How did Adam do it?

Science? So, what convoluted explanation have you come up with to describe how the earth roamed in space by itself and was suddenly placed in orbit around a star without destroying everything on it? An orbit that fits neatly with the orbits of the other planets, in the same plane around the same star. Without the sun, there was no earth.

 

The verse you quoted tells what he did. The verses that follow are an allegory to describe what happened to bronze age people with no understanding of the world, much less the cosmos.

 

Hello Magnetic Poles.

He created the heaven and the Earth and after that He created the stars. Cosmology hasn't replaced my faith in God's word yet, maybe when we hear the evidence from Grasshopper my mind will be changed.

No different today then are we with the 'no understanding'? (Why should the Earth be in orbit around anything as it's rotation will take it into light and dark if it was travelling in a straight line wouldn't it?)

GE 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Since God can chuck billions of billions of stars around I cannot see Him having problems getting the Earth settled into a stable orbit around our sun can you?

In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. (The Bible)
In the beginning the universe appears to be the consequence of an unusual event. ( http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.html )

I'm afraid there are many Christians believing the second rather than the first. Why they chose to do so is beyond me.

john.

 

I believe that Adam being untouch by sin had a super intellect and therfore could remember all things that came into his memory and How did he know how to speak and what a tree was. The bible does not say that he learned anything, he just knew......

 

There is nothing convoluted at all about how plasma filaments work. The cosmos is still filled with them. Stars are plasma. Our sun is a plasma.

When a plasma filament starts to pinch in the middle, a string of 'beads' forms around it, which 'chase' each other until one swallows up all the others and becomes dominant. Then another 'string of beads' forms inside the first, and does the same thing. This repeats, depending on the size of the filament, until there is only the core left, which then lights up. That is very probably how our solar system was formed and fits exactly with the timing given by the Bible. The earth appeared before the sun, but was not 'wandering.'

Maybe it's time you caught up with a little more science?

 

I am not a Hebrew to whom this book is written. Paul tells us in His other Epistles to both Gentile and Jew this information in language suited to we today.

Paul in Hebrews is imploring them to come out of Judaism to the Cross. Christ Jesus is the first born, and NOW they can be in the General Assembly just as Peter says.They can now be justified through faith of Jesus Christ. Is justification by faith still available today? If so, isn't Paul urging any of that faith to come to the Father through Jesus Christ? I have accepted Christ Jesus as my Lord. We now await the "rapture", not as those justified by faith (Roman 3:30). Again I am not of the "circumcision gospel".

I'm happy you know this truth, for Paul doesn't lie. This is where we go to find out what it is all about, for such as this is what Christ from heaven revealed to Paul (look at my signature). I am in the Body of Christ (Body Church), and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and in HIM (My Lord), I am now a "son of God". We will be like Him, John says, but not now.

 

Pseudoscience like you teach? No thanks! :laugh:

No matter how much junk "science" you and Barry make up, there is absolutely zero evidence of the earth being formed outside the solar system and before the sun. None. Nada. ALL evidence shows it to be formed from the same cloud as the rest of the planets and the sun. I'll give you this. You really work hard at trying to wrap your preconceived outcomes into a cloak of scientific-sounding language, but all it is, is you trying to pidgeonhole the cosmos into a literal reading of Genesis. Why not give up and just say you believe a literal Genesis in spite of any observeable data?

 

Helen, you and I certainly have our disagreements over C/A, but I am with you on this issue! Thank you for standing up for the Word of God. If the Genesis account is an allegory, then our salvation is in question.

 

Morning and evenings literally speaking need an earths rotation around the sun. A sun that wasn’t “literally” created till the 4th day.

Remember a few centuries ago the Church labeled some Christians who were also scientists heretics because they taught the earth revolved around the sun. An apparent contrdiction to biblical teaching.

The God of the Word is also the God of physics, astro-physics, biology, geology etc………

Did Adam name the sharks? Or were there no carnivorous sharks before the Fall?

Was the sun created on the fourth day or appeared on the fourth day? Was the sun in some form already in existence on days 1-3?

Designated by "mornings and evenings" that could not have existed at that time as we know them today.

“yom” is used in this verse:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Scriptural evidence for this?

For those with an open mind and an open Bible, these will help shed some light.

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Question-Scientific-Advances-Accuracy/dp/1576832309

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Case-Old-Earth/dp/0801066190/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8519376-4673526?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176989818&sr=1-1

Ever wonder why there is no evening of the seventh day?

A lot of assumptions in there. There is much in Genesis we just don’t know therefore there are many possibilities.

A little condescending? Perhaps Hugh Ross would say the same to you.

http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml#education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

 

No, they only need a "lights on" and "lights off". Remember the Bible is written to those who have only experienced a night and day in relation to the sun.

 

Please share where you studied science, MP? You are quick to dismiss science if it disagrees with you, so I'm curious where you studied science at...

 

Ok, but we claim no proof, only God says. Science has no proof of the creation of the universe either, in fact they say it is a mystery. Space, time and matter being created at the same time from a singularity is as much mumbo jumbo as In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I trust my source as those who trust their's. I have as much faith in God as evo's have in scientists.
If we can remember that there is no proof for either side we can have fun speculating on what might be instead of insulting each other in the dark about things we cannot prove.

Nothing else had been created before or at the same time as this except it was in the spirit realm. Heaven and space and the atmosphere and Earth. To postulate more has the same effect as those who deny the literal interpretation.

Grasshopper.

It does not. GE 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
This is more than sufficient to void your argument here.

More evidence? Is there evidence that contradicts God's word Grasshopper?

First, the word 'Church'. It was not the Church that condemned Galileo but the Roman Catholics who just so happen to be the anti-Christ. So really, your argument works against you.
Secondly, GE 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
Equality of the sexes is taught from the start. Both man and woman were instructed to subdue the earth and to be able to do that one must understand how it works and to know how it works takes a scientific approach. God has told us that the secrets of nature are for finding out.
So, even if it was Christians that slapped Galileo down that does not reflect onto God or His word but disobedient children.
Thirdly, that is not evidence that Genesis is literally wrong. Whatch'a think?

As I said. As Einstein said, "God does not play dice." The secrets of nature are for us to find so that we can control nature.
JOB 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

I would say there is a problem with this for me. I agree with nep, Adam called them all Melvin. No animal was carnivorous before the fall. The wages of sin is death and in Adam's sin was death for the animals as well (with some reservations).

GE 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night...
I take the "Let there be" as a fresh creation. I don't think it was in existence before the "Let there be". I believe the light source was God not material. ...God is light... 1 John 1:5. ISA 45:15 Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

3. The days of creation week were 24 hour days. They were designated by evening and morning and there is no other possible meaning for this use of 'yom'.

Day only means 24 hours here and conflicts with nothing. In the day they ate the fruit they died and took mankind with them. See what happens when you don't take Genesis literally? Death takes on a different meaning. Adam and Eve became spiritually separated the moment they took a bite, But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" Gen 3:9. And that is death. Part of that spiritual death affect our bodies in that we age and die. Aging beyond a certain point and dying is not natural but is imposed as a curse of God and one man is attempting to overcome as he has overcome other curses.

Soon after man was reaching for the stars in Babylon. Did you know they were using batteries in Babylon 2000 years ago?

Because God is still in it with us. Those who come to Christ are in God's rest. Heb 4:10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.

And it can be fun. I haven't time to go through your links at the moment but will try later.

john.

 

first of all, we did not say the earth formed outside the solar system. You need to read more carefully. The plasma models easily reconstructed in labs show that the formation of such things as our solar system occur from the outer shells in, thus making the circling planets appear before the sun, however they are always within the 'circle' of the plasma filament and therefore within the 'shape' of the solar system and not outside its vicinity.

Nor is this anything from our preconceptions. This is plasma science which has been around for years and explains atmospheric and outer space phenomena far, far better than the standard gravitational models.

Our question is then, "Is this how God did it?" It matches exactly with much that is not only in the Bible but with much that was actually observed by earlier men as well as what we observe in space today as well as in our labs.

In otherwords, despite the name you use here, Magnetic Poles, your education in that particular area seems a bit lacking.

Here's a little 'junk science' since you seem to be behind in your knowledge in this area.

The earth is surrounded by a plasma 'shell' which stretches out in back of us like a tail. (By the way, these 'tails' would have been much, much stronger earlier in our history and when one planet passes through the tail of another planet's plasma, the 'thunderbolts' of the ancients would have easily occurred as the electric discharges struck.)
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=27556

Plasma interactions in space provide a much more consistent and scientifically feasible explanation for much of what we see than does gravity. These interactions may well have been seen by earlier men
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=396

The beading effect can occur on a galactic to microscopic scale:

"Alfvén waves are low frequency magnetohydrodynamic plasma waves or oscillations. They were first theoretically predicted by Hannes Alfvén in the 1950's, and he earned the Nobel Prize for his work in plasma physics. Alfvén waves are of fundamental importance in the behavior of many laboratory and space plasmas. Basically, these waves can be thought of as waves on a magnetic string. The magnetic field acts like a string, and the plasma particles act like beads. Heavier beads - heavier plasma ions - means the waves are slower and the wavelength is longer. "
from http://www.ece.unm.edu/~plasma/Science/alfven.html

a little extra imformation:
lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/code695/documents/plasma%20universe%20better.ppt

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060210hhtornado.htm

Now, Google some more for yourself and get the idea of this being 'junk science' out of your system, please.

 

But that does not make a morning or an evening. Is it your point that God switched the cosmic light switch every 12 hours the first 3 days?

Who is trying to prove science contradicts God’s word? I’m certainly not. This is the problem, unless you hold to the traditional view (whoever determines that) then the opponents accuse you of contradicting the Bible.

I think an old universe view is just as literal as a young earth view. That's what I think.

So the entire digestive systems of numerous animals changed when Adam fell? Sharks suddenly appeared with razor-like teeth instead of their previous plant eating molars? What kind of life was outside of the Garden before the Fall? Was it any different than the Garden itself?

What was the Tree of Life’s purpose in the garden?
Were animals created immortal?

Who doesn’t take Genesis literally? Does one have to agree with you to be considered a literalist?

Where in Genesis is this found? Genesis records they died the day they ate, but the did not physically die nor does it say they began to physically die. This leads back to the purpose of the Tree of Life.

So the seventh day has not ended?

 

Response to some of Grasshopper's stuff

1. The first light was not from the sun but from our quasar. God did not have to switch it on every twelve hours. The earth was rotating. That is what makes morning and evening.

2. If the days of Creation Week were not actual 24 hour days, then both Exodus 20:11 and 31 are also wrong. Where does it stop???

3. If an old universe view is 'literal' then we have some interesting phenomena which far outstrip the idea of an actual seven day creation week:
-- we have an earth that was around EONS before the sun
-- we have fruiting trees EONS before there were insects to pollinate
-- plants were around for at least one EON before the sun was shining
-- birds were around at least one EON before land animals appeared
-- and so it goes...

4. Among land animals, the felines are the only true carnivores. All others are omniverous to some extent. There are two interesting points to add here about cats: they have lost whatever genetic input is necessary for a sweet tooth. Secondly, their digestive systems are designed to handle a high protein diet, as are those of dogs, bears, etc. High protein plants may not have made it through the Flood, thus necessitating meat-eating or meat supplements with them as they do with humans. It takes no change in the digestive system to handle different types of high protein diets.

As far as fish are concerned, the Bible does not indicate they were commanded to be completely plant eating. It does not indicate that insects were to be completely plant eating. If one reads carefully, one finds that the provisions for total plant eating were for the humans and the beasts of the ground and the birds of the air -- those creatures with nephesh, or soul. It was not mentioned in reference to any other creature.

In other words, best not to argue about this point until you are sure of what the Bible is actually saying.

5. The Tree of Life's purpose is shown in Revelation -- it was for healing. And no, animals were not designed to live on earth forever. Neither was man. It is death which is the intruder, however, as it may have been that man was designed to be translated, as Enoch and Elijah were.

6. Taking Genesis literally means you accept it as an actual historical account of what happened. This is how it presents itself. It gives no indication of being allegorical, mythological, or hearsay. It presents itself as a series of eyewitness accounts. It must be accepted or rejected on its own terms, not on those thrust upon it by someone attempting to make it correspond with other views.

7. Death is separation. Physical death is separation from the body and spiritual death is separation from God. It is clear that spiritual death happened immediately as Adam and Eve then hid from God in fear -- a fear they had not known before. Physical death indeed started on the day of disobedience and was realized completely via the aging process and the final separation from the body which was now corrupted by sin.

8. On the seventh day, we agree. It is ended. God is not at rest now. Jesus Himself stated "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." (John 5:17) Creation week is given as a pattern, according to the Bible. To rest in Christ as the spiritual Sabbath means, at least partly, to be able to stop the work of attempting to save or improve ourselves: "Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest...."

 

But wouldn’t the distance difference between a quasar and the sun affect the length of a day? With the sun it is 24 hours with the quasar vastly farther away than our sun wouldn’t that change the length of a day?

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

No one disputes the creation was in 6 days, but you can’t assume because the verse says “sabbath” that it means 24 hour days.

The principle is one in seven. Sabbath is seven years in other verses:

Lev 25:3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
Lev 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

Hugh Ross’ book “The Genesis Question” answers these concerns. The thrust of his argument is Genesis is describing how creation looked from the vantage point of earth. The earth wasn’t created before the sun, but the sun didn’t become observable until the forth day.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/greg_moore_does_old_earth_creationism_contradict_genesis_1.shtml#genesis_1_the_universe

Where does it state that animals did not eat flesh? Why wouldn't God create carnivours?

It is also shown in Genesis:

Gen 3:22 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:

What does “live forever” mean?

So the Fall had nothing to do with physical death of man or animals. Nor were they created immortal, physically.

Every Christian old earth advocate would agree with that. One can be an old earth advocate and still take Genesis literally.

Norman Geisler:

Of course, there are many Creationists who argue for an old earth. Biblically, this position that the word for day is used for more than twenty-four hours even in Genesis 2:4, the events of the sixth day surely took more than twenty-four hours, and Hebrews 4:4?5 implies that God is still in His seventh-day rest. If the seventh day can be long, then the others could too. Scientifically, this view does not require any novel theories to explain the evidence. One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.

Where is the scriptural evidence that physical death began at the Fall. It seems this important event would have been mentioned in Genesis.

Actually we disagree on this as well.

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.


Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

How can we enter in God’s rest which is found in the 7th day, if that 7th day was 24 hours in length and ended long, long ago?

 

Grasshopper,

1. The length of the day is affected ONLY by the rate of the earth's rotation, not by the distance of the light source hitting it.

2. Regarding the length of the Sabbath -- if you choose to work six days and then rest seven years, your house and home and finances might suffer....
I think you will find that all three of the accounts of creation in six days (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17) the Lord rested -- in the past, completed tense. As Jesus said, and as I quoted before, both the Father and He are working today. The clear meaning, without trying to twist it around, is that we are to work six days and rest the seventh, and then resume working for six more days, resting the seventh, etc.

3. Hugh Ross is not someone I would trust. He has done everything he can to get around the clear meaning of Genesis by playing with various scientific ideas. Data does not back him up, neither does Genesis.

4. Where does it say animals did not eat flesh? In Genesis 1:30: '"And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life [nephesh] in it -- I give every green plant for food." And it was so.'

5. About the Tree of Life -- to live forever means nothing will kill you. It was a tree for healing. Only God GIVES life.

6. Yes, the Fall resulted in death -- both spiritually and physically for man and certainly physically for the animals. We read in Romans 8:20+: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

7. Geisler is wrong about several things. God is not still at rest! Jesus said He is still working. In addition, 'entering God's rest' is a rest for us. Do you or anyone think God was resting during His incarnation or the Crucifixion? Finally, about the speed of light. It was much faster in the past. This has been my husband's field of research for almost thirty years now: www.setterfield.org

The 'old earth view' of Geisler and others is specifically denied by the Bible, actually.

8. The Scriptural evidence that physical death began at the fall is promised in Genesis and confirmed by Paul in Romans: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into acount when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." Romans 6:12-14

9. Returning, as you did in your last point, to God's rest. The physical rest of the Sabbath is a picture of a spiritual truth. Most, if not all, of the physical world, is a picture of spiritual truths. The Ark was a 'type' of Christ, Egype a 'type' of sin, Moses a 'type' of Christ, etc. The physical day of rest is a picture of the spiritual rest we get in God. Again, "Come to me, all you who are weary and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

 

I respect those who claim to believe in a literal Genesis on faith. I respect those who realize that God has revealed truths to us through legitimate science. But I have absolutely zero for those pseudo "scientists" who feel they have to cloak their faith into the trappings and language of science to legitimize it. Observable evidence doesn't support a literal Genesis, or a young earth. Therefore believe literally on faith alone and quit trying to apply science to the supernatural, which it doesn't support; or take the evidence at face value. Science is the study of the natural cosmos, and supernatural events are outside the realm of its study.

 

How do you know the rate of the earth’s rotation at that time? If you can go and change physics on the speed of light, why not on the rotation of the earth? Does the Sun’s gravity play any part on the rotation of the earth?

Not sure what you’re getting at, I never said work 6 days and rest 1 year.

Not sure why I should trust you or your husband? It seems you do just what you accuse Ross of, trying to force science into your view of Genesis.

Where is the curse on the animals found in Genesis? Obviously if carnivorous activity is a curse then it must be found with the other curses in Genesis shouldn’t it? Why the secret?

What kind of healing? It says they would live forever if they ate of it. Likewise it would seem if they didn’t eat of it they wouldn’t live forever.
Why is there a need for healing in the New Heavens and New Earth in a dispensational view?

But you said earlier animals were not designed to live forever:

“And no, animals were not designed to live on earth forever. Neither was man”.

The obvious implication is they would die with or without the fall of Adam.

Secondly I’ve never seen a tree groan.

Albert Barnes:

Of the creature - τῆς κτίσεως tēs ktiseōs.” Perhaps there is not a passage in the New Testament that has been deemed more difficult of interpretation than this Rom_8:19-23; and after all the labors bestowed on it by critics, still there is no explanation proposed which is perfectly satisfactory, or in which commentators concur.

Then how do we enter His rest if He is not resting? I notice you must change the law of physics several times in order for your young earth view to remain valid.

What does “all” mean? Remember you’re not a Calvinist:

Heb 4:4 For He spoke in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested the seventh day from all His works."

Enter into what rest:

Heb 4:11 Therefore let us labor to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of unbelief.

God’s rest.

I guess this is where you say Hugh Ross just needs to study more science.

You assume physical death in this passage because you assume physical death in Genesis.

 

MP, you are hiding behind a lack of knowledge about some areas of science. Not good....

Grasshopper, a response:

1. We don't 'know' the rate of the earth's rotation at the time of creation, but by day three plants were alive. If the rotation rate of the earth were significantly faster or slower than now they would not have been able to flourish. And no, the sun's gravity plays no part on the earth's rotation on its axis, but only on the revolution of the earth around the sun.

2. It is clear that God rested on the seventh day. Since, however, Jesus has stated clearly that the Father and He are both working today, it is also clear that they are not at rest today! Therefore, to enter His rest is to enter the rest He has provided for us. You can enter someone's house, for instance, without that person even being in the house. I think you are getting trapped a bit by the language here.

3. You don't need to trust me or my husband. Look at the data. That is what transformed my husband from a long-age evolutionist to a YEC. The data changed him, in part because he knew, and knows, God did not lie in His creation. The difference, however, between Hugh Ross and my husband is that Hugh Ross ignores data that does not agree with him and mocks those who believe differently. My husband considers himself an 'anomalist' -- someone who is primarily interested in where the actual data does not agree with theory, whether it is his own theory or another. He is very open to correction when presented with data anomalous to his model.

4. There is no secret about the need for other protein sources after the Flood. Some plants important for protein sources did not make it. That's not a curse, that is a result of the change in the earth -- which was caused by man's violence and rebellion against God.

5. Why is there need for healing in the new heavens and new earth? I guess we will find out when we get there, won't we? Revelation 22:2 is quite clear about that, though.

6. Revelation 13:8 tells us Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In other words, God knew what would happen and had planned for it from the beginning. So the fact that animals were not designed to live forever, at least on earth, is only part of that, not a contradiction to the fact that Adam initiated death on earth, as Paul plainly states.

7. I respect Barnes, but the fact is that all creation is running down, subject to decay. Maybe the folks in their university chairs simply don't spend enough time in the real world to realize that....until their chairs fall apart, that is....

8. No laws of physics need to be changed in order for a young earth to be valid.