GENESIS..CHAPTER 1-11

Hi, Alex. Yes, it's the Don you remember.

Couple of minor things to consider. Genesis 1 is the ONLY passage in the Bible with the modification of "the evening and the morning were the ___ day." No where else in the Bible is a day defined like this.

Second, "an undetermined time after the birth of Cain and Abel" is somewhat incorrect. Gen 5:3 tells us that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Since Seth was the third child, we can pretty much determine a time frame regarding Cain and Abel, seeing as how Genesis 4:25 seems to indicate that Seth was born after the Cain and Abel incident.

 

Nothing will change your Salvation in Christ Jesus period.

Alex what you are asking for is a theory called the Gap Theory. It can be found in the Creation/Evolution forum on the BB and here is the link http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000046

You should know about it in case its brought up and you can defend your belief.

Here is a question for consideration: How old was Cain when he slew Abel?... Brother Glen

[ March 24, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

To what degree do you believe in "science?" True science requires observation. Science cannot deal with origins. When it does, it reaches into the realm of metaphysics, which is not science, but religion. We tend to label it as "scientism." Science is knowledge gained by observation, and classified accordingly. It in no way conflicts with the Bible.
DHK

 

Because I tend to take the Bible pretty literally. If it says Adam was 130 years old, I accept that. Then, if you follow the rest of the lineage in chapter 5, and do some math, you can come up with a pretty specific number.

The only way the Bible supports an old earth theory, or a gap theory, is by ignoring Adam's age at the time of Seth's birth. Or saying that the first 5 days were different time periods than the 6th and 7th days. Or that Adam didn't start counting birthdays until some other point in the creation story.

But there's no scriptural support for any of those.

We've become so focused on science being correct and without error, that we've decided that the Bible just can't mean what it says.

 

If anything died prior to Adam and Eve the bible is a lie, Jesus is not the Savior, and the gospel is garbage.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

 

Wow, that's quite a strong statement. So, if it turns out that Paul was simply using a rabbinic metaphor there (of a kind that was not unusual), you would pitch your Christianity? I'd like to think my faith has a firmer foundation.

Joshua

 

Actually, no, we're not.

The same exact phrasing is used in verses 4, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31: the evening and the morning were the ___ day.

Is God a liar? Did He say the evening and the morning were the first day, but intended that phrase to have a different meaning for the fifth and sixth days? Then why did He use the same exact phrase for both?

You can see a difference in the way God inspired this account in Genesis 2:4 -- These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....

God KNEW that we would try to argue the point of how long a day was. In Genesis 2, the word day clearly means a time period. In Genesis 1, we could talk till we're blue in the face about whether a day was 24 hours or some immeasureable time period...but we'd still ALWAYS come back to the fact that God told us "the evening and the morning were the ___ day."

We could discuss till we're blue in the face that there was no real evening and morning in the first two days, because the sun and the moon hadn't been created yet; but by doing so, we'd have to say that God lied to us, because He was the one that gave the author the words "the evening and the morning were the first day."

Is it a salvational issue? In a way, very deeply so. If God lied to us in these first few verses, then how much of the rest of the book is actual truth?

As I said before, we've become so reliant on science being infallible--when the only infallible, reliant fact about science is that the theories and "known facts" are constantly changing--that we HAVE to come to the conclusion that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

Why is there not more information about Cain, Abel, and Eve? Because they were not central to the rising of God's people. In fact, after the Flood, none of their lineage existed.

 

Exactly, Alex. That's why we have to read around the particular word to determine what it means. For instance, "day" in Genesis 2 refers to an unspecified time period. "Day" in Genesis 17:11 refers to a specific day of the month.

Don't just stop with "yom": Look up "ereb" (evening) and "boqur" (morning) as well. Then come up with your own explanation as to why God would inspire the author to write this, specifically mentioning "evening" and "morning," after each day of creation.

 

I have no need to "pitch my faith" as you have. I know the bible is true and all that disagree with it are liars. But then, we all know you really don't mean what you say, you are just using metaphors.

 

(1)

I misunderstood you, Alex; my apologies. Why do verse 1 and 2 get included with the first day of creation?

Perhaps for the same reason verses 6 and 7 are considered part of the second day: There's no distinction made separating verses 1 and 2 from verse 5. Just as verses 6 and 7 are "included" in the second day, verses 1 and 2 are "included" in the first day.

(2) Actually, there is a distinction regarding animals, and that's what Doc Cassidy was trying to show you. Before sin, there was no death. If there was no death, then animals did not die. (see Genesis 2:17)

(3)

What? "God said it" isn't good enough for them? I assume they meant, human scientists haven't found any support for a literal 6 day creation? Why don't you ask them the question again, couched in that manner?

And remember something Jesus said: "(Matthew 12:39) But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas...."

If we're seeking human-approved proof of a literal six-day creation, well, we're seeking a sign....While I'm not trying to downplay science, I want you to understand: five years ago, the age of the universe was guesstimated at 20 billion years. Three years ago they revised the guesstimate to 15 billion years. Six months after that, they revised the guesstimate to 12 billion years.

The trend is that the universe is younger than originally thought....

See Alex, I believe in a God who is capable of ALL things...including doing exactly what the Bible says He did.

You may not see it as a salvational issue; I reiterate that I do, for these reasons: 1) If the Bible is God-inspired, but God didn't do what He inspired the authors to write, then God is a liar; 2) If God couldn't create the heavens and earth and everything in it in six days, then God isn't capable of doing everything, and is not a god to be relied upon.

You have a great Easter, too!

[ March 28, 2002, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Alex,

You are so correct that this is not a salvation issue. Anyone that tries to make it one has so twisted and perverted the Gospel that they seriously need to look at their own salvation. Not one of the writers of "The Fundamentals" believed in a young earth. For people to now claim belief in it is a salvation issue is truly sad, but then again there are people who now claim KJV onlyism. How pathetic.

 

I'll take that to mean that I'm pathetic and sad, that I've perverted and twisted the Gospel, and that I need to look at my own salvation.

Thanks for your concern.

Of course, all I've said is that the Bible is either true, or it isn't....

[ March 28, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Don ]