In the Beginning....

So the creation story in Genesis is not science.I do not know anyone who thinks it is. Not sure what you were trying to say in your post about true science.

By the way, which creation story do you believe is correct? The one in Genesis 1 or the second one that begins in Gen. 2. The order of creation is reversed in the two creation stories.

 

I said there is nothing in the Genesis account that contradicts true science. I did not say that creation can be subjected to the scientific method.

So, you are a documentary hypothesis fan? Genesis 2 provides an account of the seventh day and a fuller description of Genesis 1:26-27 and other details necessary to understand Genesis 3 and the fall of man.

Not everything described in Genesis 2 occurred on the sixth day of creation. Obviously the description of the seventh day which begins Genesis 2 was not included in day six. There is no evidence to demand that everything described about Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 occured on the sixth day of creation.

The foolish arguments that Adam was not bright enough and God was not powerful enough to bring all the species of animals before Adam to name them in one day fails to consider that there were only "two" of each kind rather than the thousands of sub-types we have today due to interbreeding.

 

You are the one that elevated Scofield as your authority in this matter, not I. You entered into this discussion with sharp words so you might want to take a look into the mirror as well.

 

Actually looking at the geological record there were many more types of life than in the current day. Man has himself wipe out many species that at one time existed. So this shows there were many more types of animals during Adam than current. Also Interbreeding from a limited set doesn't create diversity but genetic issues. Since Adam and Eve were ostensibly the only humans around we should have a greater amount of genetic issues than we currently do. There is a reason our country forbids inbreeding among people. This doesn't match up with your theory.

 

Speaking of Adam naming the animals. Jesse Duplantis said God brought the animals to Adam because God did not know what they were.

(he also claims that it was Adam that gave life to the animals)

Talk about false teachers.

for the video, click here

 

You are simply wrong! The total number of animals existing at the time of Adam were limited within each specie to "TWO." It does not take a genuis to figure out that multiplication proceeded from that point and increased the number dramatically. It also does not take a genuis to figure out that interbreeding within the species that currently exists today far outnumbers the limits of "TWO" within the number of species existing on the sixth day of creation even if they were more species existent. You will not find a single solitary creation scientist that will agree with you. Dr. Henry Morris and the creation institute makes the same argument I have so I am not depending upon my scientific credentials. Whose credentials are you depending upon to make the statements you have? Evolutionists????

 

No you are wrong on two counts. 1) you obviously did not read my post. 2) the bible doesn't only indicate that there were only two of each kind of animal.

As to my first point I didn't refer to the bible but to the geological record showing the many diverse forms of life through out the history of the earth. If I were to use the scriptures I look at the passages in Genesis and find your assumption that only two of each kind of creature was made is also incorrect.

All you can assume in this passage is that each animal was according to its kind volume or quantity isn't discussed. Nor number of divergent types. Just each animal was according to its kind. And when looking at the geological records there there were much more types of animals than are existant today.

BTW Dr. Morris of the creation institue is a quack. And laughable in most scientific circles. We know from experience that if you inbreed and animal you get a lesser quality of animal.

 

What "sharp" words did I enter this discussion with?

You are the one that referred to me as empty headed, although you did so in a cowardly manner.

 

In Genesis 1:21 there is a change between "THEIR kind" and "HIS kind" and the Hebrew terms are different indicating that the fowls and land animals were created with a singular male as was man. The assumption on my part is that like mankind there were but a singular female created as well.

You didn't read my response carefully. I said it does not take a genuis to figure out that that "two" would reproduce and multipy shortly afterward. That would provide what you see in the geological record. You cannot use the geneological record as evidence of the number of animal life existent on day six.

 

Would you receive the following as satire and ridicule?

"Since you are an authority on this subject.....Of course this information would be redundant to someone as bright and well educated as you." - Snow

 

Brother, that was not my opening posting. I said this after your "gap between the ears" insult, which makes it appears like you were just itching for a fight.

My opening post was:

 

My statement was made in jest without any malice in my heart toward you as a person. I still have no malice in my heart toward you as a person. I do have contempt for the theory. I used to believe in the "gap" theory myself during my college days in 1974-78. When I entered seminary my Hebrew professor presented me with a technical paper that entirely refuted the "gap" theory.

 

See you made an assumption. The text isn't clear that only two of each kind of animal were made but that each animal was made according to its kind. There could have 20 cows lets say. The text isn't clear about it.

Sure two could have easily multiplied into many but you missed the part of my post that stated inbreeding has never created a better animal but always with genetic problems occuring over time. By this time ln our history we should have serious inbreeding problems such as physical deformities, mental illness, etc... in about 99% of the populace.

 

Thank you for your explanation.

Since I have yet to take Hebrew, I will continue on in my ignorance. Of course, even I believe it is just a theory.

 

I dont think your are taking into consideration that the same principle would apply to the human race began with only "TWO" and yet humans married family members at the beginning and continued doing so for nearly 2000 years. The environment and the strong genetics of the human race can be seen in prolonged life spans and it was not until the time of Moses that intermarriage was prohibited, most likely due to the degenerating processes of sin on the human race. There is no reason to doubt the same was true for animal life during the same period of prolonged life.

 

I believe man to be a special case over the animals in that we are the only creatures created in God's image. There is a special rule going on here. Its just as easily shown that multitudes of animals could reproduce even in greater numbers if there were many to begin with. However, there is a theory that I've come accross that God created other men and that Adam was the selected representative of mankind or in a sense "king". In this passage its clear Adam was taken from somewhere and placed in the garden

Though this theory is entertaining. I'm not sure about it but when think about it I came accross this particular delemma.

Genesis 1:11-13

is in contradiction to Genesis 2:4-7

Its clear from Genesis 1 account vegitation was produced on day 3. However, also in Genesis 1:27&31

God didn't make man until the 6th day. But the passage already indicates that vegitation had sprung forth. Which contradicts Genesis 2 because accordingly when man was made there was no vegitation produced. man was created in a barren waste land of mud.

 

The "image" of God is spiritual not physical as all other animal life have physical bodies. So I see that you too are making assumptions without any explicit support.

I would say you have put a big hole in this entertaining theory. However, this theory has many more problems than those you listed. The problems begin with asking questions about Marriage, about the meaning of the name of Eve, about the origin of sin and how these other humans became sinful, and the list goes on and on.

May I ask where do you get this idea from?

 

The Scriptures call Adam, meaning man, "the first Adam." They are unequivocal about this. Adam and Eve were the first two humans on this earth. It was Adam's sin that brought about the fall. To think that there were others present in the world is contrary to Scripture.
Adam was taken by God and put in the garden. From where is irrelevant.

Genesis 1:11-13 speak of the first three days of creation.
Adam wasn't created until the sixth day.
Gen.1:11-13 God created grass and trees that were in full bloom and that covered the earth.
Gen.2:4-7 is a summary of how the earth was created, summarizing what was already done in chapter one, adding some additional information, such as the mist coming from the ground to water the plants. Our earth has the same thing doesn't it. Do you find dew on the plants on a summer morning--not the same but similar.

Where do you get that conclusion from? Right after God tells us that he made the earth, he tells us that he made man, the focus of his attention in chapter two. The events are not necessarily chronological. He made Adam and Eve and put them into the garden which he had prepared for them. Previous to that he tells them of the world that had nothing in it. So? What contradiction is there?

Also your reference to the geological tables proves nothing. Everything was wiped out at the flood. It doesn't matter what evidence of fossils they found, they won't find anything that goes back to Adam because it was wiped out at the flood. The evolutionists use circular reasoning even then:
How old is this geological table? How do you date it? "We date it according to the age of the fossils." How do you know how old the fossils are? "We know how old the fossils are according to the geological layer that they were found in."

 

Your welcome. I also believe it "just a theory" a wrong one. However, you seem like a nice fella.

 

DHK you're such a Zelot that I find it funny. If you read my post you would have noted its a theory I came accross which I haven't made my own but it lead me to reviewing the verses where I came accross a problem.
Now let me review again. You state.

To which I've shown is the begining of the issue because it doesn't match Genesis 2. Then you go on to say

LOL!!!! I had to laugh because you go from being a literal 6 day creation (its exactly how God said it to coming up with some generalization about the account. The fact is on Day 3 God said that

God is clear Vegitation was produced and flowers were flowering on the 3rd day. You calling God a liar? LOL Now look at Gen 2

in the Narative in the Genesis 2 account it is clear there was no produce vegitation or plant they hadn't sprung up yet. When God created man. When did God create man well according to Gen 1

God made man on the six day 3 days after there was vegitation. But you want me to take genesis literally and when you come across this contradiction you resort to "Well God wasn't being specific but general". I mean I have to laugh. At least you didn't say I wasn't a Christian because I don't believe the literal 6 day view. I believe the genesis account isn't meant to be scientific but organization and the mode of organization is by day for easy memory. 1 day general overview 4 day more specific 2 day general overview 5 day more specific 3 day General overview 6 day more specific. Creation uses a mode of 3s. Thus 3 general overview and 3 specific. with in the already created account a 7th is then added as a holy day. That is my view

Huh but you want me to by the literalness of the 6 day creation account?

Contradiction they weren't made until the sixth day but day 3 everything is flowering but the descriptor is that nothing had bloomed yet? Contradiction. Easy.

You can roll your eyes all you want but the flood doesn't start a new account. It leaves evidence of all life in the sediment. In fact sediment is great for perserving stuff like ancient roman ships off the coast of Spain. It would keep a perfect record.