Creation

Below is exactly what you said in the message I responded to. As best as I can tell, it claims that it makes no difference regarding a Seth as described in 4:26 because such a person would have died during the creation of the heavens and earth in 1:1 if 4:26 was as it appears to me. We can quibble about whether that means Seth died during or prior to the resulting void and empty earth described in Genesis 1:2 But in either event the alleged scenario does not seem to leave a way for Seth or Enos to have any descendants who became the ancestors of Isaac or Jacob and even forward from that point.If you have a point, I'd appreciate if you get to it. Your quibbling about words and phrasing that do not resolve the issue would be fine if they were accompanied by an addressing of the issues. But that never seems to happen. I strongly suspect I would be better of reading other explanations that waiting for you to respond. If your view differs significantly from Gap theory, I suspect I will never understand it because getting you to answer questions is too painful and you appear to be the only source for whatever it is you believe.

But given that Jeremiah was providing a warning about the future, the fact such condition did not currently exist would not be that surprising, would it? I note that my complaint about not looking at the verses surrounding 4:23-4:26 resulted in you printing a couple more verses, but then not taking into account their content.Why do I need to ask the same questions and then complain about the same lack of response over and over? Why do you even bother responding without answering the question, or at least telling me why the question is invalid?I am just giving you an opportunity to preach, right?

Surely you are not complaining about portions of your message not being addressed? Not you, ICANT. Yeah, I did see where you said 'Occam's Razor' as if that was some kind of answer. Please cite Occam's Razor and tell me how that means you win.For the purposes of this discussion my interests in understanding the rationale for your interpretation of Genesis, and how that interpretation stacks up to what is actually written. I am not pushing any alternative view other than as a probe against that interpretation.If you are not interested in helping me with that, so be it. This is your thread. But I thought my questions were on topic. If they aren't then I can stop asking them here. I'll pursue my interest elsewhere.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have been exceedingly clear about where I find your reply lacking. I'm not going to play the 'tell me where the math I learned in sixth grade is wrong" game again. I have found plenty of sources that discuss Jeremiah 4:23-4:26 and other verses from several perspectives and which discuss the implication for the ruin-reconstruction hypothesis. If you choose to address those issues with the group, I'll see it when you get to it. If not, then I just won't get your take on it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really? Not sharing or adopting your personal interpretation of Genesis is disdain for God's Word?I have told you in detail exactly what it is you say that I fail to find convincing. In particular, I have told you that your application of Occam's razor appears to be bogus and that most people interpret Jeremiah to be warning of the future. Your response was that since Jeremiah was in the past, then Occam's razor suggests he must be talking about the past. That's inane. Would that logic have worked at the time Jeremiah actually spoke? Nope.Did I make up that argument. No, that argument is easily found just about everywhere this topic is discussed. It is hard to find rebuttals to it, but I am sure they exist. I'm also sure that what you have posted does not cut the grade.Get a grip brother. If I have displayed any disdain it is for your tactics. I am very interested in God's word, and I am pursuing my interest in Ruin-Restoration theology elsewhere. It is your presentation that I find lacking and full of your own typical evasion.I accept that your belief is sincere and I have never doubted your love for Gods' word. But none of that guarantees that you are right about anything. This is my last post in this thread. You are welcome to have the last insult.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The method of construction you describe is extremely problematic. It is in fact exactly the way both YEC and Gap theologists come up with incompatible views of the Bible. This very discussion recommends against proceeding as you suggest.

Perhaps another illustration of this principle would be Morse Code. How difficult is it to learn to read a morse code version of any english message? Answer: Not very.

Perhaps the actual text from Genesis 3:22-24, KJV would stop some of the Creationism (i.e. "testa-lying") in telling the story. Not that you are doing that... And not that this point has not been covered in many past discussion.

quote:

---

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

​

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

​

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life

---

So apparently, the Tree of Life could make Adam immortal even after the Tree of Knowledge incident. That was the impetus for God driving Adam out of the garden. At least that is what Genesis quoted God as saying.Yet there was no apparent restriction on Adam from eating from the Tree of Life prior to disobeying God. One might conclude a few things1) Immortality ended with the placing of the angel with the flaming sword.
2) The serpent deceived Eve with something very close to the truth.
3) The idea that eating of the Tree of Life after Adam sinned would have been fatal is completely non-Biblical.
4) Discussion elsewhere regarding death entering the world with this incident can be reconciled with the text only through the use of metaphoric speaking.Almost certainly that latter point describes how Paul spoke, and his contemporaries, who most likely were not prone to interpreting Genesis literally would well have understood. Historically we know that the Rabbinic Tradition of literal translation is from a period hundreds of years after Paul lived. I know it is popular to ignore the fact that Paul and Jesus were Jewish, but such ignorance is simply not reasonable.

This is not correct. The scientific data has identified the time period for the youngest common female ancestor descended only along a line of strictly female ancestors. This is unlikely to have been the first woman alive. Similarly, a corresponding time for the most recent common male descended along a strictly male line of ancestors.And the timing is such that the two ancestors would not have been contemporaries. Short summary. That's not Adam and Eve, nor is it a finding inconsistent with evolution.As for BC being an oxymoron. Nope. Even if your understanding is that Jesus is an eternal being, the Bible does describe a date for his birth as a man. BC refers to that date.

In my opinion, a study of Hebrew culture and Bible traditions is at least as important as understanding the exact meaning(s) of words. My opinion is not shared by most fundamentalists who often insist that ancient Hebrews were simply wrong about the written and oral traditions that they actually created; not just wrong about the Messianic traditions, but well off target regarding essentially all of the Old Testament.Yes, learning the language is an aspect of the culture, but it really is not the be all and end all of trying to understand what the Bible is saying.The alternative is to simply go along with what various Christian traditions and commentators have said. That is the path that most fundamentalists take. If you have an issue with that, you are going to be told that getting a different answer means that you are not being spiritually guided to your answer.Yes, Jesus does cite the Old Testament. Jesus also used a mixture of personal experience, parables, and stories in his own ministry. His citations mean that scripture is valuable for teaching and correction. But they don't necessarily endorse any story as historical. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What you say is logical, but even ignoring Tom Larkin's interpretation, what you say does not seem to be the consensus opinion of most of the folk here. Based on that, I cannot say that your interpretation is "the" natural one.I don't go as far as Larkin to suggest that Adam and Eve were not according to the Bible, the first humans but like you, I think Genesis 2 is more of a close-up. Most of the other folk here believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are simply incompatible stories.As for what reading is more natural, I don't have a strong opinion. I can remember at an early age being confused about all of those other people described in Genesis 2 that seemed to be pre-Adam and Eve, but I have long since discarded that interpretation as unlikely.Edited by NoNukes, : Language tweaked a bit.

Nevermind. I think I see what "effective population of 5" is supposed to meanEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Jar, Phat, NoNukes, and Ringo all in agreement. Solar eclipse next month across the US. These must be signs...

I know better than to ask. But do you have any clue what evidence scientist cite for the BBT? I see here that you just label certain concepts assumptions, but do you know what the heck you are talking about? I ask this because you have a track record here of getting science wrong.

Surely it is okay to cite the Bible for what it says in the Accuracy and Inerrancy thread, particularly when someone claims that the text is in error.