951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

This week I’m beginning another series from my website.  The foundation for our understanding of the Kingdom of God is found in the Old Testament.  Throughout its pages we see the purpose of God unfolded from creation, through Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets.  In part 1 we will see that from the beginning God has always wanted man to dwell on the earth that He created.

In The Beginning

Man was designed to live on this planet. The earth was designed to be the home for man. This was the plan God had from the very beginning. He began by creating the heavens and the earth, and He spent six days preparing it for His man. When it was finished, he put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them dominion over the earth.

Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Psalm 8 also says that man was made to have dominion:

Psalm 8:
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

Man sinned and lost the rulership he was meant to have. But God had a purpose for man, and still has a plan to return man to his original state. And that original state included rulership of the earth. That plan is the overall subject of the entire Bible, which ends with man (specifically the man, Jesus Christ, along with his church) ruling on earth.

There are many who have proposed that man, rather than having a purpose, evolved by random mutation and natural selection. There are a number of problems with this theory, not only because it contradicts the Bible, but because even scientifically there are flaws in it. Many scientists will not even consider creationism because they say it is not science, because the belief in a supernatural creator is outside the domain of that which can be tested. However, there is nothing about the theory of evolution that can be scientifically tested either. The truth is neither side can “prove” or demonstrate, by scientific testing, how life and specifically man originated. I will not go into the details of this vast and fascinating subject here, as there are a number of websites that do that far more competently than I ever could (see the Links page). What I would like to discuss here, though, is a Biblical theory that I believed in for many years. It is commonly known as the Gap Theory, although we didn’t call it that at the time. It is also sometimes called the Ruin/Restoration theory.

I have a Closer Look article about it that goes into more detail, but briefly, the theory states that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Then in Genesis 1:2, the earth “became” without form and void. The remainder of chapter one, according to this theory, describes not the creation but God’s rebuilding of His creation that was destroyed. The theory actually brings up more questions than it answers, though. Among them is, why would God make a heaven and earth with some form of people in it (or at least hominids, human-like creatures) only to have it be destroyed when the devil rebelled? And why, if God did make an earlier heaven and earth, does He tell us nothing about it in His Word? Also, is the devil so powerful that he can destroy all of God’s creation the way I was taught that he did? Also, Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin…” so there could have been no death before Adam’s sin. Therefore, how could the creatures in the first heaven and earth have been destroyed?

It must be remembered that the Gap Theory was largely popularized by a 19th century minister, in an attempt to reconcile evolution and the Bible. The theory was adopted by many theologians, including E. W. Bullinger who influenced much of what V. P. Wierwille taught. (Before the 19th century, most Christians believed that fossils were the result of Noah’s flood.) I had to ask myself, even though I believed in the Gap Theory for many years, is it in the Scripture?

Those who attempt to reconcile Genesis chapter one with long periods of time do so with either the gap theory or by interpreting the “days” of Genesis 1 as “ages.” There is much disagreement over whether the “days” in Genesis 1 are literal or figurative. But Exodus 20:8-11 tells us that the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week is to be holy, because “…In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” If the six days were actually six “ages,” did God rest during the seventh “age?” This also does not fit with the Gap Theory, which says that God made heaven and earth all at once, and the six days were merely “rebuilding.”

Furthermore, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that “…from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” God’s creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day could not therefore be after a long gap of billions of years, nor could it be after a series of five earlier “ages.” He made them male and female “from the beginning” and it was part of His original plan.

The implication of the Gap Theory is that what God started out to do in His creation, the devil made ruin of and God had to start over. Did God know what was going to happen when he created the heavens and the earth? For that matter, when he finished what He did in Genesis chapter one, He said it was “very good.” If Satan had fallen before that time and become the Evil One, how could all creation be described as “very good?” And if Satan had fallen before man was put in the garden, why did God give Adam no warning of the Evil One, as He did in so many other places in the Bible?

Perhaps the most important point to consider is this. Any theory that allows for death and decay before the fall of Adam misses the whole point of God’s redemption plan. The theory of evolution, as well as various old earth theories, including the Gap Theory and theories that interpret the six days of creation as six long ages, all have one thing in common. They all have death and corruption before the fall of Adam, whereas Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21-22 tell us that death was the result of man’s sin. If death existed before man sinned, then it is a normal, natural part of the cycle of life. But the Bible teaches us that God designed man with a purpose, and that purpose included everlasting life. Death was not part of that plan, but rather something that was introduced which marred it and hindered it, and had to be overcome. It was first introduced as the penalty for man’s sin. God told man that if he sinned he would die. Satan said man would not die. (The same lie is propounded everywhere to this day. See the Closer Look article on The State Of The Dead.) While the penalty for sin is death, God also provided the payment when he sent His Son to die in our place, and overcame death when He raised Christ from the dead. None of this has any meaning if death is just a natural part of life that has always existed.

God’s plan from the beginning was for man to inhabit this planet, and to rule over it. Since man fell, God has been unfolding a plan to restore man to his original condition. His first promise was the eventual defeat of the devil by someone who would be of the woman’s seed, in Genesis 3:15. He also planned to restore the earth to the way it was, referred to in Acts 3:21 as “the times of restitution of all things.” Romans also speaks of this.

Romans 8:
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The word “vanity” in verse 20 means “futility.” The world is subject to futility because it is not currently able to measure up to its intended purpose. God subjected it to that futility “in hope,” because His plan involves one day delivering it from the bondage of corruption and returning it to its former glory. This is the foundation of the good news about the Kingdom of God.

212 Responses to “Old Testament Foundation (Part 1)”

  1. on 03 May 2010 at 6:20 pmRon S.

    Good stuff Mark! I couldn’t agree more. And I look forward to reading the rest of this series.

  2. on 04 May 2010 at 6:07 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    I agree with almost everything in your article but the bible says a thousand years is like a day to God so I’m not so sure he is talking about human days but just explaining creation in a way so that the people could understand this very complicated process God used to create the heavens and the earth.

    I’m one of those Christians that believes evolution does not contradict the story of creation. I believe God can use evolution like a paint brush to create anything that he wants to create. I believe God created science therefore science cannot contradict anything that God has said. For thousands of years science and religion went hand in hand together with each other.

    All the greatest ancient scientists were Christians. Isaac Newton was not only a Christian he was also a Unitarian. He could not however tell anyone because in the 1600’s England was putting anyone to death that dared to speak against the Trinity. From what I understand he wrote just as much about religion as he did about science. These writings have just become public recently.

    I don’t see any contradiction between evolution and creationism…

  3. on 11 May 2010 at 11:38 amFrank D

    Romans 5:17:
    For if, by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.)

    I Corinthians 15:21:
    For since by a man came death, by a man came also the resurrection of the dead.

    If there was no death until Adam’s sin, how could evolution or gap theory be true? Without sin in the world, where did death come from? Please provide scripture if available.

    Micro-evolution is testable by science: Finch beaks, sugar flies wings, flower colors, etc.

    Macro-evolution (new species from existing) has never been tested, proven, or observed. It is a theory that is believed without evidence. It is a theory that must be accepted by faith. It is a religion.

  4. on 11 May 2010 at 5:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    You might be right about the Macro-evolution thing. For more that one hundred years they have been searching for the missing link and have never found it. I was just saying that since God created science that science can’t contradict God. There are many people that say that science and religion are incompatible. I am not one of them.

    I don’t know that much about the gap theory except what I have read in Mark’s article above but I think it is a bit presumptuous of us to assume that our 24 hour day which is based on the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun is the same as a day is to God. I mean God was measuring days by some means long before the earth and sun were even created.

    I think it is ridiculous that they have a Christian science museum in the states that teaches children that Noah had dinosaur eggs on his ark but for some reason they didn’t hatch. I try to keep an open mind on these things and don’t feel threatened by science in the least.

    I remember my great Uncle who was a strong Christian but couldn’t read or write. He believed that men had one less rib than women because of the story of creation (which was not an uncommon belief 100 years ago). When I was a young atheist we would argue about it for hours. It is these crazy beliefs like I’ve mentioned above that drives some young people away from the truth and away from God.

    I don’t need to know all the specific details of creation. I believe God told us what it was he wanted us to know. There is no reason to get all emotional and fear science. God said his creation was good therefore science must also be good.

    That’s the way I see it anywaze…

  5. on 11 May 2010 at 7:41 pmFrank D

    Understood, DT.

    I am not a scientist but the debate interests me. I don’t subscribe to their orthodox view on who created, but http://www.icr.org/ has some interesting scientific theories that align with scripture.

    I believe a study in appologetics, like creationism or inteligent design, would arm many a young high school Christian to better defend their faith. JMHO.

  6. on 11 May 2010 at 8:38 pmrobert

    As we can see from these 2 passages the command is different.one says every tree is to eat of and other there is a forbiden tree.
    For some reason the first man and women created didnt make it through Gods rest. From the physical signs on the earth we know there was man before the time of Adam which is of no importance evidentily to the message of genesis. The bible only pertains to Adam a special creation of a man to serve God in his Garden or as we know it the First earthly heaven. And the redemption of this special creation after their fall to sin.
    Who knows how long an age was during creation but we do know an age is 1000 years after the sabbath rest day of God and how long a day is to man is 24 hours

    Genesis 1
    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing [7] seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [8] I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so

    Genesis 2
    16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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 [5] die.

  7. on 11 May 2010 at 8:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    I went to the link and read a few articles there. They were quite interesting. I am fairly new to computers and am still amazed by how much stuff is available on the internet. Thanks for the link…:)

  8. on 11 May 2010 at 9:31 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “From the physical signs on the earth we know there was a man before the time of Adam which is of no importance evidently to the message of Genesis.”

    It would appear that God was busy creating various types of humanoids prior to Adam. They have found humanoid remains that were of very small stature as well as other species that were rather similar but from what I understand none of them fit the theoretical missing link that they are looking for.

    I don’t really know that much about it but I enjoy watching science shows and such…

  9. on 12 May 2010 at 6:35 amDoubting Thomas

    Does anybody know if there was a discovery of human remains (exactly the same as us) prior to the Iceman discovered in 1991 which is estimated to be about 5,300 years old. Like I said in my above message, I don’t know a lot about it but I find science interesting…

  10. on 12 May 2010 at 9:17 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ignore my message above. I found an article that answered all my questions…

  11. on 12 May 2010 at 10:28 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    Could you post a link to it? I was curious about that myself.

  12. on 12 May 2010 at 10:52 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C
    I don’t know how to post a link but I googled first human remains and one of the things below said first human fossils and then I clicked on it. I had seen a show many years ago about how they theorized that the first humans came from Africa up the coastline all the way over to Asia but I could not remember the time frame that they said that this was suppose to have happened.

    It turns out the earliest human fossils (that were exactly the same as us) were found in Africa and date between 165,000 and 195,000 years ago. There are fossils of earlier humanoids but like I said none of them seem to fit the theoretical missing link that they have been looking for (not our direct ancestors)…

  13. on 12 May 2010 at 11:23 pmrobert

    I believe in the physical evidence of this but am not sure there dating can be confirmed because the base their dating on our current atmosphere not what is was during creation. there are compounds that effect decay that could of been a part of the creation atmosphere.
    Thomas here is the link.
    in future just drag your mouse across adress to highlight then right click to copy.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html

  14. on 13 May 2010 at 6:46 amDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You could be right. Like I said I try to keep an open mind on these things after all it wouldn’t be the first time that scientists discovered that they were wrong about something…

  15. on 15 May 2010 at 11:14 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    One of the reasons my son doesn’t believe in the Old Testament is that he says that the Sun and the stars existed before the earth which contradicts the creation story of Genesis. But from my reading of it, I think it describes creation from the point of view of someone on the earth.

    At first the atmosphere would be such that there would be no day or night. Then as the particles settled and the atmosphere cleared you began to have day and night and the first trees and such. Then as the atmosphere cleared even more you had the moon and the stars appearing in the sky. This is just my own personal theory.

    Robert sent me a good link with an interesting interpretation of Genesis that seemed to make a lot of sense of me.

    The link is http://americanwisdomseries.com/1069.html

  16. on 15 May 2010 at 9:09 pmMargaret Collier

    Thomas – Thank you for the help.

    I think you are absolutely right about the point of view (or “frame of reference”) in Genesis 1. Everything is described as it would appear to someone standing on the surface of the earth. And the man-made problems disappear.

    I am convinced that the story of Genesis 1, if it is read the way it is written, is perfectly compatible with modern scientific observations.

    Note: I said scientific observations – not theories. Science itself convinces me that Darwinian evolution does not and cannot explain all the diversity of life that is found on this planet. Scientific observations, though, have led scientists to admit – finally – what Genesis 1:1 said all along: the universe had a beginning. Good start.

    After that, during six days of “light,” God made the heaven/sky (where birds fly), the earth/land (where land animals and men live), and the seas (where fish and other marine animals live – see v. 26b).

    I don’t believe in the “gap” theory; but I DO believe that the making of these three habitats, and filling them with life, was gradual.

    If we read verses 4 and 5 carefully, we will see that a 24-hour day cannot possibly fit God’s own definition of “day”.

    That is also true of the “six days” that men are to work, by the way. Men didn’t work 24-hour days in Moses’ day any more than they do in ours. They worked 12-hour days of “light”. (See John 11:9; Psalm 104:22-23).

    Briefly: The heaven and the earth (the universe) was created in the beginning.

    The heaven and the earth AND THE SEA and everything in them, were made during the six days of “light”.

    More later.

  17. on 16 May 2010 at 12:29 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I agree with everything you said. Something I never noticed until my friend Tim pointed it out was that God created everything in the first 3 days and then spent the next 3 days filling what he created with all kinds of diverse life…

  18. on 16 May 2010 at 2:14 amMark C.

    Margaret,

    What is it about verses 4 and 5 that “cannot possibly fit” with a 24 hour day?

    Both Ex. 20:11 and Ex. 31:17 state that God made heaven and earth “in six days, and rested on the seventh day.” If “day” refers to long ages, then God didn’t rest on the seventh day. Many have theorized that all of history will be seven periods of 1000 years with the Millennial Kingdom being the seventh, corresponding to the Sabbath. But the seven literal days in a week, with God resting the seventh, is still the foundation of that pattern.

  19. on 16 May 2010 at 8:12 amDoubting Thomas

    Mark C
    I’m not an expert or a scholar but I believe God was saying the ratio of 1 out of 7 was what is important. For example he commanded the Israelites to rest the land every 7 years and not grow any crops etc…

  20. on 16 May 2010 at 10:12 amrobert

    Thomas
    very good point, plus we do know one day is thousand years in this series of creation. no one knows how long a day was in the first creation series.

    “Note: I said scientific observations – not theories. Science itself convinces me that Darwinian evolution does not and cannot explain all the diversity of life that is found on this planet. ”

    Margaret
    I agree
    A theory should not ever be considered a scientific fact because a majority says so which is what science has became instead of being purely base on physical facts. From the truth of Genesis(not tradition) i dont see one thing contradicting Physical science(true science)

  21. on 16 May 2010 at 11:06 amFrank D

    5And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    8 And the evening and the morning were the second day
    13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Do you all believe God defined the period of one day as quoted above? If not, then did Jesus spend 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb or 3 thousand years? Where do you change your definition of a day?

    Also, thousands of years still does not address death. Did the fossils that are found die before Adam?

    Romans 5:14:
    Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

  22. on 16 May 2010 at 11:26 amrobert

    Frank D
    Considering the an earth day didnt exist till the fourth day of creation how do you hold the 3 days prior to it. God is not earthly and not held by human standards which HE created for mankind

  23. on 16 May 2010 at 12:52 pmFrank D

    5And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    8 And the evening and the morning were the second day
    13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    This is what God wrote. It is the same as:

    19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Therefore, God’s definition didn’t change. He gave the reference period for a day.

    Robert, are the first three ‘days’ in your understanding undefined in length and the next three a 24 hr period?

  24. on 16 May 2010 at 1:06 pmrobert

    “Robert, are the first three ‘days’ in your understanding undefined in length and the next three a 24 hr period? ”

    Frank
    absolutely not.
    what you fail to see is God was working on a different measure of time before the 4th day which defined an earth day. An earth day is a measure of time for humans Not GOD. As i said No one knows how long a day was to God during first week of creation but we do know now that a day to God is 1000years of earth measurement during this second week of creation.
    You dont have to be a scientist to understand the physical science which the earth bears witness tooo.
    If we ignore physical evidence then we make both Gods word and science a myth

  25. on 16 May 2010 at 4:34 pmDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    It is not impossible that God to have created the earth in 7 human days. Mark 10:27 “…..For all things are possible with God.” I just think it is presumptuous of us to think that God was talking about human days and not very likely considering what we know now in the 21st. century.

    God does not think like man thinks. The bible says that God’s thoughts are superior (or above) man’s thoughts as heaven is above the earth (or words similar to that). Jesus also said man’s logic is like foolishness to God. (I tried using biblegateway.com but I couldn’t find the exact quotes. But I know I’ve read these things somewhere in the bible)…

  26. on 16 May 2010 at 8:49 pmMargaret Collier

    Hi, Mark.

    In Genesis 1:4-5 God defines day and night for us. He called the light “day,” and he called the darkness “night”.

    We are told that he separated the light from the darkness before naming them.

    A 24-hour day (which is a fairly modern invention, by the way) puts together the very things that God specifically SEPARATED.

    “And there was evening and there was morning – day one” (literal translation).

    This is not a definition, Mark. It is a statement based on the definition already given.

    God doesn’t give us a very specific definition and then promptly change it. “Day” means LIGHT. It does not mean light AND darkness.

    Question: Is there any passage of the Bible where “evening and morning” refers to a 24-hour period? I can’t find one.

    The fact is, men worked six periods of daylight (not 24-hour days). Then they rested on the seventh day, which meant that they had a day (plus two nights) of rest before beginning the next day’s work.

    God similarly worked for six “days” – periods of light – and then he rested from the work of creating. The analogy holds good, no matter how long the days were.

  27. on 16 May 2010 at 9:10 pmMargaret Collier

    Thanks, Thomas. I agree with you that dust probably played a part in making the surface of the earth dark. However, the scriptural reason is given in Proverbs 38:9.

    After telling Job about laying the foundation of the earth, God says that he made the clouds its robe and thick darkness its swaddling band.

    I find that wonderful. Science tells us that the ultraviolet rays from the sun would have been lethal to any form of life before the formation of an ozone layer. So God protected the infant earth with a “swathing band” of darkness, produced by clouds (the “waters above”).

    The Hebrews would understand that. They knew the effect of heavy clouds. (See 1 Kings 18:45 – “The heaven was black with clouds … and the rain was great.”)

    It all makes perfect sense.

  28. on 16 May 2010 at 9:28 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I agree with everything you said. God’s word and his creation is wonderful. I couldn’t find Proverbs 38:9 according to my ESV Proverbs only goes up to chapter 31???

  29. on 16 May 2010 at 10:19 pmXavier

    Just a question regarding pastors [elders]. I was reading one of the commentaries where they claim that the Jewish eldership was transferred from the old dispensation to the new.

    The creation of the office of elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testament, as in the case of deacons and apostles, because the latter offices were created to meet new and special emergencies, while the former was transmitted from the earliest times. In other words, the office of elder was the only permanent essential office of the church under either dispensation. ESV Study Bible

    Are churches supposed to be governed by the traditional one pastor system or a sort of council [group] of pastors?

  30. on 17 May 2010 at 12:44 amMark C.

    Margaret,

    There is more than one meaning for the word “day” even in verse 5 itself.

    “And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” [JPS translation]

    The first word ‘day’ refers to the light, while the second word ‘day’ refers to the whole unit of time (however long it is) that consisted of day and night, light and darkness. This is consistent with most languages’ use of the word day, including modern English. A day can mean the unit of time or the period of light.

    In addition to the other points made (especially those in Frank’s posts) there is also the point that Jesus said in Mark 10:6, that “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” If there were thousands of years between the first and sixth day, could it be said that man was made male and female “from the beginning of the creation”?

  31. on 17 May 2010 at 7:50 amrobert

    “could it be said that man was made male and female “from the beginning of the creation”?

    Mark
    that depends whether you can see we are in the sixth day of God creating Eden over again. The first creation was carnal, second(last 6000years) spiritual.
    The first adam created on the 6th day was earthly, the last Adam formed on the 8th day(first day of new creation) was spiritual but fell to sin making since then the 2nd set of creation to have spiritual Adams in Eden on Earth on the new 8th day

  32. on 17 May 2010 at 5:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier
    In my opinion a church should be governed by a council for two main reasons. First Jesus said, “When 2 or more of you are gathered in my name I will be there among you.” So when you are looking for guidance it would seem to be wise to get together with 2 or 3 other Christians.

    The second reason is that in Acts 21:18 it talks about James and the elders of the church meeting with Paul. This would seem to indicate an early tradition of church elders and leaders meeting together to make decisions. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  33. on 17 May 2010 at 6:41 pmrobert

    There is a few problems with Genesis 1 and 2

    Man Before Plants?

    Plants are created on the third day, which is certainly before the creation of people on the sixth day.

    However, Genesis 2:5 lets us know that plants are not created yet. “Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.” Before plants are created in 2:8-9, Adam is created in 2:7. Adam is created before plants in the second creation account.

    Looking closer at the logic of the story makes the point even more clear. In 2:5, we are given two reasons for a lack of plants: no water, and no man. 2:6 solves the first problem as a mist comes. 2:7 solves the second problem as man is created. Both problem are now solved. So God is now ready to plant a garden and make plants grow, which he does in 2:8-9. It’s not just the order in which event are recorded that suggest Adam was created before plants, but the logical flow of the account as well.

    Creationists’ rebuttal is that Genesis 2:5 refers only to specific kinds of plants, namely cultivated plants. Thus, most of the plants were created on the third day, while the cultivated plants of Eden were created after Adam on the sixth day. I’m no Hebrew scholar, but just looking up all the different words used for shrub and plant in Strong’s Concordance offers absolutely no support for this position. I see no reason to think Genesis 1:11-12 excludes some kinds of plants and I see no reason to think Genesis 2:5 includes only the kinds of plants not created on the third day.

    The only reason I see for even speculating about either is simply that it is needed to make Genesis 1-2 flow as a single story. Another way of saying this is that the creationist position is to begin with a certain conclusion and then look for an interpretation of the words to make it work. But that’s not how you’re supposed to read things when the goal is a truth search and not merely the affirmation of preconceived ideas. The intellectually honest approach is to let Genesis tell you what Genesis is saying. The way young-earth creationists cannot do this is precisely the kind of bending over backward that should be expected if there really are two creation stories.

    Also, this doesn’t make sense of the logic of 2:5-9. The reason for no plants of some kind is a lack of rain and a lack of man. Now, what kind of plants either need rain or need man? Pretty much all of them, at least according to non-technical ideas of what a plant is. If there’s a distinction between wild and cultivated plants, then I would guess that no rain is why there are no wild plants and no man is why there are no cultivated plants in 2:5.

    Animals Before Eve?

    On the sixth day, God first creates the animals, and then he creates people. However, in the second creation account, the order is Adam, animals, Eve. Creationists generally agree with the first part, so I won’t belabor that point.

    The order in which the events are recorded is the creation of Adam (2:7), animals (2:19), and finally Eve (2:22), But the case is much stronger than the mere order in which the facts are recorded – this is the order that is implied by the logic of 2:18-2:22. In 2:18a, God observes a problem: man is alone. In 2:18b, God suggests a solution: Adam needs a helper. The next thing that happens is God creates the animals in 2:19 as an attempt to find Adam a helper. My claim that the creation of the animals was an attempt to find a helper for Adam is all but explicitly stated in 2:20: “but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” In verse 2:21, God tries a more successful solution: taking one of Adam’s ribs and making a woman.

    To argue that Genesis 1-2 is a single literal account means that three things that must be explained away. First, the order in which the events are recorded must be overlooked. Second, the awkward insertion of the story of the creation of the animals (2:19-20) into the story of the creation of Adam’s helper (2:18 & 2:21-22) must be ignored. And finally, Genesis’ own explanation for why the creation of animals fits into the creation of Adam’s helper must be ignored. Plus this shows that Adam’s purpose was not to be fruitful and multiply unless you believe God wanted him to mate animals.

    I think you will find that chapter one is about the earth and the universe and chapter two is about Eden (heaven) being created on earth after God’s sabbath. there are so many words mistranslated throughout these two chapters like mankind,adam,earth, ground and few others that without research it is almost impossible to get the true context.

    But once you understand you will see the need for the flood, Abram’s separating from his people ,Isaacs wife being from Abraham’s family, Jacob receiving birthright , Judah and Tamar(Shems daughter), God wanting Israel to stay separate from other nations, Lukes geneology going through Nathan and Just how pure Jesus’ blood was all the way back to Adam

  34. on 17 May 2010 at 7:37 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “I think you will find chapter one is about the earth and the universe and chapter two is about Eden (heaven) being created on earth after God’s sabbath.”

    That does seem to make sense…

  35. on 18 May 2010 at 9:47 amMark C.

    The understanding comes, not from the words for the plants, but from the use of the word ‘create.’ Gen. 2:8-9 doesn’t say God ‘created’ plants at that point. It just says he planted them in the garden.

    As for plants needing man, many plants grow wild with no help from man. It is only cultivated plants that need man.

    And as for creationists needing to make Genesis 1-2 flow as a single story, most of them don’t, if you read creationist web sites. Viewing it as a single story creates many contradictions that are eliminated by simply understanding that chapter 2 is a re-telling of creation from a different point of view. It also says nothing about the chronological order of events, as chapter 1 does.

    And BTW, Eden does not mean ‘heaven.’ It literally means ‘pleasure’ or ‘delight.’

  36. on 18 May 2010 at 10:16 amrobert

    “As for plants needing man, many plants grow wild with no help from man. It is only cultivated plants that need man.”

    Mark
    Wow you chose to address the weaker problem, Water to grow plants is the major problem.as we see in the first creation in Gen1 :”12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day” we have plants growing on the 3rd day 3 days before man was CREATED but in the 2nd creation we dont have plants growing till after ADAM was FORMED. then there is the major problem of Gen 1 saying animals came before man where Gen 2 states very clearly they came after Adam.
    You can not harmonize these 2 accounts without changing whats wrote
    The only defense you have is Gen2 is a correction of the creation.
    Face it Tradition is your context not truth of whats written.

  37. on 18 May 2010 at 3:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    I was just watching a TV program about Adam’s first wife Lilleth who apparently is from Genesis 1:26 whereas Eve is suppose to be his second wife from Genesis 2:22. I have never heard of this before. Is this a common belief???

  38. on 18 May 2010 at 4:54 pmrobert

    Thomas
    She is just an old jewish fable they borrowed from the babylonians during captivity.

  39. on 19 May 2010 at 9:28 amMargaret Collier

    I’m so sorry, Thomas. I haven’t looked at this site for a few days and I missed my error. It isn’t Proverbs 38:9. It’s Job 38:9.

    God is telling Job about the creation of the earth there. The reference to the garment of cloud and the “swaddling-band” of darkness perfectly fits the darkness described in Genesis 1:2.

  40. on 19 May 2010 at 9:47 amMargaret Collier

    Hi Mark. I’m sorry I have neglected this thread for a few days. But I’d like to catch up.

    I don’t think God gives two definitions for the word “day” in Genesis 1. The words “evening and morning” are not a definition. They need to be understood in HARMONY with God’s definition.

    Combining day AND night (and making the day begin at midnight) is a definition that came in later. It is great for making “time” standard all over the world. And yes, people all over the world will understand you if you define the word that way now.

    But in biblical times, the “day” was divided into 12 hours (measurable by a sun-dial). The night was divided into 4 “watches,” which could be determined (approximately) by the position of the stars.

    If you check the way the Lord Jesus used the word, you will see nothing of a 24-hour day, even in NT times. He used the word of a natural 12-hour day (a day of light, a day of work), or else of a period of time involving a particular work of God.

    That way of using the word fits Genesis 1 perfectly.

    One question has not yet been answered:
    Where in the Bible does the phrase “evening and morning” refer to a 24-hour period? I have not been able to find one.

  41. on 19 May 2010 at 9:58 amMargaret Collier

    Thank you for mentioning Mark 10:6 again. I’ve been wanting to discuss that.

    But first, please read the whole passage and see what the CONTEXT is about.

    Also, notice how Mark uses the word “creation” elsewhere (ch. 13:19; ch. 16:15).

  42. on 19 May 2010 at 1:58 pmMargaret Collier

    One more thing, Mark. The YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6 assumes that the Lord is talking about the Genesis creation.

    But that makes no sense. Adam and Eve came at the END of that creation. They were the LAST to be created.

    “Creation” in the NT usually refers to mankind, in one way or another. For example, “… preach the gospel to all creation” Mark 16:15) obviously refers only to people.

    And the OT gives evidence that every human being is a unique creation, in some sense that really isn’t that hard to understand.

    To sum up:
    1. The context is DIVORCE. That has to do with people. That’s all.
    2. The word “creation” is used by Mark to mean people.
    3. In every age, Christians are to preach the gospel to “all creation” – all the people who are currently living.

    Therefore, the Lord’s statement has nothing to do with stars. In fact, nothing in the Bible gives any hint as to the age of the universe.

    That is a wonderful comment on the wisdom of God. It means that anyone, in any age – however great his knowledge (or ignorance) may be – can understand and believe the first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

  43. on 19 May 2010 at 4:49 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I agree with your interpretation. Mark 13:19 says, “For in those days there will be such a tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.”

    From my understanding scientists believe that shortly after the creation of the earth, the moon collided with the earth at a relatively slow rate of speed (if it had have been at a high speed it would have obliterated the earth). This put the earth into it’s current 24 hour rotation period.

    Since that time there have been many objects that have collided with the earth. Each one of these collisions wiped out almost all of the life on the planet. The last big collision (65 million years ago) wiped out the dinosaurs. Since the creation of humankind (estimated at about 200,000 years ago) there has not been a major collision with the earth like there was in the past.

    Therefore when Jesus says, “There will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation.” He is talking about since humankind was created. He is not talking about the tribulations that the earth underwent prior to that (When several times almost all of the life on the planet was destroyed – at least according to what we understand from our modern scientific observations)…

  44. on 20 May 2010 at 8:30 amMargaret Collier

    Thank you for the details, Thomas. I love science, and I think most of what has been determined from actual observations is probably right, though subject to revision as more is learned. None of it contradicts the Genesis story.

    There is plenty of evidence that the “creation” Jesus was talking about was the creation of mankind. That is the usual meaning of “creation” in the NT. And right from the beginning of that creation, God intended a man and his wife to be “one”. Divorce was not in his plans.

    Here are three verses which indicate that every human being is looked on as a special creation (NOT the creation of a new species, but the creation of a unique individual):
    Is. 54:16
    Ps. 102:18
    Ec. 12:1

    It thrills me to see that the biblical record and the scientific record are perfectly compatible. It SHOULD be, after all.

  45. on 20 May 2010 at 9:29 amrobert

    Margaret
    till about a month ago this subject was a sacred cow because with the traditional interpretation of Gen 1,2 there was no way to harmonize with science. Now that i have researched and truly read whats written everything can be harmonized. there are 2 things that must be understood on this subject is the facts never lie but people do and that includes both science and tradition.
    This might be the last sacred cow i have to sacrafice. my freezer is full from the past 16 months

  46. on 20 May 2010 at 10:14 amFrank D

    Doubting, Can you please provide a source that says the moon collided with the Earth?

    I also find it curious that there is so much trust in ‘science’. The vast majority of evolutionary and big band science is focused on proving there is no God. Why would you place your faith in it to tell you how the universe began.

    I Corinthians 3:19:
    For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

  47. on 20 May 2010 at 2:43 pmrobert

    Frank
    Who said they trusted science , there is a difference between scientific observation and scientology. Scientific observation deals with physical facts and uses physics to understand them. Scientology on the other hand has brought us the speculation which is what Darwinism is based on. Scientology to science is what theology is to the bible. They work on the basis that their education is the only way to understand and they exalt themselves over the average layman when in fact they are just educated Idiots who ban together to back each others so called intelligence.
    Common sense is what intelligence should be backed by, Not a piece of paper.
    Their is enough resources today for the average layman to make a commons sense call

  48. on 20 May 2010 at 3:09 pmMargaret Collier

    till about a month ago this subject was a sacred cow because with the traditional interpretation of Gen 1,2 there was no way to harmonize with science.

    I have to disagree with you on this one, Robert – UNLESS you are referring to this website ONLY. The harmony between the text of Genesis and modern scientific observations has been discussed for many years elsewhere.

    Would you like some links?

  49. on 20 May 2010 at 3:51 pmrobert

    Margaret
    These was my own personal beliefs i couldnt harmonize, I dont have much in common with most here at this website,but the ones i do we share many beliefs.
    This was a sacred cow because i was refusing to see the truth, as i said there has been many sacred cows sacraficed this last 16 months after researching to find that tradition is based on lies. 16 months ago i believed almost all tradition.
    I do realize there has been groups with the some of creation truths for a while, I just now have searched a few out.

  50. on 20 May 2010 at 4:43 pmDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    I am not a scientist but I like watching the Discovery Channel and other science related shows. I saw a show on how they believe the moon was formed from a collision with the earth. I found a recent article on the subject published in 2007 at –

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071219-moon-collision.html

    Basically meteorites, although quite different from one another, have one thing in common. Their composition is very different to rocks found here on earth. Moon rocks, though slightly different, are almost identical in composition to rocks found here on earth.

    Since the 1970’s they have had reputable theories about a collision of a Mars sized object with the earth in which most of the matter between the earth and this object were exchanged with one another during the collision. (This is only a theory and there are skeptical organizations that post articles contradicting this theory. But to me this theory seems to best explain why moon rocks are so similar in their composition to earth rocks.)

    You can dismiss theories like the one above but I don’t think it is wise to dismiss scientific observations (facts). The fossil records clearly show that at least 2 or 3 times in the past all animal and plant life ceased to exist and were replaced with new animal and plant life. The last time this happened was approx. 65 million years ago.

    At each of these points in the fossil record, where they have found the sudden extinction of almost all life on the planet, they have also found thin layers of irradium. Although very rare on earth irradium is a very common element found in asteroids. I believe it is impossible to explain this fossil record in any other way then to believe that large objects from space must have collided with the earth to cause these extinctions.

    I believe there are 3 ways to learn about God. One is through the scriptures. The second is through our hearts, listening to the Holy Spirit. And the third is through studying God’s creation (including the fossil records). God created these fossil records for us to discover and study.

    You quoted 1 Cor. 3:19 “For the wisdom of this world is folly to God.”

    For thousands of years many if not most people believed that men had one less rib than women because of their interpretation of the creation story. They ignored the scientific and medical evidence to the contrary and clung on to their interpretations of scripture in spite of the facts.

    We should not make the same mistakes as our ancestors. The way I see it if scientific observations (facts) contradict our interpretation of scripture then we should rethink our interpretation of scripture. If God created science than science cannot contradict God. Maybe from time to time God wants us to reexamine our interpretations of scripture…

  51. on 20 May 2010 at 5:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “The harmony between the text of Genesis and modern scientific observations have been discussed for many years elsewhere.”

    I would love some links. I find the topic fascinating. I believe there is a limit of 3 links per post due to software or something…

  52. on 20 May 2010 at 10:06 pmMargaret Collier

    Thomas – thank you for the very clear explanation of the present theory of how we got our very unusual moon. It’s great.

    On a website called Theology-web, I got involved in a thread called “Why I hate dogmatic young-earthism.” The person who started the thread explained that he had no quarrel with people who believed the earth is young. His quarrel was with those who demand that everybody else believe the same thing, or be accused of rejecting the Bible.

    I sympathize.

    At one point I said that the story of Genesis 1 is absolutely compatible with the observations of modern science, and was promptly challenged by two groups: the YEC’s and an atheist.

    That thread has 31 pages in it. The subject begins on page 17.

    But there is another thread called
    Creation from Nothing, and then …. That one has only 5 pages, and gives much the same material, but without as much discussion. If you can tackle this one first, the other one (in which atheists are allowed to join) is worth the effort of plowing through it. I learned a lot from it.

    I hope the link is formatted correctly. Here goes.

  53. on 20 May 2010 at 10:39 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    Your link worked perfectly. It looks like you’ve already discussed this subject with other Christians. This is my first time sharing my beliefs on this subject with other Christians. Some people can get very angry when you challenge their core beliefs. I am actually amazed that (so far anywaze) nobody seems to be outraged and everyone here is apparently open minded and willing to listen.

    At least no one has accused me of not being a Christian or of rejecting the bible…

  54. on 21 May 2010 at 5:02 amXavier

    Doubting Thomas

    At least no one has accused me of not being a Christian or of rejecting the bible…

    As per your namesake and come to be known simply as “Thomas” or “Believing Thomas” maybe bro. 🙂

  55. on 21 May 2010 at 7:37 amrobert

    Margaret
    Thank you for link
    That was a very good and interesting discussion

  56. on 21 May 2010 at 11:13 amFrank D

    DT,
    You would rather change your understanding of God’s word based on the world’s science?

    Please remember how important God’s scriptures are to him:

    Psalm 138:

    2I will worship toward Your holy temple, and give thanks to Your name for Your mercy, and for Your truth; for You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

    If you choose to “reinterperate scripture” based on scientific evidence, then what interpretation are you left with? What trust do you have in the scripture if you need to keep changing it? What trust, then, do you have in the God who inspired that scripture?

  57. on 21 May 2010 at 12:08 pmrobert

    “You would rather change your understanding of God’s word based on the world’s science?”

    Frank
    I dont think its changing , but coming to a better understanding using the truth of Gods word, not a traditionist interpretation. It is this that allows harmony between physical science and the Word of God.

    “What trust, then, do you have in the God who inspired that scripture?”

    Frank
    actually it brings forth a greater trust and a greater faith to see the real truth of Gods Word.

  58. on 21 May 2010 at 1:43 pmFrank D

    robert, Please provide examples of scientific discoveries that support God’s creation of the universe and are substantiate in the scripture.

  59. on 21 May 2010 at 3:50 pmMargaret Collier

    robert, Please provide examples of scientific discoveries that support God’s creation of the universe and are substantiate in the scripture.

    While Robert collects his data, I can mention one very powerful discovery of a century ago, a discovery which is being confirmed on a continual basis. That is the discovery that the universe had a beginning.

    Scientists fought the evidence for a long time. As one scientist put it, he tried for years to weasel out of the implications of the evidence, but he finally ran out of weasels. (Honest man.)

    There are other examples, which Robert will probably give you; but this one is first. The discovery that the universe had a beginning, and the resultant theory that all the fundamantal particles of the universe came into existance instantaneously, is perfectly compatible with Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

  60. on 21 May 2010 at 4:52 pmDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    You asked, “Would you rather change your understanding of God’s word based on the world’s science?”

    There is nothing wrong with realizing that you were not correctly interpreting scripture. My great Uncle Jack refused all the medical and scientific evidence that said men had the same number of ribs as women. He refused to give up his interpretation of the creation story that he had been taught as a boy.

    There is no difference between his refusal to accept the reality of what a human skeleton looked like and Christians today that refuse to accept the fossil record. A fossil is just an ancient skeleton that over time has become fossilized through natural processes. Ignoring the evidence of an ancient skeleton is no different than ignoring the evidence of a modern skeleton.

    You can be like Robert and others who have doubts about the dating methods they use, but you can’t just dismiss the physical evidence that God has provides to us through the fossil record. I have no problem with people saying they believe in a young universe. I just don’t agree with them and believe it is highly unlikely.

    You also asked, “What trust, then, do you have in the God who inspired that scripture?”

    Not trusting how the religious experts say we should interpret various scriptures is not the same thing as not trusting the scriptures…

  61. on 22 May 2010 at 8:32 amMargaret Collier

    Well put, Thomas.

    When I was going to school, I was taught that the universe is eternal. The earth always existed.

    That CONTRADICTS Genesis 1:1, so the “steady state” model had to be rejected by anyone who believes that God inspired the Scriptures.

    But when scientists agree that they made a mistake, and that the evidence shows the universe DID have a beginning, then there is no contradiction, and my faith in the integrity of the Bible is vindicated.

  62. on 22 May 2010 at 9:38 amDoubting Thomas

    Xavier (54)
    You implied I should change my blogging name to Thomas or Believing Thomas. All my christian friends here in Canada jokingly refer to me as Doubting Thomas because I have doubts about any tradition that is not passed down by the church and I have doubts about whether many of the books and letters should have been included in the New Testament cannon. (Also because of my beliefs about the Trinity and the Godhead).

    I think Doubting Thomas describes me perfectly. Ever since I was a young man I have not trusted authority figures or the so called status quo. By the age of about 14 I had become a staunch atheist. It is part of my nature and has been since I was a young man…

  63. on 22 May 2010 at 11:42 amMargaret Collier

    All my christian friends here in Canada jokingly refer to me as Doubting Thomas because I have doubts about any tradition that is not passed down by the church

    What province, Thomas? I live in Manitoba.

    I have doubts about traditions that ARE passed down by the church, as well. I don’t think church traditions are necessarily scriptural.

    By the way, Mark, a couple of years ago I asked the “Questions” department at AiG if they could give me a reference to any passage in which the phrase “evening and morning” refers to a 24-hour day. They promptly sent me about a dozen references, without quoting any of them. So I looked them up, read them, and copied them.

    Then I sent back the quotations, showing that every example fits into one of four categories:

    1. “morning to evening” (a period of daylight)
    2. “evening to morning” (a period of darkness)
    3. “morning and evening” (an activity that occurred in the morning and in the evening, but not all day)
    4. “evening and morning” (something that occurred in the evening and in the morning, but not all night)

    So I asked again: is there a passage ANYWHERE in the Bible where the phrase “evening and morning” refers to a 24-hour period?

    No answer.

    That represents the kind of “dogmatic young-earthism” that I find offensive.

  64. on 22 May 2010 at 2:34 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I live in Ontario about 10KM from Niagara Falls in a city called St. Catharines. A good friend of mine just moved to Manitoba last year. He says he loves it out there, but he has always been an outdoors type of person who doesn’t like cities that much…

  65. on 22 May 2010 at 9:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    Yes, I just noticed my typing mistake in msg. 62. I meant to say I doubt traditions past down by the church that are NOT based on scripture…

  66. on 23 May 2010 at 11:37 amFrank D

    Margaret, I agree with the begining of the universe. Science will always have a difficulty with where the singularity came from.

    What I am more concerned with irt day=age or long period of time, is its application in God’s word. Where else does day = longer than 24 hour period? The application only occurs (for non-young Earth explinations) in Genesis. Was Jesus in the tomb 3000 years? The whole book of Laviticus describes parts of the law that are to be observed for the length of a day. Do you apply a thousand years there? Of course not. It is only applied to the Genesis creation to allow the alignment of ‘scientific facts’ with God’s scripture. Why not question those scientific facts first?

    If God did not create in six 24 hour periods, where else will the scripture be brought into question? Jesus’ miracles? Maybe even his resurrection. There is no scientific evidence for the dead being made alive…….

    DT, In your understanding of the fossil records, how are they dated? Please note that fossilization can occur in different ways:

    http://www.icr.org/article/are-fossils-result-noahs-flood/

    Also, I still have not seen an explination here of where death came from. Did it enter the world by Adam’s sin or not? Is Adam’s sin the reason for the Messiah’s death and resurrection?

    How did the dinosaurs die? Noah’s flood maybe?

  67. on 23 May 2010 at 12:16 pmJoseph

    Shalom everyone, I’m back!

    After careful consideration, and taking a breather on the sidelines for awhile, I decided I couldn’t hold my tongue any longer. Also, I’m sure there are some that would have liked to see me go away as my differences outnumber my agreement with the core of this blog. I don’t want to give anyone the satisfaction of my absence. I’m also planning on starting another “Unitarian/No holds barred” style blog when I make it back to the States this year.

    With that said, onto the subject of this thread…

    If “yom” is not defined by a 24 hour period, then we can assume that the chronological order in which Genesis is written is no longer relevant, therefore, making God’s rest, and NT statements by Yeshua, into fiction.

  68. on 23 May 2010 at 2:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Shalom, Welcome back Joseph.

    You said, “If ‘yom’ is not defined be a 24 hour period, then we can assume that the chronological order in which Genesis is written is no longer relevant..”

    I’m sorry I just don’t see what the one thing has to do with the other. I believe the chronological order in Genesis fits perfectly with the scientific theories if you look at it as a description of creation from the perspective of the earth. The early earth’s atmosphere was completely different from today’s and only became mostly made of oxygen (a clear colorless gas) after eons of plant life producing oxygen as a byproduct in photosynthesis.

    At first after the dust had settled you had day and night and the first plants and such. Then later as the atmosphere changed and became even clearer (and the ozone layer was slowly built up) the moon and the stars would have appeared. It fits perfectly with the creation story in Genesis.

    You also said, “making God’s rest, and NT statements by Yeshua, into fiction.”

    Again I don’t see that. I believe it is the ratio of 1 out of 7 that is important not the length of the days themselves. For example God said to rest the land 1 year out of every 7 years and not to grow crops etc…

    Frank D
    You asked, “In your understanding of the fossil records, how are they dated?”

    From what I understand they look at other objects found in the same layer of rocks or dirt whatever the case may be and date them. That’s why scientific dating of fossils is only approximate and they always say it is estimated to be about so old. They never give an exact date as to the age of a fossil…

  69. on 23 May 2010 at 5:29 pmrobert

    Joseph
    Welcome back.
    Looking forward to you entering this discussion even though for a change we are on different side of the fence.

    “If “yom” is not defined by a 24 hour period, then we can assume that the chronological order in which Genesis is written is no longer relevant, therefore, making God’s rest, and NT statements by Yeshua, into fiction.”

    Joseph
    Are we define the upcoming sabbath rest as to being one 24 hour period.
    I believe we have a basis to count creation days as atleast 1000 years and Gods first Sabbath. As far a millions of years i think is kinda far fetched because who knows what elemental structure was during any period of creation. I do know that Physics can not be ignored which total removes a literal 24 hour creation day

    Again welcome back

  70. on 24 May 2010 at 8:42 amJoseph

    Shalom Thomas and Robert, thanks for the welcome back!

    I’m sorry I just don’t see what the one thing has to do with the other. I believe the chronological order in Genesis fits perfectly with the scientific theories if you look at it as a description of creation from the perspective of the earth. The early earth’s atmosphere was completely different from today’s and only became mostly made of oxygen (a clear colorless gas) after eons of plant life producing oxygen as a byproduct in photosynthesis.

    Which is why I see no reason to tamper with the time and chronological order of the Creation account. There is no need to. Modern scientific theories are not facts, and until they are proven as so, my stance will always lean towards the most literal reading.

    Also, the problem as I was saying is the order in which the Creation account is written becomes irrelevant. If the plants are created on the 3rd day and insects created on the 5th day, how can plants live longer than a few cycles without their symbiotic relationship with insects for their survival? The facts are, as far as we know, insects and plants need each other to survive. If the Earth was created in a week as Genesis is written, then plants without insects for only a couple days would pose no problem.

    At first after the dust had settled you had day and night and the first plants and such. Then later as the atmosphere changed and became even clearer (and the ozone layer was slowly built up) the moon and the stars would have appeared. It fits perfectly with the creation story in Genesis.

    We can imagine all day about what things would have been like till we go blue. From your statement comes many questions, all based upon assumptions and theory. I’m not saying its not good to speculate, but I would rather stick by the written word until these things can be proven, if they can be proven.

    Are we define the upcoming sabbath rest as to being one 24 hour period.
    I believe we have a basis to count creation days as atleast 1000 years and Gods first Sabbath. As far a millions of years i think is kinda far fetched because who knows what elemental structure was during any period of creation. I do know that Physics can not be ignored which total removes a literal 24 hour creation day

    What is a thousand years to a literal day when compared to the billions of years that Evolutionists believe? The creation account gives us the definition of what “yom” is, as עֶ֥רֶב וַֽבֹ֖קֶר , evening and morning. Even if we were to say that yom = 1000 years in Genesis, that still conflicts with the chronological order and how plants could survive without insects for such a period of time when we know as scientific fact of the symbiotic relationship they share. Now we can speculate anything we want, as I said before, I’m not against that, I just take the position of the literal first until, or if, empirical proof comes along.

    I’m up for listening and pondering other theories, but I don’t think it is necessary to put my all my eggs into one basket and call theory fact, which may or may not be true.

  71. on 24 May 2010 at 8:54 amDoubting Thomas

    Frank D
    You said, “I haven’t seen an explanation here of where death came from. Did it enter the world through Adam’s sin or not?”

    From my understanding of the creation story (see link msg. 15 above) in Genesis Chapter 1 God created the first Adam (mankind). Then after the Sabbath God created the garden of Eden and placed the second Adam into it. Apparently there was no death in the garden of Eden for either Adam or Eve until sin was first introduced into the picture.

    The bible doesn’t say anything about there being no death outside of the garden of Eden. I think we can assume that the rest of mankind living outside the garden of Eden were undergoing normal life and death cycles from the beginning.

    This of course is just my interpretation of Genesis. There are many different ways to interpret Genesis. This interpretation just seems to make the most sense to me and of course I could be wrong…

  72. on 24 May 2010 at 9:10 amDoubting Thomas

    Joseph
    You asked, “If the plants are created on the third day and the insects on the fifth day, how can plants live longer than a few cycles without their symbiotic relationships with insects for their survival?”

    From what I understand the very first plants were very different from the plants of today. But even today we have plants that have both male and female aspects so that they can fertilize themselves. So the lack of insects is not that significant of an obstacle to overcome.

    You also said, “I’m up for listening and pondering other theories, but I don’t think it is necessary to put all my eggs into one basket and call theory fact, which may or may not be true.”

    I agree. I think it would be foolish to call a theory a fact. Scientific theories are constantly changing and evolving as new information becomes available. I just like to keep an open mind on the subject. Like I said in an earlier message for thousand of years science and religion went hand and hand together and most of the greatest ancient scientists were Christians.

    Isaac Newton was not only a Christian but he was a Unitarian as well…

  73. on 24 May 2010 at 10:07 amFrank D

    Exodus 20:8-11 says God made the heavens and the Earth in six days and rested the seventh. He told Moses to rest the seventh day as well. God established the sabbath based on His measure of time: seven earth days.

    8“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

  74. on 24 May 2010 at 11:29 amrobert

    Joseph
    Everything Godly on earth is just a shadow of something greater of God’s. Our sabbath is just patterned after God’s sabbath days.We know God has had one only so far because nowhere since has He not been available to man. He certainly is on our sabbaths.
    As far as insects, there is no mention when they were created, only things that have life in them(BLOOD) were mentioned. You can try to read in insects as creeping things but I really dont see how. there is nothing in the 6th periods(days) of creation that needs to be defined as 24 hours but there is reasons why it cant be 24 hours because it would take months for plants to grow to feed the animals and there are some that cant go without food for 24 hours.
    Considering earth time was not even created till the 4th period when the earth either started revolving creating daytime and nighttime. all thats said about the first period is light was created and where it shined was called day and where it didnt was called night, that has to do with light not time.
    there is also one other thing that really makes me doubt this was literal 24 hour day is the first called humans were to REPLENISH the earth which means the first humanlike were no longer, these were probably mentioned as beast and were not created male and female in the image of the Godhead
    ( Uncreated GOD and His FEMALE personified Wisdom) as the 6th day people were.
    we know we are in the 2nd series of creation with the sabbath (1000 years) finishing up time as we know it, then will come the 2nd creation of heaven on earth at the resurrection of the Lamb’s(Yahshua) people at the end of the 2nd set of 7 periods of creation ending with the eighth day of the new creation period which will be eternal.

  75. on 24 May 2010 at 1:55 pmJaco

    Guys! (and gal)

    I would have loved to join in on this discussion. Exams keep me from it. But, just to throw a stone in the bush:

    Consider the various usages of the word “yom,” extending much further than merely “day.” As Robert rightly said, the Sabbath arrangement was only a reflection of a greater reality. We cannot shrink the greater reality to fit the instituted shadow. Consider anthropomorphism. The Bible only uses anthropomorphism to describe divine concepts and events, including creation. Lastly, Young Earth Creationism results from a reductionistic reading of the Genesis account. Old Earth Creationism allows for both Holy Scripture and confirmed science, including Intelligent Design and micro-evolution. Believe me, to allocate periods to the creative days have had many a Christian group end up speculating about the time of the seventh Sabbath period. The one (allocating periods) does lead to the other (extrapolating into the future). The Great Disappointment of Ellen White and her followers (1844), as well as the Watchtower’s 1975 prophecies testify to the danger of this practice.

    Sorry, got to go

    Jaco

  76. on 24 May 2010 at 4:11 pmMargaret Collier

    What I am more concerned with irt day=age or long period of time, is its application in God’s word. Where else does day = longer than 24 hour period?

    Several places. But let’s look at the way the Lord Jesus used the word.

    In John 11:9, he asks his hearers, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” They knew what he meant. The natural day is a period of sunlight – in keeping with God’s definition of “day” as “light” (Genesis 1:5).

    But the Lord also used the word “day” as a long period of time marked by divine light. “Abraham rejoiced to see my day,” he said in John 8:56. And again, “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is still day” (John 9:4). Why? “The night is coming, when no man can work.”

    His hearers understood THIS use of the word, too. They were familiar with “the day of temptation in the wilderness,” a day that lasted forty years (Psalm 95:8). They knew that “the day of visitation” was a period of “time” (Jeremiah 50:27). They knew that “the day of the Lord” was no mere 24 hours. And we know that “the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2) has been with us for a long time.

    They knew (and so do we) that such “days” were not the familiar days of sunlight, followed by nights of darkness. Instead, they were periods of time marked by some particular “work” that God was doing. And God’s action in separating the light from the darkness takes on new meaning. There are no nights where God dwells.

    The 24-hour day, beginning and ending at midnight, is a post-biblical invention. It was introduced (after the invention of mechanical clocks) in order to make “time” uniform throughout the world.

    In biblical times, the day was divided into 12 hours, measurable by a sundial.

    The night was divided into 4 “watches,” which could be measured (approximately) by the position of the stars.

    The fact is, a 24-hour day cannot be made to fit God’s own definition for “day,” which means LIGHT – not light AND darkness.

    In fact, a 24-hour day joins together what God specifically separated in his definition (v. 4).

  77. on 25 May 2010 at 5:09 amAnnie

    Hi all,

    Trusting that everyone is in good health.

    Frank D,

    Welcome!
    You said, “I haven’t seen an explanation here of where death came from. Did it enter the world through Adam’s sin or not?”

    In Romans 5 : 12 we read:

    12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. 13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.

    Romans 5 : 17 says:

    17 For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ.

    Also verse 19 reads:

    19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous.

    Thomas you say:

    The bible doesn’t say anything about there being no death outside of the garden of Eden. I think we can assume that the rest of mankind living outside the garden of Eden were undergoing normal life and death cycles from the beginning.

    When I read Romans 5 : 12 again, it states that sin entered into the world,… not only into the garden of Eden. Therefore in my mind it makes for the beginning of sin in all earth.

    Annie

  78. on 25 May 2010 at 9:41 amrobert

    “You said, “I haven’t seen an explanation here of where death came from. Did it enter the world through Adam’s sin or not?” ”

    Annie
    That depends on whether you understand what death is equated to. If you equate it to our flesh than by definition it did not enter by Adam’s sin because that very day He did not die but if you equate it to spiritual death then it did enter by Adam’s sin. while Adam was in the garden death was happening all over just as it does now because everything other than Adam had a fleshy body. Till sin, Adam had the very same type of body Jesus had after his resurrection and just as those that are still alive will be changed instantly to a spiritual body ,Adam was changed into a fleshy body instantly. the death that Paul speaks of is spiritual death we all have received after our first sin when we reach the age to know right from wrong acccording to the laws of God. My guess would be somewhere around becoming a teenager because in ancient Israel there was no sin offering for children.
    we see here from this verse in Genesis 6 that the first humans created on the 6th day only had a life span of 120 years so physical death of the flesh had always existed before Adam was formed to tend the Garden

    3 And Jehovah saith, ‘My Spirit doth not strive in man—to the age; in their erring they ‘are’ flesh:’ and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.

    Paul is a lot easier to understand if you see the truth of Genesis
    In 1 Corinthians 15:45 this is speaking of the 2 creations of man, the 6th day and then the 8th day which provided the pure bloodline to Jesus through Seth,Noah,Shem,Abraham,Jacob,Levi(Mary’s lineage),Judah(Joseph’s Lineage)

    1 Corinthians 15:45
    And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

  79. on 25 May 2010 at 10:50 amJoseph

    Robert,

    As far as insects, there is no mention when they were created, only things that have life in them(BLOOD) were mentioned. You can try to read in insects as creeping things but I really dont see how. there is nothing in the 6th periods(days) of creation that needs to be defined as 24 hours but there is reasons why it cant be 24 hours because it would take months for plants to grow to feed the animals and there are some that cant go without food for 24 hours.
    Considering earth time was not even created till the 4th period when the earth either started revolving creating daytime and nighttime. all thats said about the first period is light was created and where it shined was called day and where it didnt was called night, that has to do with light not time.
    there is also one other thing that really makes me doubt this was literal 24 hour day is the first called humans were to REPLENISH the earth which means the first humanlike were no longer, these were probably mentioned as beast and were not created male and female in the image of the Godhead
    ( Uncreated GOD and His FEMALE personified Wisdom) as the 6th day people were.

    As far as I know a plant is not a creepy thing, but creepy things are considered insects. What we know as fact, is that plants can’t live without their symbiotic partner, the insects, for pollination. That is what we have observed and know as science. This is why a long period of time makes the chronological order of the creation account irrelevant.

    Also, if God created Adam and Eve in a mature state, then wouldn’t it be safe to assume that he created everything else in a mature state also (plants, earth, ect.)?

    Jaco,

    Consider the various usages of the word “yom,” extending much further than merely “day.” As Robert rightly said, the Sabbath arrangement was only a reflection of a greater reality. We cannot shrink the greater reality to fit the instituted shadow. Consider anthropomorphism. The Bible only uses anthropomorphism to describe divine concepts and events, including creation.

    I think you would have a valid argument if “yom” in Genesis was not being referenced in accordance with an evening and morning.

    Lastly, Young Earth Creationism results from a reductionistic reading of the Genesis account. Old Earth Creationism allows for both Holy Scripture and confirmed science, including Intelligent Design and micro-evolution.

    I’m not a “diehard” YEC, but I do believe that the most literal reading supports their view. I think that if one can believe in a Global flood that caused our would to change in huge ways, it isn’t far fetched to believe that God could create an Earth in a state of maturity. After all, wasn’t Adam and Eve created as mature adults?

    So, you would consider yourself a Theistic Evolutionist? Do you believe that micro can evolve to macro?

  80. on 25 May 2010 at 11:22 amJoseph

    Thomas,

    From what I understand the very first plants were very different from the plants of today. But even today we have plants that have both male and female aspects so that they can fertilize themselves. So the lack of insects is not that significant of an obstacle to overcome.

    I believe that flowering plants need insects for pollination, and this has been a symbiotic relationship in which one species can’t do without the other for any great period of time. If plants were around for thousands, or millions of years without insects for pollinating the flowers, then how did those plants survive? Also, from what the fossil record says, flowering plants have been located in every layer of strata.

    The point I’m making is that if we take the general understanding of modern science (millions of years) it does not jive with the chronological order of the creation account.

  81. on 25 May 2010 at 11:53 amrobert

    “So, you would consider yourself a Theistic Evolutionist? Do you believe that micro can evolve to macro?”

    Joseph
    Absolutely not. I see myself as one who believes that God has a process that involves Physics. i believe God is Physics in its purest and fullest form. Nothing exist without Physics
    You arguement that Adam was formed into a mature being has no basis and is not relevent to the first creation of man. If God created mature plants than there would be no need for insects. Besides insects only aid plants, the wind does most of it without insects .Without beast to pack the ground then they are not needed there either. there is no way God formed the earth out of pure elements without letting the reactions of the oxidations of the compounds that are in the earth to cool, there is also the time it takes for light to travel which would remove the appearance of far stars from our skies for several thousands of years. A basic physics course would help people understand Genesis 1 can not be refering to 24 hour days.

  82. on 25 May 2010 at 12:03 pmFrank D

    Thanks, Annie. It was a rhetorical question.

    Please notice that in Romans 5, death entered the WHOLE world through one man’s sin. Not just death in Eden.

    12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

    No death in the world until Adam’s sin.

  83. on 25 May 2010 at 1:39 pmJoseph

    Robert,

    Absolutely not. I see myself as one who believes that God has a process that involves Physics. i believe God is Physics in its purest and fullest form. Nothing exist without Physics

    Sorry, I was directing that question toward Jaco because he said he believed in ID and micro evolution.

    You arguement that Adam was formed into a mature being has no basis and is not relevent to the first creation of man.

    I think that if Man is to survive on Earth it must already be in a state of maturity (food, clean water, bacteria, ect). I don’t think that God would put Adam and Eve on Earth with plants that need months to flower and grow so that they could eat their first fruit or vegetable.

    7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

    If there had been man on earth already for thousands of years then why didn’t God just put one of them in the Garden? Why does scripture tell us that God specifically “formed” Adam (man) and then put him in the Garden.

    18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    If mankind was already around, why would God need to form a female partner for Adam?

    I believe that there is only one creation of mankind (with Adam and Eve), not two. Genesis 2 is details of day 6, and the beginning of the story of the creation of man.

    Besides insects only aid plants, the wind does most of it without insects .Without beast to pack the ground then they are not needed there either.

    I’m pretty sure that any farmer would tell you that their crops rely mainly on the help of insects and bees to make a healthy crop. Times no help from insects by thousands of years, just doesn’t add up in my opinion. Maybe a few cycles, not much more.

    there is no way God formed the earth out of pure elements without letting the reactions of the oxidations of the compounds that are in the earth to cool,

    That is the same thing as saying there is no way that God could have created man without putting a sperm and egg in a womb and waiting for 9 months. Chicken and the egg. I’m assuming that you believe that God created man instantly, right?

    Also, check out Dr. Gentry’s work on polonium halos, a radioactive particle that has a very fast decay rate, that have been frozen in the granite rocks all over the world. This suggests a rapid, almost instant formation of our Earth’s foundational rock, the granite.

    there is also the time it takes for light to travel which would remove the appearance of far stars from our skies for several thousands of years. A basic physics course would help people understand Genesis 1 can not be refering to 24 hour days.

    Actually, there is a great book and short video you can get called, “Starlight and Time” and is a creation scientists theory on how we can have starlight at such a great distance in a younger universe. The author is Dr. Humphreys… http://www.creationists.org/dr-d-russell-humphreys-nuclear-physicist.html

  84. on 25 May 2010 at 2:26 pmrobert

    “If there had been man on earth already for thousands of years then why didn’t God just put one of them in the Garden? Why does scripture tell us that God specifically “formed” Adam (man) and then put him in the Garden.”

    Joesph
    The 6th day man was created for a certain purposed and was created flesh. the 8th day was formed for a certain purpose and was formed spiritually. just as know fleshy man cant be in heaven now, neither could they be in heaven then which was the garden on the earth. If you believe this is the same creation then you must believe that God wanted Adam to mate cattle. Adam had no need to have children because he would of lived forever in the garden. Eve was just a help meet as what cattle would of been. till Eve ate of the tree which was a spiritual female having sex with satan and then Eve having sex with the spiritual Adam they would of never known what there private parts were for. Then The birth of satan’s seed through Eve satan could now have offsprings and the birth of Adams seeds through Eve we would have the bloodline to Jesus.
    Cain left and chose wifes from amongst the 6th day people.
    later on Seth’s offsprings started polluting the bloodline when they took wives from Cain and the 6th day creation. to preserve the Adamic bloodline God wiped out all of Cain/ 6th day mix and those of Adamic that mixed with those excepted for Ham who must of had an innerbred mother. From there on God used every means to provide a pure bloodline to Jesus through Shem, Abraham, Isaac,Jacob, Judah and Tamar, David and Bathsheba to Nathan and through the Levite line. this is why they were chosen for priesthood to keep them separate.

    “I’m pretty sure that any farmer would tell you that their crops rely mainly on the help of insects and bees to make a healthy crop.”

    Joseph
    These type of plants were not created till after Adam was formed and put in the Garden. Most pollination is done very effectively through the air, just as my allergies dont take an insects flying up my nose, pollen is a very airborne substance.

    “This suggests a rapid, almost instant formation of our Earth’s foundational rock, the granite.”

    Joseph
    you need to understand how much energy is released when a pure element is oxidized. The cooling from this would take thousands of years

    “Actually, there is a great book and short video you can get called, “Starlight and Time” and is a creation scientists theory on how we can have starlight at such a great distance in a younger universe.”

    Joseph
    I take a look but as far as i can see the is no way around physics. the speed of light can only be slowed down by matter blocking its path.

  85. on 25 May 2010 at 5:29 pmDoubting Thomas

    Annie (msg. 77)
    You said, “When I read Romans 5:12 again, it states that sin entered into the world, not only into the garden of Eden. Therefore in my mind it makes for the beginning of sin in all the earth.”

    You of course could be right. I just see it differently. The way I see it when ancient documents talk about concepts like “The World” they could not mean the same thing as our modern concept of “the world”. They had no concept of what was beyond the horizon (they didn’t even know the earth was round). In ancient documents “The World” means the known world (how far they could travel during their life times).

    The best example of this is the birth story of Jesus where it says, (Luke 2:1) “In those days a decree went from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” Even as late as the Roman Empire the expression “the world” did not mean what it means today. We shouldn’t force our modern definition of the expression “the world” onto ancient documents.

    Adam and Eve did not know anything outside of their lives in the garden of Eden. It was in all respects “their world”. Sin and death entered the world that they lived in and as such they had to leave the paradise that God had created for them. Again this is just the way I interpret these scriptures. You are, of course, free to interpret them differently…

  86. on 25 May 2010 at 5:36 pmMargaret Collier

    That depends on whether you understand what death is equated to. If you equate it to our flesh than by definition it did not enter by Adam’s sin because that very day He did not die but if you equate it to spiritual death then it did enter by Adam’s sin.

    Good point, Robert. He did not die physically on the day he ate the fruit. And this is one place where the word could only mean the same 12-hour day in which the fruit was eaten.

    Nevertheless, he was “dead in sin” as soon as he disobeyed.

    I am not a theistic evolutionist either, and that’s because science does not support the idea. I won’t expand on that, but I will if anyone wishes.

    I certainly agree that God COULD HAVE created the universe in seconds if he had chosen to do so; but in that case, there would be no clear evidence that Genesis 1 is in agreement with modern scientific discoveries. As it is, the evidence is there, and God invites us to check it out.

    Besides, the text is clear. If we honor God’s definition of “day,” we cannot make the word mean a 24-hour day. And “evening and morning” doesn’t make a 12-hour day, either. So a “day” of light, characterized by a work of God, is the only logical meaning.

    By the way, the only place where “evening and morning” refers to a period of time is in Daniel 8:26, where the vision of the evening and the morning seems to refer to a long period of history, judging by the context.

    On the other hand, I see no reason to think that man was created twice. I think Adam was the first man to be created, and I don’t think it happened too many thousands of years ago.

  87. on 25 May 2010 at 5:52 pmMargaret Collier

    Robert – I am familiar with Dr. Humphreys. His theory may sound convincing to someone who is ignorant of astronomy; but Danny Faulkner, a young earth creationist who is ALSO a professor of astronomy, is not convinced.

    Danny is an honest man. He wrote an article a few years ago explaining the lack of any reasonable theory to explain what he calls “the light travel time problem”. As of a few months ago, he was still unaware of a satisfactory solution to the problem. [I know that. I have been in contact with him.]

    By the way, if you want to ask him yourself, his email address is given at the website of the University of South Carolina where he teaches. Unless it has changed in the last few months, it is
    drfaulkn@gwm.sc.edu.

    The “light travel time problem” is no problem at all if we take the words of Genesis 1 literally, and honor God’s own definition for “day”.

  88. on 25 May 2010 at 5:54 pmDoubting Thomas

    Joseph (msg. 80)
    You said, “I believe flowering plants need insects for pollination and this has been a symbiotic relationship in which one species can’t do without the other for any great period of time.”

    There are several varieties of flowers known as Cleistogamous flowers which are self pollinated. Also as Robert pointed out flowers don’t rely on insects alone for pollination. Wind plays an important factor as well. Pollen caught in updrafts can even travel between continents. There is a good article about how wind is very important to the pollination of flowers and also about Cleistogamous flowers at –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower

  89. on 25 May 2010 at 6:17 pmrobert

    Margaret
    Actually I find it very deceiving with the Tale of 2 clocks. The only way they could sync them is through a data transfer line that depending on usage at the time could cause delays longer than he reported, plus an atomic clock has the ability to be as accurate as he said but there is a bigger difference on average than what he reported. He knew this but figured those who would buy his book wouldnt. this man is only concerned with his own self promotion and doesnt care about the truth

  90. on 26 May 2010 at 12:13 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret (msg. 86)
    You said, “I see no reason to think that man was created twice.”

    I think Robert made an excellent point. In Genesis Chapter 1:28 it says, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’…” God says this immediately after he creates the first male and female (notice it does not say that their names are Adam and Eve).

    Then after God’s rest on the Sabbath (in Chapter 2) he creates Adam and much later Eve. He does not tell them to be fruitful and multiply. As a matter of fact they walk around the garden of Eden naked apparently like small children who are completely unaware of their sexual organs and of their sexuality.

    It is only much later when they eat from the tree of knowledge that they become aware of their sexuality and attempt to cover their nakedness. Even after this God does not seem to instruct them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. I think it is obvious that the story in Chapter 2 about Adam and Eve is completely different than the story of the unnamed male and female created in Chapter 1…

  91. on 26 May 2010 at 8:11 amDoubting Thomas

    Frank D (msg. 82)
    You said, “Please notice in Romans 5, death entered the WHOLE WORLD through one man’s sin. Not just death in Eden.”

    The way I see it this means that in part of the world (the garden of Eden) death did not exist. But through the sin of Adam death entered and filled the whole world. This does not rule out the possibility that death could have existed before this out side of the garden of Eden.

    It could of went from being in part of the world to entering the WHOLE WORLD. Like I said in an earlier message this is just the way I interpret these scriptures…

  92. on 26 May 2010 at 9:26 amrobert

    Margaret
    I am sure you know there is no chapter divisions in the hebrew OT. If you read Genesis 2 verse 4 you will see where chapter 1 ends and chapter 2 begins and you will notice the creation in chapter 2 is called a different creation and a separate day(period) then turn to Revelation 20 verse 11 to find the only time this creation is mentioned after Genesis 2. this creation was terminated by God when Adam sinned and will be recreated at the end of God’s 2nd sabbath just like it was created after his 1st sabbath
    Genesis 2
    4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created(end of chapter 1),(beginning of chapter 2) in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

    Revelation 20
    11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

  93. on 26 May 2010 at 10:15 amMargaret Collier

    You may be right, Thomas. It’s a matter of interpretation, I guess.

    What I see in Genesis 1 is the creation of the physical universe and everything in it. There is no doubt in my mind that nothing in the passage gives any hint as the age of the universe. On that point, I would take a stand, based on the biblical evidence. God’s Word says NOTHING AT ALL about the age of the universe, although it MAY say something about the age of mankind.

    As for Genesis 2, the first four verses seem to be a summary of chapter 1. Verse 5 begins the story of a garden, and the man who was formed in v. 7.

    I can see how this might be understood as a different man from Adam, but I don’t think that is necessarily the case.

    For example, verse 7 may be simply giving more details about how God formed man from the elements of earth (not some exotic stuff from space), and then gave him life by breathing into his nostrils.

    When the garden was made, God put the man (whom he had already created) into it. It was in this garden that he formed the woman.

    The facts are expressed in a figurative way, and in a way that ancient people would understand.

    For example, the “rib” that God used in making “woman” was just a part of Adam, and we can understood that today as Adam’s DNA. The woman consisted of the same earth elements that the man consisted of, and had much of the same genetic information, but God “built” onto that information some significant differences.

    Right now, I think chapter 2 is an expanded account of ch. 1:27, leading to a moral lesson on disobedience and what it does to our relationship with God.

    But I could very easily be wrong.

    The significant detail for me is this: because of disobedience, I was “dead in sins” – dead to God. But the second Adam (the Son of God from heaven) by his obedience has made me alive to God. (Read Ephesians 2:1-7. It’s thrilling.)

    But that has a present application, too. I am a child of God, alive with Christ and seated in the heavenlies (positionally); but disobedience, unconfessed, can spoil my relationship with my Father (experientially). And that is something I want to avoid.

  94. on 26 May 2010 at 10:39 amrobert

    Margaret
    I made a post dealing with your last post before you posted it but for some reason it was put in spam and didnt show up. when Sean fixes this please read it

  95. on 26 May 2010 at 5:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret (msg. 93)
    You said, “You may be right, Thomas. It’s a matter of interpretation, I guess.”

    You may also be right in your interpretation. The best any of us can do is try to find an interpretation that makes the most sense to us. This particular interpretation that says that Adam and Eve were created separately from the rest of mankind seems to make the most sense to me.

    The thing I like the most about it is that it resolves a problem I had with a nagging question. If Adam and Eve were the first humans and Cain and Able were the first two children, then where did these other people come from that Cain was afraid were going to kill him? And where did the people come from that lived in the land of Nod east of Eden?

    This particular interpretation that Robert sent me from the American Wisdom Series (see link in msg. 15 above) seems to best explain away this nagging question and seems to fit well with the rest of the text as well…

  96. on 27 May 2010 at 8:27 amMargaret Collier

    I see your point, Thomas. Again – you may be right.

    On the other hand, Adam lived a long time. How many children did he have? The genealogies don’t usually name all the children in a family, just those who have some importance in the history that follows.

    I’ll look into this and get back to you. But in the end, my understanding is as likely to be wrong as anybody’s, because that particular detail is not clearly stated.

    My attention right now has to be on avoiding the disobedience that leads to estrangement from God. And I can only do that by loving the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind.

    And I can only do that through the power of the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who believe on his Son.

  97. on 27 May 2010 at 11:21 amrobert

    Thomas
    It also solves the nagging question of just who was the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6. we know the sons were not angels because angels do not produce offsprings.
    As we read genesis 6:3 we see that the men that were created flesh on the 6th day only had a lifespan of 120 years where after Adams fall the decendents of ADAM had lifespans close to 1000 years.
    plus one other thing that bothers me is why would God punish mankind for what angels did.
    From this i have come to the complete understanding of Gods plan to provide a pure bloodline of Adam and Eve to Jesus making the Flood necessary, Abraham’s actions, the reason for Israel and Mosaic Law. All these and everything between Seth and Jesus was to make sure that Eve’s seed of Adam(Seth) could bruise satans seed of Eve(Cain) which could never of happened if Seths line was intermingled with Cains Line.
    It is very obvious that Cains line survived the Flood thru Ham by his ungodly behavior. Ham’s mother must of been a decendent of Cain and the 6th day creation with the possiblity of being an offspring of the Sons of God/daughter of men line.

    “On the other hand, Adam lived a long time. How many children did he have? ”

    Margaret
    Just how does children later after the birth of Seth provide a mate for Cain long before Eve states she received another seed.
    The explaination that Cains wife came from Eve is no supported and is witness by other sons and daughters coming After Seth and doesnt address who Cain was afraid of Beyond the place of where Adam lived, You would think if Adam had other children between Cain and Seth his greatest threat would come from the place where Adam lived not somewhere where no man lived.
    There is no other way to read Genesis 2: 4b ff other than Adam was a spiritual Man till his fall and The 6th day man was created flesh. This takes nothing away from christianity, in fact i think its strengthens It

  98. on 27 May 2010 at 5:28 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “On the other hand, Adam lived a long time. How many children did he have?”

    The way I see it, Cain’s nieces and nephews would have known what he looked like (certainly his brothers and sister would) if he did indeed have any. Which brings up the question, Why did God have to mark Cain so that he could be recognized??

    It also says in Genesis 4:14 “Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground (Eden), and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

    If these people living in the land of Nod east of Eden were the children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve, Why were they living in a place where they would be hidden from God’s face??

    Why were they not living together with Adam and Eve??

    Also in Genesis 4:25 it says, “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore him a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’…”

    It would appear that because of the way Eve is so thankful for Seth that Seth must have been the first offspring that she and Adam had after Cain and Able (the first male one anywaze)…

  99. on 27 May 2010 at 9:50 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “My attention right now has to be on avoiding the disobedience that leads to estrangement from God. And I can only do that by loving the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind.”

    I understand where your coming from and I agree. During my life I have disobeyed God and done some terrible things but I have confessed them, repented and changed my behavior. None of us want to be estranged from God. I trust that God has forgiven me just as I have tried to forgive everyone in my life that has done wrong to me.

    Thank you God for being kind, merciful, forgiving and patient…

  100. on 28 May 2010 at 1:02 amMargaret Collier

    The way I see it, Cain’s nieces and nephews would have known what he looked like (certainly his brothers and sister would) if he did indeed have any.

    I have great aunts and great uncles whom I never saw. I would not know them if I saw them.

    They are all dead now, of course. They all died before they were 130 years old.

    Adam had lived 130 years when Seth was born. How long had he lived when Cain was born? Didn’t have to be long, IF Adam was an adult when he was created.

    I think if you read chapter 5 of Genesis with care, the first 10 verses will give you a lot of answers – including the fact that Adam “fathered sons and daughters”.

    Their names are not mentioned in the genealogy. In fact, even Cain and Abel aren’t mentioned; only Seth. But Adam “fathered sons and daughters” – not just Seth.

    I don’t think children usually stay at home all their lives. Especially after they marry. (See Matthew 19:5.)

    By the way, when Cain “went out from the presence of the Lord,” I don’t think it had anything to do with a geographic location.

    More later. (After a good night’s sleep – for which I give thanks to God, in advance.)

    The Word of God is wonderful.

  101. on 28 May 2010 at 12:43 pmMargaret Collier

    I have been reading the first five chapters of Genesis with the help of an interlinear Hebrew/English Bible. It is tremendously interesting.

    The first thing I noticed in chapter 1 is that the word translated “man” is the word adm – a Hebrew word with three letters. Please notice that when God created adm, he created themmale and female”. The word does not refer exclusively to males.

    Now read chapter 5. The first two verses seem like a summary of the same story. It concludes with, ”He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name adm in the day they were created.”

    That corroborates Strong’s definition of the word adm. Its primary meaning is mankind. It refers to humanity. [The words translated “husband” and “wife” are different words, but that can wait.]

    The word adm is also used as the name of the FIRST human being (adm), who is called Adam (same Hebrew word). [It is also the name of a place in Palestine, but that is irrelevant.]

    I get the distinct impression that there was only one creation of mankind. I’m not closing my mind to a second creation, but it doesn’t seem to fit, so far.

    Then come the subsequent generations of Adam.

    Notice that only the direct line from Seth to Noah is listed. The only references to other progeny are the words, repeated for every generation, “and he fathered sons and daughters”. Does that tell us anything?

  102. on 28 May 2010 at 2:21 pmrobert

    Now read chapter 5. The first two verses seem like a summary of the same story. It concludes with, ”He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name adm in the day they were created.”

    Margaret
    I find chapter 5 to be very important in realizing there is another race or races besides The Adamic race.
    In the 1st verse all that is stated is the generations of humans(adam)
    in the 2nd verse we find a race or races created male and female and we find THEY are called commonly human(adam)
    in the 3rd verse THE ADAM is spoke of.
    While the word adam is used for all races if you search deeper you will find there are descriptive words included with the word for adam that changes it from in general to the use of it for a proper name. here is some info on this

    Eth ‘Eth’ is put before the object of the sentence if the object is either a definite noun (has article ‘ha’) or a proper noun (proper name).

    Example:
    Jim ate the bread.
    ‘Jim’ is the subject, the doer of the action.
    ‘Bread’ is the object of the action.

    Eth adam ‘Adam’ is the proper name of one person, refers to the person whose name is ‘Adam’.

    Ha-adam Life form(s). Example: Human beings.

    As ‘Adam’ stands for ‘life form’, one can put ‘ha’ in front.

    If ‘Adam’ is a proper name, one cannot say ‘ha-adam’.
    In other words, ‘ha-adam’ cannot refer to a person named ‘Adam’.

    Eth ha-adam The life form is the object of the sentence. The life forms are the object of the sentence.

  103. on 28 May 2010 at 5:33 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert (msg. 97)
    You said, “It also solves the nagging question of who were the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6. We know the sons were not angels because we know the angels don’t produce offspring…..plus one other thing that bothers me is, Why would God punish mankind for what angels did?”

    I agree. I was just rereading Chapter 6 and I was wondering if you could tell me what the “The Nephilim” were??

    Margaret

    You said, `I get the distinct impression that there was one creation of mankind. I`m not closing my mind to a second creation, but it doesn`t seem to fit, so far.`

    I also try to keep an open mind on these things. Like I said this interpretation just seems to make the most sense to me…

  104. on 28 May 2010 at 6:10 pmrobert

    “I agree. I was just rereading Chapter 6 and I was wondering if you could tell me what the “The Nephilim” were??”

    Thomas
    truthfully I would have to guess.
    Since they existed before this union and was also caused by this union and was said to have been like men of old or acient and they were mighty men, I would guess there was an ancient race that through poor breeding or interbreeding with other races were bred down in size. but being bred with a newer DNA string it revived the weaken race to produce very tall men. we have this today without complete understanding of why and we call them giants in todays world too.

    thats the best i can do

  105. on 28 May 2010 at 9:14 pmXavier

    Thomas

    Gen. 6:4 Nephilim. The meaning of this term is uncertain. It occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Num. 13:33, where it denotes a group living in Canaan. If both passages refer to the same people, then the Israelite spies (Num. 13:33) are expressing their fears of the Canaanites by likening them to the ancient men of renown.

    Although in Hebrew Nepilim means “fallen ones,” the earliest Greek translators rendered it gigantes, “giants.” This idea may have been mistakenly deduced from Num. 13:33; one must be cautious about reading it back into the present passage.

    The Nephilim were mighty men or warriors and, as such, may well have contributed to the violence that filled the earth (see Gen. 6:13). ESV Study Bible

  106. on 29 May 2010 at 12:16 amDoubting Thomas

    Robert/Xavier
    Thanks.

  107. on 31 May 2010 at 8:25 amMargaret Collier

    I find chapter 5 to be very important in realizing there is another race or races besides The Adamic race.
    In the 1st verse all that is stated is the generations of humans(adam)
    in the 2nd verse we find a race or races created male and female and we find THEY are called commonly human(adam)

    I have studied what you say carefully. But I do not see any hint of more than one creation of man. Why should the same word mean one thing in part of verse 1, and something else in the rest?

    in the 3rd verse THE ADAM is spoke of.

    In my text, the word is adm WITHOUT the article. What text are you using?

    I also noticed that chapter 5:1-2 follows chapter 1:26-27 very closely. God said, “Let us make adm in our image. … And God created eth ha-adm in his image … male and female created he them.”

    Both times, “man” is the object of the verb. In one case the article is used (along with eth), and in the other case both are missing. Surely that doesn’t mean he’s talking about two different things?

    So far, Robert, I can see no textual reason for thinking that there were two different creations.

    And there is strong scientific evidence that all the present population of the earth can be traced back to one man and one woman.

  108. on 31 May 2010 at 11:59 amrobert

    Margaret
    I found this on another site

    ——————————————————–
    Here are accurate English translations and respective explanation of the verses in the accounts of Creation, as applied to the creation of mankind, from Chapters 1&2 of Genesis:

    Genesis 1:26-27 – (26) And G-d said, “Let us make mankind [adam] in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.” (27) And G-d created [the] mankind [ha’adam] in His image; in the image of G-d He created them; male and female He created them.

    Notice in the above how in the first occurrence of adam, mankind, appears with the definite article ha, the, and the pronoun they is used in the conjugation of the verb, which clearly indicates that the appropriate translation of ha’adam is indeed [the] mankind.

    In the second instance of adam the actual Hebrew pronoun oto, him, is used relative to adam, mankind, which is correctly rendered here as them since it is clear from the last phrase in the verse that adam, mankind, is not to be taken literally as the singular man, but as the generic mankind. The last phrase obviates this fact.

    Genesis 2:5,7-8,15-25 – (5) Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the L-rd G-d had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no person [adam] to work the soil.
    (7) And the L-rd G-d formed the man [ha’adam] of dust from the earth [ha’adamah], and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and the man [ha’adam] became a living soul. (8) And the L-rd G-d planted a garden in Eden from the east, and He placed there the man [ha’adam] whom He had formed.
    (15) Now the L-rd G-d took the man [ha’adam], and He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it. (16) And the L-rd G-d commanded the man [ha’adam], saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. (18) And the L-rd G-d said, “It is not good that the man [ha’adam] is alone; I shall make for him [someone as] a support.” (19) And the L-rd G-d formed from the earth [ha’adamah] every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to the man [ha’adam] to see what he would call it, and whatever the man [ha’adam] called each living thing, that was its name. (20) And the man [ha’adam] named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for Adam [u’l’adam], he did not find [someone as] a support for him. (21) And the L-rd G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man [ha’adam], and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place. (22) And the L-rd G-d built the side that He had taken from the man [ha’adam] into a woman [ishah], and He brought her to the man [ha’adam]. (23) And the man [ha’adam] said, “This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called “woman” [ishah] because this one was taken from a man [ish] ish (man).” (24) Therefore, a man [ish] shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife [ishto], and they shall become one flesh. (25) Now they were both naked, the man [ha’adam] and his wife [v’ishto], but they were not ashamed.

    Notice in the above passages how they start of with the generic person [adam] in v. 5, and transition to the specific the man [ha’adam] in vs. 7, 18-19. Then, in v. 20, the term actually appears in the context of a proper name, Adam. Then the context returns to the man [ha’adam] in v. 21 and on. And, then, in v. 22 a new term is introduced, a woman [ishah], which is followed in v. 23 the masculine form of this term, a man [ish], is introduced. Also in the above passages, the appropriate pronouns are emboldened to make sure that the genders are clearly identified in this account.

  109. on 01 Jun 2010 at 12:30 amMargaret Collier

    I have read this, Robert, and thank you for looking it up. It agrees very much with my own Hebrew text, and I understand that “man” stands for mankind in general and “THE man” stands for a single individual – the first of the species. “Ish” and “isha” refer to male and female persons (or husband and wife).

    My question is – what does all this have to do with a second creation of mankind?

    Perhaps you are right in believing that man was created more than once; but I can see no evidence for it in the text, so I can’t agree with you.

    Besides, the latest hypothesis based on DNA research suggests that ALL the people presently living on the earth can be traced back to one man and one woman. Science and the Bible seem to agree on that point.

    So what is the purpose of a second creation of man? We still have one man and one woman, from whom all the peoples of the earth have descended, whatever may have happened before that.

  110. on 01 Jun 2010 at 11:04 amrobert

    “Besides, the latest hypothesis based on DNA research suggests that ALL the people presently living on the earth can be traced back to one man and one woman. Science and the Bible seem to agree on that point.”

    Margaret
    Actually that view doesnt contradict the creation of mankind and the formation of a certain man. From the formation of Adam, God has been involved in the separation of mankind from the bloodline of Adam which was the cause for the flood, Abraham separating from others, Isaac’s wife coming from his family,Jacob receiving blessing over Essau(chose wives from gentiles),Judah’s sons of a gentile wife not receiving birthright, Tamars(daughter of Shem) receiving birthright, David being chosen above his brothers,Nathan bloodline being chosen over Solomons because he also chose gentile wives, The Levite priesthood having specific commands to taking wifes.
    Nathans bloodline listed in Luke was provided to show the pure Adamic bloodline of Joseph and the reference to Mary’s cousin being a daughter of Aaron showing her bloodline was also pure Adamic. This provides the unpolluted seed of Eve to bruise the seed of Satan which existed before the was any children born to Eve. From the time of Jesus the pure Adamic bloodline has been mixed completely with the first creation therefore the current DNA of Mankind would find its beginning within the first creation of mankind.

    “So what is the purpose of a second creation of man?”

    Margaret
    It was to provide what the first creation couldnt, the ability to become a spiritual being so God can live amongst all of mankind which by the obidience of Jesus the Adamic line was redeemed which now includes all mankind through the release of command for Israel to stay separate by God claiming all men are clean, this is what is meant by Neither jew or gentile within the New covenant.
    Isnt God’s plan wonderful

  111. on 01 Jun 2010 at 11:46 amRay

    I wonder if God divided the light from the darkness (Gen 1:4) by giving the earth as it was, it’s first rotation.

  112. on 01 Jun 2010 at 1:31 pmrobert

    Ray
    Verse 4 is just giving definition to light and dark. while before the earth being set into rotation there was only light on one side while there was dark on other. there are still places within our solar system that hasnt seen the light of the sun and there is spots that have extended days and night here on our earth. In verse 14 is where we see it first applies to time , this is where God started the rotation of earth.

    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day [4] from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

  113. on 01 Jun 2010 at 2:40 pmRay

    I was thinking that God may have given the “earth” (as it was) some rotation in verse 4 before he gave the lights of verse 14 the
    purpose whereof they now continue to serve.

  114. on 01 Jun 2010 at 3:42 pmMargaret Collier

    Actually that view doesnt contradict the creation of mankind and the formation of a certain man.

    To be honest, Robert, I can’t follow your reasoning. Genesis 1:26 and 27 puts together the decision to make mankind with the act of creating THE man. Making them mean two different creations just makes no sense, to my way of thinking.

    The “new” creation I understand to be the creation of new creatures in Christ, who is the “second man”. And yes, God’s plan is wonderful, however we may misunderstand it.

    Read 1 Corinthains 15, and you will see that Adam was the FIRST man, the man who sinned. The SECOND man is the Lord from heaven (v. 47), the man who never sinned.

    So maybe we should just accept the fact that we don’t see eye to eye on this. I am happy that all of us can trace our lineage back to one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. And I am glad to acknowledge that they were created by God, not by evolution.

    On that, at least, I think we agree.

  115. on 01 Jun 2010 at 4:19 pmrobert

    “To be honest, Robert, I can’t follow your reasoning. Genesis 1:26 and 27 puts together the decision to make mankind with the act of creating THE man. Making them mean two different creations just makes no sense, to my way of thinking.”

    Margaret
    Verse 27 doesnt speak of THE MAN, the plural context can not mean Man it can only mean Men by the reference to they and them which makes Ha adam mean the mankind. You have to take the whole sentences and prior reference into consideration to understand what is being spoke of. In genesis2 is a singular reference which makes Ha Adam mean The Man.

    “Read 1 Corinthains 15, and you will see that Adam was the FIRST man, the man who sinned. The SECOND man is the Lord from heaven (v. 47), the man who never sinned.”

    I have read this and now can see this references 1st adam 6th day as flesh and last Adam 8th day as spiritual.
    If the Adam of genesis 2 wasnt spiritual then His fall would of involved his death in the flesh the VERY day he sinned. Tradition created Jesus as this Adam. While Jesus was the unpolluted Son of 8th Day Adam who was The Christ(anointed man) from the Garden(HEAVEN ON EARTH).
    Every time you read Christ it doesnt mean just Jesus, it also refers to satan,Kings, Priest and Prophets if the bible was completely translated equally.

    Your first clue was the beginning of verse 45 “And so it is written,” Show me one place other than genesis1 and 2 where this could be written.

  116. on 01 Jun 2010 at 7:33 pmMargaret Collier

    Excuse me, Robert, but in my Hebrew text, verse 27 does speak of THE MAN (eth ha adm).

    I don’t know what kind of text you are using, but I would like to avoid it.

    Also, if you are suggesting that the Adam of Genesis 2 was Christ (the anoionted man), then it’s time we brought this particular conversation to an end. That’s the Adam that SINNED. Remember? He left paradise because he was DRIVEN OUT. He is the one through whose disobedience death was passed on all men, because all have sinned in the same way: by disobedience.

    So I was dead – dead in trespasses and in sins – until by faith in the sinless sacrifice of Christ, I was forgiven. By the obedience of the second man, the Lord from heaven, I was made alive.

    I can only conclude that Adam was NOT the sinless Savior. He was NOT the second man. The second man was the Lord from heaven, and he did not sin.

  117. on 01 Jun 2010 at 7:55 pmrobert

    Margaret
    It was all explained in the post that you said you read, It is the correct translation.
    As far as Christ goes it is just a title that has been given to every king of Israel and Judea, Every prophet, Every priest, Adam before he sinned, and EVEN SATAN BEFORE HE SINNED.
    It is what Jesus was anointed with(Holy Spirit) that gives him the position of being the Agent of GOD THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE SAVIOR.
    If it wasnt for the gift of God and the Grace of God Jesus would of just died a righteous Man as many others in his bloodline. Maybe even the last righteous man.
    Adam before he sinned held the position Jesus now holds

  118. on 03 Jun 2010 at 10:44 pmMargaret Collier

    Thomas – I’ve been looking at various sources to see if there is any help on the identity of the “sons of God” and the Nephilim. I found four suggestions:

    1. The sons of God are angels. [I agree with you that this is not likely.]
    2. The sons of God are the line of Seth, and the daughters of men are from Cain’s line. [Maybe.]
    3. The sons of God are men (sons of Adam), but they are demon-possessed. [This is an interesting possibility. Remember how strong the demon-possessed man in Mark 5:4 was? But there are problems.]

    4. The fourth possibility is given in the NIV Study Bible notes, and it really appeals to me. It suggests that the sons of God were leaders of clans. And the idea is based on three premises:
    a) Kings/sheiks in OT times were called “sons of God”.
    b) They were not always the oldest in the family. They were the strongest, the fittest, the best (e.g. David).
    c) Lamech took more than one wife (Genesis 4:19), and later rulers often had many wives, although that was never intended by God.

    So – it is possible that these rulers were stronger and fitter than the rest; and because of their position of authority they could marry anybody they liked. So their offspring were mighty men, heroes in their time.

    But they were “fallen” men. They lived for themselves, not for God. And polygamy was one of the symptoms.

    As for giants, the tallest living man today is Leonid Stadnyk at 8ft. 5 ins. So under certain circumstances, the human genome is capable of explaining all of it. Including Goliath.

    I don’t know, Thomas. Nobody knows for sure. But that last possibility makes sense to me.

  119. on 03 Jun 2010 at 10:56 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    Thank you for taking the time to research this for me. I am always interested in hearing different (new) points of view. The fourth possibility does seem to be the most likely of the ones mentioned. One of my favorite Christian expressions is that “God cannot steer a parked car!”

    I try my best to keep an open mind to new ideas and then I try to let God steer me either toward the new idea or away from the new idea. One of the best things I love about this blog is that a wide variety of views are expressed here giving me an opportunity to decide what seems to make the most sense to me…

  120. on 04 Jun 2010 at 5:02 amJaco

    Margaret,

    You made some interesting observations. I took note of all three of them.

    On your fourth point, I’d like to say a few things, please.

    a) Kings/sheiks in OT times were called “sons of God”.

    This is true. But also were angels called sons of God. Kings/sheiks being called “sons of God/gods” introduces more of a cultural aspect of the Ancient Near East, which has elements of what is today regarded as Ancient Near Eastern mythology. (Not that it is necessarily wrong).

    b) They were not always the oldest in the family. They were the strongest, the fittest, the best

    That is true, if indeed they were human. I don’t think age has that much to do with the identity of these beings.

    c) Lamech took more than one wife (Genesis 4:19), and later rulers often had many wives, although that was never intended by God.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but your syllogism goes like that:

    First premise: Lamech and later rulers were human and took more than one wife

    Second premise: The “sons of God” took more than one wife

    Conclusion: Ergo, the “sons of God” were human like Lamech and later rulers

    I have two problems with this: 1. Being (namely, human or angelical) is derived from behaviour. Slippery slope

    2. The structure of this syllogism is called the fallacy of undistributed middle. It is like saying, Michael (archangel) was a leader of the angels. Jesus was a leader of the angels. Thus, Jesus is Michael the archangel.

    So, I understand the “sons of God” to be angels who took on human bodies and, contrary to their design or purpose, had intercourse with humans. That, in my mind, does correspond well with 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6.

    But, as Thomas said, we must keep an open mind. To convince me otherwise just requires some more definite lines of evidence.

    BTW, I agree with your assessment of Ge. 1:27 in that YHWH made eth ha adam’. The subject is definite there.

    Great thoughts

    Jaco

  121. on 04 Jun 2010 at 5:04 amJaco

    The subject is definite there.

    Correction: not subject, but object

  122. on 04 Jun 2010 at 9:35 amrobert

    Jaco,Margaret
    If you are going to enter into that type of reasoning then when you try to understand these verses using” eth ha Adam” in the plural it should confuse the whole meaning of these verses below.
    You have to use the whole subject matter to understand the tense being spoke of. Them and They set the tense to plural in genesis 1 :26-27 therefore making the meaning THE MANKIND not the man.
    Or either ADAM was 1500 years old and was the only person the flood was to destroy or in Isaiah Adam was 2800 years old

    Genesis 6
    7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man(eth ha Adam) whom I have created from the face of the earth;

    Isaiah 6
    12 And the Lord have removed men(eth ha Adam) far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

  123. on 04 Jun 2010 at 6:49 pmRay

    It seems to me that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:2 were men who came into relationship with God by the spirit of wisdom as men called upon the name of the Lord. It seems to me
    that such progressed with God but fell away and corrupted themselves, many of them becoming tyrants, leaders of men, oppressors, corrupted men who once were enlightened.

    Doesn’t it always seem that when people who knew God fall away from him that they become worse than all men? Isn’t it so that if a man overcome but be taken again, that he is in a worse condition?
    Didn’t Jesus and his apostles talk about this happening to a man?

    It seems to me that it happened to those men mentioned in Genesis 6:2. It seems that many of them become great in stature also, in the physical sense.

    Just as angels fell with Satan, these men also must have fallen into
    corrption.

  124. on 04 Jun 2010 at 9:36 pmMargaret Collier

    To convince me otherwise just requires some more definite lines of evidence.

    I’m not trying to convince anybody, Jaco. The fact is, nobody knows for sure.

    I find the fourth suggestion appealing, because it doesn’t require angelic participation. It keeps the whole story within the realm of mankind, which is the species that God intends to destroy.

    Whatever the case, it is remarkable to me that the human genome has been capable of diverging into so many very distinct types, and yet all of them clearly a single species.

    How wonderful are thy ways, O God!

  125. on 04 Jun 2010 at 10:14 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “How wonderful are thy ways, O God!”

    I agree. God’s plan, purpose and creation never ceases to amaze me…

  126. on 05 Jun 2010 at 9:58 amMargaret Collier

    Robert – I owe you an apology. I have looked again at all the scriptures, and I agree that adm and eth ha-adm are used interchangeably. Either one can mean mankind, and either one can mean a single man, depending on the context.

    After looking at it all again, though, I still cannot find any indication that there were two different kinds of mankind.

    Nor do I see any need for them.

    As for the problem of Cain’s wife, Thomas, I don’t think there is a problem at all, if we remember that the list of names given in the genealogies is selective. In every case, each man is said to have “fathered sons and daughters” – just as you would expect of any normal, healthy couple. There would be sisters close to Cain’s age, in other words, as well as younger ones. And Adam’s offspring would not all remain at home.

    In any case, science now agrees that the offspring of a single man and a single woman managed to populate the entire earth. That’s exciting.

  127. on 05 Jun 2010 at 10:04 amMargaret Collier

    You have a point, Ray. It does seem that those who wilfully reject truth will be led into greater error. (See John 3:19 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

  128. on 05 Jun 2010 at 10:42 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I agree that your explanation is indeed possible. In message #98 above I list some of the hints I see in the scripture that make Robert’s point of view seem to be the most logical to me. Like Genesis 4:14. I wish I had a book like you and Robert do so I could look up what Cain meant by “The Ground” in this passage. Maybe I should look into buying one to help me in my studies…

  129. on 05 Jun 2010 at 10:57 amrobert

    “Robert – I owe you an apology. I have looked again at all the scriptures, and I agree that adm and eth ha-adm are used interchangeably. Either one can mean mankind, and either one can mean a single man, depending on the context.”

    Margaret
    You done nothing to apologize for.
    We are not in agreement if you claim adm and eth ha-adm are used interchangeably. The uses of both has it own purpose.
    I do agree that both can be plural or singular depending on the context of subject.

    “In any case, science now agrees that the offspring of a single man and a single woman managed to populate the entire earth. That’s exciting. ”

    Margaret
    I find this no problem with my belief because I believe all the races created the 6th day probably interbreed and the offspring of Adam and Eve have interbreed with them. I believe Jesus and His family were some of the very last of the Pure Adamic Race and if they werent 2000 years of of the classification of all mankind being clean which was a release of Israel to stay separate which was only necessary to for one (THE SEED) of the pure Adamic race to right the wrong of the sin of Adam This was one of God’s promises to Abraham, The acceptance of all mankind as clean was another promise.

    “In every case, each man is said to have “fathered sons and daughters” – just as you would expect of any normal, healthy couple.”

    Margaret
    All this is spoke of as happening AFTER Seth

  130. on 05 Jun 2010 at 5:15 pmrobert

    Thomas here is a breakdown Genesis 4:14
    here a link to net bible
    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=4&verse=14

    Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth and from thy face shall I be hid and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me

    ——————————————————————————–
    Behold thou hast driven me out
    garash (gaw-rash’)
    to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce — cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, surely put away, trouble, thrust out.
    ——————————————————————————–
    this day
    yowm (yome)
    a day (as the warm hours),
    ——————————————————————————–
    from the face
    paniym (paw-neem’)
    the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.)
    ——————————————————————————–
    of the earth
    ‘adamah (ad-aw-maw’)
    soil (from its general redness) — country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land.
    ——————————————————————————–
    and from
    `al (al)
    above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow)
    ——————————————————————————–
    thy face
    paniym (paw-neem’)
    the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.)
    ——————————————————————————–
    shall I be hid
    cathar (saw-thar’)
    to hide (by covering), literally or figuratively — be absent, keep close, conceal, hide (self), (keep) secret, surely.
    ——————————————————————————–
    and I shall be a fugitive
    nuwa` (noo’-ah)
    to waver, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively (as subjoined)
    ——————————————————————————–
    and a vagabond
    nuwd (nood)
    to nod, i.e. waver; figuratively, to wander, flee, disappear; also (from shaking the head in sympathy), to console, deplore, or (from tossing the head in scorn) taunt
    ——————————————————————————–
    in the earth
    ‘erets (eh’-rets)
    the earth (at large, or partitively a land) — common, country, earth, field, ground, land, natins, way, + wilderness, world.
    ——————————————————————————–
    and it shall come to pass
    hayah (haw-yaw)
    to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)
    ——————————————————————————–
    that every one that findeth me
    matsa’ (maw-tsaw’)
    to come forth to, i.e. appear or exist; transitively, to attain, i.e. find or acquire; figuratively, to occur, meet or be present
    ——————————————————————————–
    shall slay me
    harag (haw-rag’)
    to smite with deadly intent — destroy, out of hand, kill, murder(-er), put to (death), make (slaughter), slay(-er), surely.

  131. on 05 Jun 2010 at 6:09 pmMargaret Collier

    You’re right, Robert. We don’t agree. Let’s leave it at that.

  132. on 05 Jun 2010 at 6:14 pmMargaret Collier

    Just one thing. If Jesus came from the pure Adamic race, then we are ALL from the pure Adamic race.

    The flood left only Noah and his family. All of mankind after that came from that family alone.

  133. on 05 Jun 2010 at 6:29 pmrobert

    “Just one thing. If Jesus came from the pure Adamic race, then we are ALL from the pure Adamic race.

    The flood left only Noah and his family. All of mankind after that came from that family alone”

    Margaret
    The flood was only a regional flood to provide separation of the Adamic race from the 6th day races and Cain bloodline through the 6day races and from the line of Seth that polluted the bloodline by taking daughters of men.

    “You’re right, Robert. We don’t agree. Let’s leave it at that. ”

    Margaret
    there wouldnt be a single discussion here if everyone agreed on everything. I have learned alot from ours because you challenged me to dig a little deeper.
    I thank you for that

  134. on 06 Jun 2010 at 10:12 pmMargaret Collier

    The flood was only a regional flood to provide separation of the Adamic race from the 6th day races and Cain bloodline through the 6day races and from the line of Seth that polluted the bloodline by taking daughters of men.

    I didn’t intend to pursue this discussion any further, but this paragraph leaves me bewildered. If “Seth … polluted the bloodline by taking daughters of men,” how can Jesus be of the “pure Adamic race”? There must be something wrong.

    By the way, I agree that the flood was probably regional; but it removed all of mankind except Noah and his family.

    Who else was left, in your estimation?

  135. on 06 Jun 2010 at 10:26 pmrobert

    If “Seth … polluted the bloodline by taking daughters of men,” how can Jesus be of the “pure Adamic race”? There must be something wrong.

    Margaret
    Did i say the WHOLE line of Seth was polluted.

    Who else was left, in your estimation?
    Lets see
    The Asians, Africans, Americans(Red and White) and many more that migrated through out the world . there is ample physical evidence there was a white race in America 30K years ago. the Chinese out date the middle east by thousands of years and the Africans show the oldest dating.

  136. on 06 Jun 2010 at 11:24 pmrobert

    Genesis 3
    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    Margaret
    Just one more thing before you shut me off.

    Just what do you understand about this verse that speaks of 2 different seedlines? If Cain took a wife from amongst Adam’s children this could not be possible because Cain’s offsprings would now be of the same seedline making what God spoke impossible

  137. on 07 Jun 2010 at 9:31 amMargaret Collier

    I will never shut you off if you introduce something we have not discussed, Robert. I agree that discussing points on which we differ is useful.

    I don’t know what “seed-line” I can attribute to the serpent. Do you think that the serpent (or Satan) physically fathered human beings? I don’t.

    My own conclusion is that anyone who turns away from God and obeys the serpent can be considered the seed of the serpent.

    That fits what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews. He told them that Satan was their father. But he ALSO told them that anyone who believes in the “sent one” of God will become a child of God.

    The only two “seed-lines” I can find in the New Testament are unbelievers, whose father is the Devil, and believers, whose Father is God.

    The point is, an unbeliever can BECOME a child of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He does not have to REMAIN among the seed of the serpent.

  138. on 07 Jun 2010 at 9:48 amJoseph

    Robert, just curious, did you get the serpent seedline view from Arnold Murray of Shephard’s Chapel?

  139. on 07 Jun 2010 at 9:55 amMargaret Collier

    About the flood.

    If all the people you listed belong to mankind, they could not have survived the flood, because ALL of mankind was destroyed except Noah’s family. (See Genesis 6:7)

    Then why do I think the flood was probably regional?

    Because before the flood, Adam’s descendents had not left that region.

    If you look at all the place names listed before the flood, you will see that all of them are in or near the Mesopotamian Plain. That’s a big enough region to make a plausible flood plain. And when the flood was over, the only humans left were Noah and his family.

    That perfectly fits the scientific evidence that ALL the people in the world are descended from a small population, which can be traced back to one man and one woman. That small population increased rapidly and migrated all over the world. There is DNA evidence for that.

    Altogether, I can see no reason for thinking that there were two kinds of men created. That is just an unnecessary complication of what seems like a straightforward account.

  140. on 07 Jun 2010 at 10:24 amrobert

    Margaret
    I dare to say that surely you see Jesus as the literal,physical fulfillment of the seed that bruises. So how can you claim one as literal and the other as figurative.
    There was no reason for God to send Cain away especially since he was being protected if it wasnt to separate Eve’s seed through Adam from Satan’s seed that was produced when she sinned with Satan. There spiritual existance was not to reproduce as you see ours wont be either in the future heaven, Reproduction is how natural beings are to live forever through our offsprings.This was the only opportunity for satan to reproduces because Eve was in a spiritual body at the time she sinned which after she sinned with Adam the same way to produce Adams first offspring. Abel and Cain were paternal twins fathered by different fathers. I do not believe that spiritual beings can mate with natural beings but if you truly read Gen3 you will see it was 2 spiritual beings that brought forth Cain.
    when you can see this then you can understand every action by God to separate Seths line from Adam from Cains line from satan. The whole OT is about this separation.

  141. on 07 Jun 2010 at 10:28 amrobert

    “Robert, just curious, did you get the serpent seedline view from Arnold Murray of Shephard’s Chapel?”

    Joseph
    No ,I got it from Reading the Bible, but have seen that name amongst searches but have steered clear because there was enough in the preview to tell me he is using this subject for self promotion.

  142. on 07 Jun 2010 at 10:48 amMargaret Collier

    There is one other bit of scientific evidence that might interest Thomas, who (I think) is interested in science. (Please understand that science does not govern what I believe. But when scientific evidence agrees with what the Bible says, I accept it gladly.)

    The DNA studies referred to above are of several kinds, the two major ones being the study of mitochondrial DNA, all of which comes from the mother, and Y-chromosome DNA, all of which comes from the father.

    These two lines of research indicate that the “most recent common mother” goes back farther in time than the “most recent common father”. How can that be?

    Noah’s family explains it. And I am grateful to Fazale Rana of RTB for pointing this out.

    After the flood, all the males had the same most recent common father: Noah. There was just Noah, and Noah’s sons.

    But the four women did NOT have the same mother. In fact, if you could trace each one back until you found the most recent COMMON mother, it is altogether possible that you would have to go all the way back to Eve.

    That would fit perfectly, because Eve “became the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20).

    Oh, the beauty of God’s word, and the wonder of his works!

  143. on 07 Jun 2010 at 11:05 amMargaret Collier

    I believe that Jesus was literally the seed of Eve. His natural and physical genealogy goes back to “the mother of all living”.

    No such genealogy traces anybody back literally to the serpent.

    The Bible says that the MAN knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain (Genesis 4:1).

    That means Satan was not Cain’s father, Robert. Adam was Cain’s father. The Bible says so.

  144. on 07 Jun 2010 at 11:14 amrobert

    “The Bible says that the MAN knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain (Genesis 4:1).”

    Marg
    Isnt is strange that only one conception is mentioned to bring about both Cain and Abel. Paternal twins can be concieved weeks apart. Al that is mentioned in this verse is Adam had sex and Eve conceived. It doesnt say they conceived Cain it just states He was born First. The conception was that of Abel because Cain was already conceived.

    Joseph
    If you were to summarize the Ot would you say separation would be a fair choice. and The Nt would summarized the Joining

  145. on 07 Jun 2010 at 1:06 pmrobert

    Let me state a NT reference that Backs my claim 100%

    1 John 3:12

    Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

    WHO IS THE WICKED ONE THAT CAIN IS FROM

  146. on 07 Jun 2010 at 2:57 pmMargaret Collier

    Cain was “of that wicked one” because his deeds were evil.

    The children of the devil are those who disobey God and obey Satan. They can CEASE to be the children of Satan and become the children of God through faith in Christ.

    NO PASSAGE suggests that Eve had sex with Satan. The only one she had sex with (according to the text) was her husband.

    Good-bye, Robert. Your explanations are becoming so fanciful that I can see no reason to continue.

    We will just disagree. Okay?

  147. on 07 Jun 2010 at 4:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret (msg. 142)
    I am also grateful to Fazale Rana of RTB for pointing that out. That is fascinating!! I do enjoy science and believe we can learn about God through studying his creation (science, etc…). Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject is rather limited compared to many other people I know…

  148. on 07 Jun 2010 at 5:35 pmrobert

    “Good-bye, Robert. Your explanations are becoming so fanciful that I can see no reason to continue.”

    Evidently my beliefs are too much for you and you explainations cant cover it.
    But it has gotten a little hostile on your part so agreeing to disagree would be best.

  149. on 08 Jun 2010 at 1:06 pmMargaret Collier

    I’m glad you like science, Thomas. True science and the Bible will always be in agreement.

    I will look up some of Rana’s articles that have been a help to me and give you a link. He always gives documentation for what he says, but his words are much easier to understand than the technical language of most scientific researchers.

    In any case, so far as the account in Genesis 1 is concerned, I am absoluteluy satisfied that modern scientific research harmonizes with it perfectly.

  150. on 09 Jun 2010 at 9:08 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I’m sorry I took so long to respond to your message. It’s just that I try not to post two postings in a row if I can help it. Unfortunately at the time of day (after work) when I have time to blog no one else seems to be blogging but me. Probably has a lot to do with the time change and such.

    I would love to read some of Rana’s articles. I like the fact that he doesn’t use technical language and is easy to understand. One of my favorite shows is called “TVO kids” it’s a science show aimed at kids so it is very easy to understand. The science that they teach kids today is far beyond the science I remember being taught in school back in the 70’s…

  151. on 10 Jun 2010 at 1:17 pmMargaret Collier

    I’ve been reading some of Rana’s articles again. My problem is – I don’t know what your level of knowledge is, or what area of science appeals to you most.

    However, here is something on Comparing Computer Operating Systems and Genomes that I found exciting. If it doesn’t mean much to you, let me know, and I’ll try something that will help.

    The exciting thing, to my mind, is not just that bacterial genomes are so much like computer operating systems (that can’t exist without being designed), but that the bacterial operating systems are designed to be “robust” rather than “cost effective”.

    In other words, those genomes were meant to last. And they have lasted (if scientific estimates are accurate) for over 3.5 billion years, without any basic changes.

    The implications of that are tremendous, but easy to over-simplify. So I’ll wait and see what your reaction is before continuing.

    I have had a lot of help from an on-line biology text-book from Harvard. I can give you a link to that, if you wish. But let me warn you: biology is the same as every other scientific study. It is much more complex than we might imagine.

    But every little thing that I have been able to take in causes me to worship the God who designed it all.

    By the way, we have been having a lot of electrical storms the last few days, and I have left my computer off a lot of the time. So I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m slow responding to something you post.

  152. on 10 Jun 2010 at 4:08 pmMargaret Collier

    One of the interesting things that I came across when I was studying some of the theories regarding evolution was the “natural barrier” to hybridization. A lion and a tiger can interbreed (in an artificial – not natural – environment), but neither the “liger” (father = lion) nor the “tigon” (father = tiger) has been called a “species”.

    There is a good reason for that. The male is always sterile. So there is no such thing as a “second generation” tigon or liger.

    God made the species separate. They reproduce “after their own kind”.

    Just another of the wonders of God’s creation, revealed in science.

  153. on 10 Jun 2010 at 6:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I tried that link and I got this weird message that said, “Ooops…where did you get such a link…You are looking for something that is not here.” I would love to read any article that thought you might have found profound revelations in. I use to subscribe to Scientific American. Even though there was much in it I couldn’t understand I think I could get the drift of most of what they were talking about.

    You said, “I don’t know what your level of knowledge is.”

    Because of circumstances beyond my control I was forced to leave home at the age of 16 (wouldn’t put up with any more abuse from my Dad). I took a bus to Toronto and lived on the streets there (beginning of winter around the end of November). I was force to grow up pretty fast. I never did get to finish high school and I’m what you might call self educated (street smart).

    Looking back on it I realize that God must have been protecting me and looking out for me because nothing bad ever happened to me. Even though at the time I was a staunch atheist and had rejected God he still looked after me and kept me safe which goes to show how loving, merciful, compassionate and wonderful he is…

  154. on 10 Jun 2010 at 10:30 pmrobert

    Thomas
    try this link ,there is several articles listed

    http://www.reasons.org/resources/news-archive

  155. on 10 Jun 2010 at 10:49 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    Thanks. It’s getting late now. I’ll look at it tomorrow…

  156. on 11 Jun 2010 at 5:05 pmrobert

    “Because of circumstances beyond my control I was forced to leave home at the age of 16 (wouldn’t put up with any more abuse from my Dad). I took a bus to Toronto and lived on the streets there (beginning of winter around the end of November). I was force to grow up pretty fast. I never did get to finish high school and I’m what you might call self educated (street smart).”

    Thomas
    God given common sense doesnt come from a book and You posess more than your fair share and thats worth more than any college degree.

  157. on 11 Jun 2010 at 5:33 pmDoubting Thomas

    Thanks Robert. I like to think that God guides me in everything that I do. I’m always asking God to guide me in my life…

    Margaret
    I couldn’t read that link “Comparing computer operating systems and Genomes.” But I did read a really neat article that Robert sent me by Dr. Fazale it was called “Splicing together the case for design, Part 1 (of 2)” dated June 10, 2010. It was fascinating and the best part was if I didn’t understand a word I could just click on it and it would give me a definition.

    It never ceases to amaze me what’s available today on the internet.
    It makes learning about new things that interest you so easy…

  158. on 11 Jun 2010 at 6:43 pmrobert

    Thomas
    The article Marg was refering too was amongst the list, I also love science because it challenges me to think. I have read a few articles so far and some were very interesting but not sure just how accurate they are. But i do like looking at several possibilities and other views before making a call .Of course on several subjects the truth may not even be amongst the list.

    BTW
    Marg mentioned she was having electrical storms where she lived which could be why shes AWOL

  159. on 11 Jun 2010 at 6:52 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    Thanks. I’ll go back to the list and read the article…

  160. on 11 Jun 2010 at 7:31 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    The article is amazing and does seem to indicate a intelligent designer behind the genomes. I clicked on the word genome to get a definition and it was very technical and hard to understand, but then at the top I noticed it said, “For a non-technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to genetics.” I found the Introduction to genetics article much easier to understand.

    When you think of micro-biology and how complex it is, it really makes you appreciate the sheer genius of God and makes you appreciate how magnificent his creation is and of course how marvelous he is…

  161. on 11 Jun 2010 at 8:18 pmrobert

    Thomas
    Intelligent design is the only choice that makes sense, even if the whole bible was a myth I would still see that intelligent design could be the only option. Everyday I see something that could of never just evolved.

  162. on 11 Jun 2010 at 8:23 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I agree. I just wish I could convince my son. Unfortunately all his friends in University are atheists that make fun of people that believe in God. He’s at that age where peer pressure (wanting to be accepted by all his friends) is very strong…

  163. on 11 Jun 2010 at 11:06 pmMargaret Collier

    I would love to have a long chat with your son, Thomas.

    By the way, there was an atheist (Stabby the clown) on the other thread I was talking about. He challenged me to show that Genesis 1 doesn’t violate the order in which things appear. The tough one had to do with land vegetation and marine life. RTB to the rescue once again.

    I was allowed to go through the whole chapter (with only a few interruptions), referring to genuine (not YEC) scientific documents. At the end, I listed the order of things as they appear in Genesis 1, and then asked Stabby to check the order against the scientific evidence.

    He didn’t answer.

    The discussion with Stabby begins at about post # 262 on page 17. I don’t know how to give a link to that particular post, but this will get you to the top of page 17 (I think). Scroll down to post 262 and you will find Stabby’s challenge.

    Some day I really want to get all of the material together in one place. But on the other hand, the interruptions help to clarify things.

  164. on 12 Jun 2010 at 12:11 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I would love it if you could have a long talk with my son. From talking to you I can tell your very well educated and much more knowledgeable, when it comes to science and such, than I am.

    I will talk to my son and see if I can convince him to log on to this website and talk with you. He was just telling me that he doesn’t have to work and has no plans this weekend. If you could tell me the best time of day for him to log on, I think I can convince him.

    He’s just finished his second year of studying Psychology at University and has known more about science/math etc… than I do since he was in High School. He is very intelligent…

  165. on 12 Jun 2010 at 11:27 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I was just talking to my son and right now he is reading the conversation that you had with Stabby that you posted above (msg. 163)…

  166. on 12 Jun 2010 at 2:55 pmrobert

    “Robert
    I agree. I just wish I could convince my son. Unfortunately all his friends in University are atheists that make fun of people that believe in God. He’s at that age where peer pressure (wanting to be accepted by all his friends) is very strong…”

    Thomas
    Convicing him while he is subjected to this peer pressure might not be the best time. they will breakdown what evidence that is presented to him and that might leave a lasting impression. there will come a time when they nolonger will have that type of influence over him. I have met several atheist that read the bible for its moral value. Their main reason for them being an atheist is they do not know that there are other options beside the traditional view which causes the bible to read like a myth.
    If i had a choice for my son when he reached this age i would perfer him to be an atheist over a traditionalist because i believe it is easier to come to the truth. You being my proof.

  167. on 12 Jun 2010 at 11:02 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    I’ve been thinking and praying about what you said about this not being the best time. I think you are probably right. My problem is that when I try to talk to my son about my beliefs I always end up getting to emotional (upset) which tends to turn him off. I thought because Margaret was so good at staying calm in her conversations with people that she would be more successful.

    I was just talking to my son and he didn’t agree with a single thing that Margaret had said in her debate with Stabby. He thinks my beliefs are ridiculous and I guess I’m just going to have to learn to accept that. I not going to give up praying that God will help him with his doubts. But like you said, timing is everything. I shouldn’t expect my prayers to be answered in my time.

    I need to trust God and his wisdom and his timing…

  168. on 12 Jun 2010 at 11:22 pmrobert

    Thomas
    God may have great plans for your son which at this present time may need a separation. as with you and me we have seen that the truth is easier to see when we havent been clouded with myths. He is just learning how to test the truth, when he has learned how he will seek out the truth as we have. My oldest daughter after she graduated college called me late one night to thank me for the way i raised her and the morals i instill in her. She said it all just dawned on her that very minute.
    they do grow up!

  169. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:54 amDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “They do grow up!”

    You are of course correct. I have to learn to let go and trust that God has everything under control and that everything is unfolding according to his plan…

  170. on 13 Jun 2010 at 12:11 pmrobert

    Thomas
    I really think a person needs to be ready to accept the whole truth. this only comes from maturity. from reading the verses below its better to be ignorant of the truth then to have the truth presented to just deny it. the most important thing to wish for him is that he leads a moral life till he is ready. this you can provide without him believing

    2 Peter 2
    19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

  171. on 14 Jun 2010 at 1:33 amMargaret Collier

    I’m sorry, Thomas. I have been away the last two days and just now read your post.

    I’d love to talk to your son on this thread, but if he would rather email me and bawl me out in private, my address is mlcoll@mts.net

    I’ll answer any question he asks. The answer may be, “I don’t know,” but I’ll answer. I am 80 years old, so I don’t know as much science as he does, but I’m ready to look up anything he suggests in order to learn more.

    In the meantime, here is an article by James Shapiro, a prominent molecular biologist, that you might find interesting. It’s an article that appeared first in the Boston Review. I’m going to copy just a few paragraphs. (Emphasis added.)

    It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics.

    The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates.

    However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science’s remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists’ criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

    In any case, I have a great deal of sympathy for your son. Dogmatic young-earth creationists have made the story of Genesis a joke, and dogmatic neo-Darwinists have made science a joke.

    It takes perseverence – and a willingness to go where the evidence leads – to get away from just following the crowd. EITHER crowd.

  172. on 14 Jun 2010 at 1:44 amMargaret Collier

    I see the link to Shapiro’s article didn’t go anywhere, either. Here is the url: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/third-way.html.

    And thank you, Robert, for helping Thomas find the article on the genome. I find the whole subject of genomics awe-inspiring.

  173. on 14 Jun 2010 at 1:45 amMargaret Collier

    I’m beginning to think something has gone wrong with the operating system here. Anyway, if you copy the url and paste it into Google, you should get it.

  174. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:32 pmrobert

    “And thank you, Robert, for helping Thomas find the article on the genome. I find the whole subject of genomics awe-inspiring. ”

    Margaret
    Your welcome
    Thomas is new to the computer thing and is just learning how to find things. I found the article very interesting but i see intellegent design everywhere i look so it wasnt really more inspiring to me than looking outside this morning

  175. on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:16 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    It is a remarkable that someone that hasn’t been in school for about 60 years or so is so knowledgeable about modern scientific concepts. You have a very active and sharp mind for someone who is 80 years old. You have destroyed all my preconceptions of what growing old would be like. I hope I’m half as excited to learn new things as you are when I reach your age. Your knowledge is of course surpassed be your life experience. You must have seen an awful lot in your life.

    There is a really good article on this blog written by Brian Keating on March 7th. 2010 called “Tolerance among Unitarians.” If you read the 20 comments you will get a good idea about what most people on this blog believe and what their general background is. I would be most interested in hearing what you think on this subject and about the journey that took you to your current Unitarian beliefs. You could be our 21st. post on that thread…

  176. on 14 Jun 2010 at 11:10 pmMargaret Collier

    You could be our 21st. post on that thread…

    Indeed I could.

    One ice thing about being old is that you have time to learn. And you can learn a tremendous amount from the internet. More, in fact, than any human can hold. But it’s fun to try.

    One of the sites that I really like to get at sometimes is John Kyrk’s animation pages.
    Try http://www.johnkyrk.com/mitosis.html This url will take you to the page on mitosis. By exploring the page and clicking on the arrows, you can learn a lot.

    And then go to other pages for more.

    There also a bunch of “biology for kids” sites. They are very good if you are really rusty.

    By the way, if the link doesn’t work, you can email me and I’ll send it that way.

  177. on 14 Jun 2010 at 11:35 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    The link worked fine. I will go back to the link later this week and play around some more. It’s getting late now. Have a good evening and God Bless…

  178. on 15 Jun 2010 at 7:31 amJaco

    Marg,

    I enjoy your posts. Could not visit kingdomready much lately. Can you send me your email details? Mine is talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com.

    Hope to hear from you.

    Jaco

  179. on 15 Jun 2010 at 12:51 pmMargaret Collier

    My email address is mlcoll@mts.net. I’d be glad to hear from you, Jaco.

  180. on 15 Jun 2010 at 1:00 pmrobert

    Margaret
    What is your educational training backgroung in the sciences.
    If you dont mind.

  181. on 15 Jun 2010 at 2:40 pmMargaret Collier

    No, I don’t mind. I have only grade 12 physics and chemistry (no biology).

    While I was teaching, I took second year university mathematics at summer school and did well.

    In astronomy, I have no formal training, but I have picked up a lot from Hugh Ross, and from on-line university sites. There are lots of them. There is really no excuse for ignorance if somebody wants to learn.

    Most of what I know about biology I have learned from books like Fazale Rana’s The Cell’s Design. That is a tremendous book. Another great one is Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. I have read both those books often, and each time I learn a little more.

    Also, I have learned heaps from Jim Kimball’s on-line biology text-book from Harvard. The url of the home page is http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/. You can pick out almost any subject and get help on it.

    I have no science degrees. And the science I learned in high school is far short of what kids learn today. But I am capable of learning, and that is something I don’t want to lose.

    While teaching, I learned how to learn ALONG WITH my students. I knew a lot more than they did; but learning WITH them is a tool that works well.

    Why do you ask?

  182. on 15 Jun 2010 at 2:52 pmrobert

    Margaret
    You seem to be very educated and was just wondering if you were taught or seeked out that knowledge on your own.
    I myself have only a highschool education in Science. But have self taught myself in physics. My oldest daughter has a degree in Biology , but main studies were genetics.
    One other reason i asked was to find out just how much you know about the refrigeration effect and kenetic energy.

  183. on 15 Jun 2010 at 5:16 pmMargaret Collier

    I know what kinetic energy IS, and I know some of the ways in which it is PRODUCED, but that’s all.

    I know that refrigeration means removing heat from one area (making it colder) and transferring it to another area (making it warmer.)

    But I don’t know what you are referring to by “the refrigeration effect”. What do you have in mind?

  184. on 15 Jun 2010 at 5:43 pmrobert

    Margaret
    I was going share some technology that i have in my posession and seek some advice on how i should move forward with it. you would have to sign a NDA (nondisclosure agreement).
    Have you any connections in the physics or mechanic engineering fields.

  185. on 15 Jun 2010 at 7:12 pmMargaret Collier

    Robert, I have no connections in the physics or mechanic engineering fields. Or any other fields, for that matter.

    If the technology you have in mind has commercial value, please get in touch with someone who knows more about it than I do. I would just be a hindrance to you.

  186. on 15 Jun 2010 at 7:41 pmrobert

    Margaret
    I have talked to several mechanical engineers and they want too much info before they sign NDA. Had one mega church here in texas that was willing to help develop but their interest was only the money and control.Same with a consultant to Exxon. All above look at me and see a simple country man. this is all with the weakest technology i have in my posession.
    its alright i have no problem waiting till the right one comes, but inquiring is the only way to know.

  187. on 16 Jun 2010 at 7:55 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I am just curious. Did you teach elementary or secondary school???

  188. on 16 Jun 2010 at 4:13 pmJoseph

    Margaret,

    A few good books for you to read that go into greater detail than just the general view of the many aspects of Creation theory…

    Bones of Contention – Marvin Lubenow
    Starlight and Time – Russell Humphreys
    Creation’s Tiny Mystery – Robert Gentry

    I’ll say it right now, anyone who says that it is a fact that science proves the Earth is billions of years old is lying. And anyone who says that science proves that the Earth is only Thousands of years old is lying. The fact is, there are assumptions in geological dating methods that need to be assumed in order to come to any date of the Earth. This is one of the main reasons why the date of our Universe and Earth have changed and continues to change as new factors come into play. I’m generally speaking now as this topic can go on for years with all of the data from either side.

    My personal view is that I’m open to either view. But, I’ll continue to lean toward the most literal Biblical view until the great empirical proof is presented on the Evolutionary side.

    Those in this forum believe in the instantaneous creation from God along some point. Whether is be the Universe, or up to the creation of life on Earth. The point I’m making is that a large portion of faith is required to believe that God is our creator, that he can make something from nothing, or that he can make a fully grown human from the elements of his creation.

    Robert, you believe that God could not have created the Earth instantly in a matured state, but do you believe that God created Adam instantly in a matured state?

    I say that God creating Adam in a matured state was common sense in that it was the only way that Adam could have cared for the creation God made for man. I also say that it makes sense that God would create a planet Earth in a matured state that would be a fully matured functioning planet that is able to sustain matured man. Just makes sense.

  189. on 16 Jun 2010 at 4:34 pmrobert

    “Robert, you believe that God could not have created the Earth instantly in a matured state, but do you believe that God created Adam instantly in a matured state?”

    Joseph
    I have no idea how long it took for God to create the first mankind , Just know he created them.
    As far as it goes with ADAM the word used is formed which does imply a process. How God performed that process was not included. He may have sustained him in Living water till he was mature simular to a baby being in womb.
    But this isnt relevent to geological formation which process are set within physics who GOD was the author of.

    “I’ll say it right now, anyone who says that it is a fact that science proves the Earth is billions of years old is lying. And anyone who says that science proves that the Earth is only Thousands of years old is lying. ”

    Joseph
    I agree 100% with you here. There are a few things that are certain that can set a min amount of time for ages within creation. One being light speed which we do know exactly the physics of it. the rest would be dependent on other factors which dont have exact data on.

  190. on 16 Jun 2010 at 4:50 pmMargaret Collier

    I am just curious. Did you teach elementary or secondary school???

    Both. The year in secondary high school was tough – except for the math, which is (was) my strong point. I had to work long hours to stay ahead of the class, and to find the answers to questions they asked.

    Most of the time I taught science and math to grades 7 and 8, and there was a lot of mutual learning done in those classes. It was fun, but it took a lot of my time.

    That is the one difficulty with teaching. It can take all of your hours, if you want to do a good job. But it’s rewarding.

  191. on 16 Jun 2010 at 4:54 pmMargaret Collier

    Thank you, Joseph, but I am familiar with Humphrey’s theory. The science is beyond me, but Danny Faulkner, a creationist who is also an professor of astronomer, has reviewed it and says it won’t work.

    I trust Danny Faulkner.

    I agree with you that no one can pin down the age of the universe; but there is clear evidence that it’s a lot more than a few thousand years old. I hope I have never quoted any number as a “fact”. The right word is “estimate”. And any estimate may well be wrong.

  192. on 16 Jun 2010 at 7:49 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “That is the one difficulty with teaching. It can take all of your hours, if you want to do a good job. But it’s rewarding.”

    I’ve always had a lot of of respect for teachers especially the amount of patience that is required in the job. My wife use to teach in an elementary school, but she didn’t teach normal kids. She only taught special needs kids. Back in the mid-1980’s in Ontario they integrated the special needs kids into the regular school system. My wife loved her work…

  193. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:37 pmJoseph

    Margaret,

    There are also other Creationists that do and don’t trust Humphrey’s model. Here is a link that I think you and your friend Danny Faulkner may find interesting. It is a link to a page that shows Humphrey’s critics assessments of his theory, and Humphrey’s rebuttals to his critics…

    http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

  194. on 17 Jun 2010 at 7:32 pmrobert

    Joseph
    I just read a few of them and wow they are way over my head.
    But my conclusion of this mans honesty has more to do with the experiment within the video you posted. This very intelligent man forgot to mention that to mark the exact time on both clocks would require some form of communication between the places where the clocks were kept. I dont know of any form of communication that couldnt provide a 5 micron delay min. The fact that he probably had to know this but doesnt mention it makes me question his honesty.

  195. on 17 Jun 2010 at 10:12 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I went back to the link Robert gave me in msg. 154 above and noticed a new article by Dr. Fazale Rana dated 17 June 2010 called Splicing Together the Case for Design, Part 2 (of 2). It was the second part of the article that I had read last week. It was a really great article. Near the end of the article it said, “the genetic code appears to be highly optimized” and when I clicked on this sentence it took me to another article called “I.D. in DNA Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code.”

    This turned out to be an even more interesting article. The basic conclusion was Genetic code evolution would be catastrophic for the cell and all this evidence provided in the article dictates the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for the Genetic code. I can see why you said in msg #172, “I find the whole subject of genomics awe-inspiring…”

  196. on 18 Jun 2010 at 7:03 pmMargaret Collier

    You have just touched the edge, Thomas.

    You may be familiar with the DNA computer which is being devloped. If not, here is the url for page 3 of a “Howstuffworks” article. It is fascinating.
    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dna-computer2.htm

    When you have absorbed all this, remember that the DNA code has been around for as long as life hs been around. The DNA they plan to use is bacterial DNA.

  197. on 18 Jun 2010 at 7:09 pmMargaret Collier

    Joseph – I don’t know Danny Faulkner, but I am familiar with his work. Unlike Humphreys, he makes sense. He has read all the criticisms and counter-criticisms, and he is able to recognize the flaws. I can’t.

    Danny wrote an article on what really concerns him in creationist science, and that is the lack of any rational answer to the star travel time problem. I’ll try to track it down, and you can get the opinion of someone who is a professor of both physics and astronomy, AS WELL AS BEING a young earth creationist.

  198. on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:24 pmMargaret Collier

    I can’t locate that article, Joseph, but Dr. Danny Faulkner’s webpage at SCU is http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/

    I have emailed him to ask whether a plausible solution to the star travel time problem has been suggested yet, and if so, to please give me a link to it.

    So far as Humphreys’ theory is concerned, Danny has written reasons why the science is flawed.

    I don’t like it because I think it makes the Genesis story a joke. IF WE READ THE TEXT and honor what it actually says, there is no problem that needs to be solved. All of it makes perfect sense, and it fits what modern science is observing.

    I see Faulkner has a new email address listed on his webpage, so I may have to try again.

  199. on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:56 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    I’m just curious, Are you a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist???

    Personally I’m an Old Earth Creationist, but I believe that God is outside of time and can manipulate time in different ways (This is why his prophets knew the details of future events). So I also believe that God could have sped up or manipulated time in such a way that a young earth is also a viable possibility (I don’t believe that we can ever know for sure one way or the other)…

  200. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:08 amMargaret Collier

    I had an answer from Danny Faulkner. I will copy it here:

    In the last couple of years I’ve developed my own explanation. I presented it at the CRS meeting last summer, and the abstract of that talk was published in a recent CRSQ. I haven’t yet published a full discussion yet. I can send you a copy of the draft when I complete it.
    Danny

    I’m looking forward to seeing it, and I hope I can understand it.

  201. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:41 amMargaret Collier

    Thomas – I agree that God is able to do anything. But I do not believe God “manipulates” evidence. If that’s the approach I take, then I have lost all credibility in the eyes of bright young science students. Why should they listen?

    The fact is, the text of Genesis gives NO HINT of how old ANYTHING is. The heavens and the earth were created BEFORE the six days began, and nobody can guess how LONG before.

    As for the “six days” themselves, God’s own definition for “day” prohibits the idea that a day = 24 hours.

    God says he SEPARATED the day from the night. That is so explicit I have to take it seriously. I do not believe that he would then immediately use the word in a way that COMBINES the very things he just SEPARATED. Men might do something like that; God wouldn’t.

    The word “day” is used in the Bible in two different ways, both of which are consistent with God’s definition of “LIGHT”.

    First, it is used of the natural 12 hours of daylight during which men were to work (Ex. 23:12 and 31:15). When Jesus asked his hearers, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9), they knew exactly what he meant.

    But they ALSO knew what he meant when he said, “I must do the works of him who sent me while it is still day. The night is coming, when no man can work.”

    There are several “days” in the Bible that refer to long periods of time, characterized by the “light” of some particular work of God. Tonight I will refer to some of them. You can probably think of some yourself.

    In the meantime, this morning I want to remember the Savior in the way he asked, with a congregation that is predominantly trinitarian, and most of whom are YEC’s. [Ironic, isn’t it?]

    Sometimes the flesh gets in the way, and the prayers seem to be just words.

    But sometimes God gives the gift of his presence, and the whole congregation then becomes “one”. We are no longer a bunch of individuals, but a single unit, with one voice singing praises to him who loved us, to him who washed away our sins and redeemed us to God by his own blood (Revelation 1:5; 5:9).

    Such times are sublime. But we have to accept them as a gift. We don’t deserve them.

  202. on 20 Jun 2010 at 9:06 amMargaret Collier

    I see we have more thunderstorms in the forecast. I may not turn on my computer for a couple of days; so I’ll just mention a few of the “days” that are consistent with God’s definition (Genesis 1:5).

    “The day of temptation in the wilderness” lasted forty years (Psalm 95:8).

    “The day of the Lord,” mentioned often in the OT, refers to long periods of judgement.

    “The day of visitation” was a period of “time” (Jeremiah 50:27).

    “The day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2) is with us still. And so on.

    That’s enough to convince me that the “days” of Genesis were long periods of time, characterized by some work that God was doing during each “day”. Nobody knows the length of each day; but the evidence of science can at least corroborate the SEQUENCE of events, and even the approximate age. That doesn’t really matter.

    I think it is evidence of the wisdom of God that the Bible does NOT give the length of the “days”. The story is written in a way that anyone, in any period of history, can believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” no matter how ignorant he may be of the details.

  203. on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:22 amDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    You said, “I do not believe God ‘manipulates’ evidence.”

    I agree. Why would God try to deceive us by manipulating the fossil record and other scientific evidence?? God is many things but he is ‘definately not a deceiver’. We all know who the ‘deceiver’ is in the bible.

    You also said, “The heavens and earth were created BEFORE the six days began, and nobody can guess how long before.”

    Again I agree. That is why I said, “Personally I’m an Old Earth Creationist.” I also agree with your biblical definition of the word ‘Day’ above.

    BTW- I’m going to pray that the rain out west where you live stops, so the farmers can finish planting their crops. From what I’ve heard the rain this spring out there has broke all the records and many people have been evacuated from their homes due to the flooding…

  204. on 20 Jun 2010 at 12:51 pmMark C.

    Margaret,

    The word “day” is indeed used in the ways that you mention, but it is also used to refer to a unit of time, i.e. 24 hours. Words can have more than one meaning, and for God to use them in different ways does not violate anything in His nature. Here are just a few examples of “day” used as such a unit of time:

    Ge 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

    Ge 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

    Ge 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

    Ge 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

    Ge 21:4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

    Ge 24:55 And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.

    Ge 30:36 And he set three days‘ journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.

    Ex 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

    Ex 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

    Ex 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.

    Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

    Le 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

    Le 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.

    Jos 6:3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

    Jud 14:17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.

    Es 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

    This one in Esther is a perfect example. If the word “day” cannot mean a combination of a night and a day, why would she say, “three days, night or day”? It’s really simple when we let the Bible speak for itself and don’t over-complicate it.

  205. on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:18 pmrobert

    “This one in Esther is a perfect example. If the word “day” cannot mean a combination of a night and a day, why would she say, “three days, night or day”? It’s really simple when we let the Bible speak for itself and don’t over-complicate it. ”

    Mark
    It could be to clarify the she wasnt eating or drinking at night either. Without clarifying there could a question.
    This would be a very weak example for your case because it can support both your views.

  206. on 20 Jun 2010 at 2:21 pmMark C.

    It could be to clarify the she wasnt eating or drinking at night either. Without clarifying there could a question.

    That’s exactly my point. The first use of the word day – “three days” – refers to the unit of time, which includes “day” (i.e. period of daylight) and “night”. Both uses of the word day are in the same verse, and it is a perfectly valid grammatical usage.

  207. on 20 Jun 2010 at 5:12 pmJoseph

    Margaret,

    I can’t locate that article, Joseph, but Dr. Danny Faulkner’s webpage at SCU is http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/

    I have emailed him to ask whether a plausible solution to the star travel time problem has been suggested yet, and if so, to please give me a link to it.

    So far as Humphreys’ theory is concerned, Danny has written reasons why the science is flawed.

    I don’t like it because I think it makes the Genesis story a joke. IF WE READ THE TEXT and honor what it actually says, there is no problem that needs to be solved. All of it makes perfect sense, and it fits what modern science is observing.

    I look forward to seeing Faulkner’s paper. I would be interested to see if Dr. Russell Humphreys would critique his work. Perhaps with permission from Faulkner we could email Humphreys his paper when he is finished with it. Also, I would like to see Humphreys rebuttal any critique that Faulkner has of his work. Before we can formulate a better opinion on which theory holds better this needs to happen.

    One reason I hold Dr. Humphreys so high is that he is highly accredited scientist. You can check out his specs here… http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

  208. on 20 Jun 2010 at 5:46 pmrobert

    “Both uses of the word day are in the same verse, and it is a perfectly valid grammatical usage. ”

    Mark
    That was not my point. My point was for some reason the person would wrote that didnt feel a day meant day and night and was worried it needed clarification. So as i pointed out this in no way supports your view any more than it does the opposite view.

  209. on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:46 pmMargaret Collier

    Mark – I appreciate the passages you quote. And you do have a point regarding Esther 4:16.

    Let me make my position clear. I can’t say that “day” NEVER refers to a 24-hour day. But I do say that in Genesis 1, a 24-hour day does not fit.

    By the way, some of the passages you quote do not support your position. For example, I don’t believe that “three days journey” equals 72 hours of steady traveling. The days are days of sunlight. If you look at each passage carefully, you’ll find that MOST of them refer to a natural day of sunlight.

    As for the verses in Exodus, since men do NOT work 24-hour days, I don’t see why we should assume that God did. It seems more likely that in both cases, the days were six periods of light.

    I agree that we need to let the Word of God mean what it says. That’s why I have to take seriously the definition for “day” that God gives in Genesis 1:5. He makes it perfectly clear that “day” = LIGHT, and “night” = DARKNESS. He makes a point of saying that he separated the light from the darkness.

    After making that explicit statement, presumably to help us understand the narrative, God would not immediately use the word in a way that contradicts his own definition. That is why I think that 24-hour days are not an option in Genesis 1.

    The only meanings for the word that FIT the definition are a natural 12-hour day, or else an indefinite period of time characterized by some work that God is doing during that “day”.

    Would you agree that the second meaning fits the text?

  210. on 21 Jun 2010 at 10:38 amMargaret Collier

    Just in case there is someone who doesn’t look at NASA’s astonomy picture of the day, here is today’s APOD, celebrating the summer solstice.
    http://apod.nasa.gov:80/apod/

  211. on 21 Jun 2010 at 7:40 pmDoubting Thomas

    Margaret
    Thanks for the link. The picture was beautiful. I just wanted to let you and Robert and everyone else know I am going away on vacation. I should be back on-line on the 29th. or 30th. of June. In the meantime may the peace of God be on you and also on all of us, God Bless…

  212. on 21 Jun 2010 at 8:36 pmrobert

    Thomas
    Have a safe trip
    May God bless It

  

Leave a Reply