey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
You are right, this is off the thread. My point is that teaching an interpretation that conflicts with science drives people away, shooting ourselves in the foot. Teaching an interpretation that agrees with science avoids that. This is only reasonable if the interpretation is valid Biblically. Can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a solid interpretation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 32
It says "male and female he created them" Where does it say one each or two? Prior to that, it says him, but then modifies that with the specifics I quoted. It could be two as you say, or two hundred. God created man, but there is no reason that he had to limit himself to two. It doesn't have to be two. Its talking about the Adam in Gen 1 where it could just mean "mankind". It uses the same Hebrew word and even has the same context... Gen 1:
quote: and Gen 5:
quote: Its obvious that they are referring to the same thing.
Gen 5:2 says the same thing, slightly reworded. Again, Adam is the first named, but The Bible allows that he might have been different from the man of Gen 1. How can you maintain that in light of the above?
If they are the same, then yes, God only created two, and the Bible supports the Young Earth Creationists. If you read the Bible literally, and assume inerrancy, then it does support a young Earth. From Message 33 You are right, this is off the thread. As long as I, or we, keep it tied to the original topic then it'll be okay.
My point is that teaching an interpretation that conflicts with science drives people away, shooting ourselves in the foot. Right.
Teaching an interpretation that agrees with science avoids that. This is only reasonable if the interpretation is valid Biblically. But then you're twisting God's Word into something else and either no longer reading literally or no longer maintaining inerrancy so you're shooting yourself in the foot in that regard.
Can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a solid interpretation? No, either way you go about it, you are shooting yourself in the foot with believing in Creationism that derives from a literal and inerrant Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Please use the little reply button directly beneath the specific message you're replying to. The "Gen Reply" button is for when you're not replying to anyone in particular.
greentwiga writes: It says "male and female he created them" Where doesit say one each or two? The text refers to "the man" and "the woman" at least a dozen times.
From my study... I see no indication of any study. You've simply decided to ignore what the text plainly says. While there is more than one way to interpret Genesis, you've latched onto one that seems pretty obviously invalid. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Delightful. It is clear from Gen 2-4 that this describes the point of domestication of wheat in southern Turkey. Therefore, either creation of man occurred there supporting the YEC, or there was a gap, and man was created in Africa. Gen 2:5 supports the gap, with the use of the word "generations." If so, Gen 5:1-2 relates to Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:3 refers to Gen 2-4. Since genealogies in the Bible frequently only mention the important people, this is an acceptable interpretation. The YEC theory conflicts with science and shoots ourselves in the foot. This theory doesn't conflict with science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is clear from Gen 2-4 that this describes the point of domestication of wheat in southern Turkey. Therefore, either creation of man occurred there supporting the YEC, or there was a gap, and man was created in Africa. That, or the actual truth is that the Bible is not literal and inerrant. Or is that impossible?
Gen 2:5 supports the gap, with the use of the word "generations." If so, Gen 5:1-2 relates to Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:3 refers to Gen 2-4. Let me get this straight... So theres two different creations, we start off with one creation in chapter one and then go to another creation for Chapters 2, 3 and 4, then back to the first creation for the first 2 verses in Chapter 5 and then back to the other creation again for the rest of Chapter 5. Seriously? That is the sort of mental gymnastics I have to maintain in order to not shoot myself in the foot!? That, in itself, is shooting yourself in the foot. One thing we can tell from your theory though, is that god did a terrible job at getting his story across. If these are literaly his words, what kind of bumbling moron does it make him that he can't get the strories straight? Or maybe he's a mean old trickster who did it on purpose just to be confusing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Delightful. It is clear from Gen 2-4 that this describes the point of domestication of wheat in southern Turkey. This must be some use of the word "clear" with which I was previously unfamiliar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Historically, there has been one way of interpreting the creation account.
The new ways of interpreting genesis came in the early 1900's when churches started compromising with the scientific facts. The question is now, why would have God hidden the truth of Genesis for over 1800 years to his church ? I personnally think that every theologian up to the 1900's had the correcte interpretation of genesis. If science proves this to be wrong, then the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of faillible men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
You are right, this is off the thread. My point is that teaching an interpretation that conflicts with science drives people away, shooting ourselves in the foot. Teaching an interpretation that agrees with science avoids that. This is only reasonable if the interpretation is valid Biblically. Can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a solid interpretation? No. Stop teaching it as anything other than a myth with a message. That's the ONLY way you'll stop shooting yourself in the foot. Here's what you are doing divorced from your personal issues. There is a story "The tortoise and the hare". In it, there is a talking rabbit and a talking tortoise. Not only can they talk, they talk to one another and agree to have a race, with rules. That's SILLY. You can say "Well, there REALLY are rabbits and there REALLY are tortoises. It never ACTUALLY says that they are speaking English. We can't KNOW FOR CERTAIN that these two animals NEVER raced..." Blah blah blah. It's GARBAGE. The POINT of the myth is that the rabbit didn't finish the job and the tortoise did. End of story. When you start trying to prove that it's true, you lose the entire friggin' message. Genesis is a collection of myths that a bunch of goat herders half remembered from stories they heard from other Middle Easterners. It's NOT MEANT to be taken seriously. They themselves didn't REALLY take it seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
What a coicidence that AiG did a research study through America's research Group) exactly on this very subject and that the results have been published this month lol. They say the results are shocking.
The book is Already Gone, it costs 13bucks (hey, they have to finance these research somehow, since they don't have government funds hh) Edited by slevesque, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I can't see any indication that it refers solely to wheat. Or even a clear indication of the location.
quote: Or, alternatively, your "interpretation" owes far more to your assumptions than it does to the text.
quote: I don't know how you get that. The "generations" referred to are the descendants of Adam. The definition offered by dictionary.com that most closely fits the usage is:
the offspring of a certain parent or couple, considered as a step in natural descent.
quote: It seems to more clearly imply that Genesis 5:1-2 and Genesis 5:3 refer to the same individual - since the chapter is about the descendants of Adam, and there is nothing to indicate that the man of Genesis 5:1-2 is anybody else. And I have to say that I am puzzled by your reading of the flood story. Are you seriously suggesting that it refers to a flood that - while doubtless serious enough for the people affected - covered only a single city and it's immediate surroundings, and left many survivors to rebuild.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If science proves this to be wrong, then the Bible is not the word of God, it is the word of faillible men. Done. And shown. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It would be easier to know what you were talking about if:
(a) You said what you were talking about. (b) You told us what this "study" was about. (c) You had replied to a specific post instead of hitting the "general reply" button.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Many of you have questioned the location and the domestication of wheat. Paulk says: "I can't see any indication that it refers solely to wheat. Or even a clear indication of the location." We know that the Bible says two of the Rivers are the Tigris and Euphrates. There are two other rivers, but they may be tributaries with their own name. We also know that at Adam's time there was no plant of the field because there was no rain and no man to tend them. There were already plants according to Gen 1, but plants of the field sound like domesticated plants since these plants can't grow without man to tend them according to scientists. Adam and Eve sew clothes out of Fig Leaves and Adam is cursed to eat wheat by the sweat of his brow. We are looking for where wild wheat and wild Figs grew, and also, since tilling and cultivating are mentioned, where domestic wheat grew. If you draw lines from the Euphrates to the Tigris, along the 200 mm isohyut line to the south, and along the 500 mm isohyut line to the north, it contains all region where wild wheat
and wild figs grew together. South is too dry even for wild wheat and north is too cold for wild fig. There are very few mountains in that area, really only one, since the Mardin hills are only on the edge and rather too dry for figs. Mt Karacadag is in the center of the area and has four rivers flowing off of it, even all coming out of the same snowpack. Scientists have gone to the mountain and harvested the wild wheat and said the wheat grows so profusely that they calculated that a family could harvest enough wild wheat in two weeks to feed themselves for a year. Another group of scientists, by DNA analysis have shown that wheat was only domesticated at Mt Karacadag. Eden is even associated with Haran in two different places in the Bible. The Bible says the garden was in Eden, to the east. Karacadag is east of Haran. It is even a volcano, satisfying the passage about the fiery stones and possibly the flaming sword. For these and other reasons, I see that the Bible can only reference Karacadag as the location of Eden and it is where the first farmer lived according to both scientists and the Bible. I go into more detail in gardenofeden I find every part of the story of the Garden literally true and scientifically true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024