It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were there 2 stories of Creation in Genesis?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2021 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Lumenari





In Genesis 1 the Elohim (Gods) made all things.


It's just Elohim. Not the Elohim. So no plural

Actually...

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”​—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.​—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.

That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Joh 6:56, 57.

If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”​—Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.​—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.



edit on 5-3-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: primalfractal
a reply to: neoholographic

There is certainly two separate creation stories for humanity in the bible.

The great ages of our evolution may well be represented, had not considered that before, sounds reasonable.

But I think it also relates to the cover-up of Adams first wife, Lilith.

Apple eater fell.

Never should have left her imo.




I've always only ever read one. Genesis has a way of repeating itself, perhaps for the story or it's style of poetry. God just reiterates. Everything is still in that same order.



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Timber13

Everything is still in that same order.



Hmmm.
Not so much, chapter one tells about Creation and Man kind is created last.
Chapter two, animals are created after Adam. Then Eve is created last.
I believe God created a dominate animal called man on the 6th day. Male and female He made them and gave them dominion over the other animals. This may have been Neanderthals.
After the 7th day, Adam was created, a spiritual man, a son of God, and set apart from the rest of creation in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve are eventually expelled from the Garden and are no longer separated from the non spiritual men.
This would explain where Cain found his wife and how he was able to build a city. He mingled with the non spiritual people in the world.
This also explains "as in the days of Noah" when the Sons of God looked upon the daughters of men and took them for wives.



edit on 17-3-2023 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 10:00 AM
link   
There are two stories of creation in Genesis because when the book was written, there were two common variants of the myth and the compilers didn't know which was the true one, so they combined them. Likewise with the flood story.



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
There are two stories of creation in Genesis because when the book was written, there were two common variants of the myth and the compilers didn't know which was the true one, so they combined them. Likewise with the flood story.


Genesis 2 is elaborating on the creation described in Genesis 1. It is common even in today's literature to state the thesis and then go into more detail with the ensuing text.



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
There are two stories of creation in Genesis because when the book was written, there were two common variants of the myth and the compilers didn't know which was the true one, so they combined them. Likewise with the flood story.


Genesis 2 is elaborating on the creation described in Genesis 1. It is common even in today's literature to state the thesis and then go into more detail with the ensuing text.


No, they are two different stories (with different authors) edited into one narrative. That's Bible fact.



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I have wondered if the stories are different because they are different perspectives and events from two different groups of people.
Chapter one being the view of the "earthly man", created on day six.
In this version God is transcendent. He is above all, creates all and sets earthly men and women on their path to be fruitful and multiply.

Chapter two being the view of the "spiritual man", created after the seventh day and placed in the Garden. In this version God is not so distant. He walks and interacts with the spiritual man frequently. Once they are cast out, we begin seeing that a separation has occurred and God becomes more of a transcendent being once again.
Yet, throughout the old testament, God still has a one on one relationship with the most spiritual characters.
edit on 17-3-2023 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

No, they are two different stories (with different authors) edited into one narrative. That's Bible fact.


Why do you suppose that is Bible fact?



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Timber13

Everything is still in that same order.



Hmmm.
Not so much, chapter one tells about Creation and Man kind is created last.
Chapter two, animals are created after Adam. Then Eve is created last.
I believe God created a dominate animal called man on the 6th day. Male and female He made them and gave them dominion over the other animals. This may have been Neanderthals.
After the 7th day, Adam was created, a spiritual man, a son of God, and set apart from the rest of creation in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve are eventually expelled from the Garden and are no longer separated from the non spiritual men.
This would explain where Cain found his wife and how he was able to build a city. He mingled with the non spiritual people in the world.
This also explains "as in the days of Noah" when the Sons of God looked upon the daughters of men and took them for wives.




I see what you're refering to but I keep reading it as a foreshadow. It seems off to have information about a people then nothing at all about them being decimated to replace them or fill the earth with them. Also, if that were the case, Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. Or God had populated the earth with one creation (Neanderthals?) and then created another race, starting with Adam and Eve.

It doesn't make sense that there isn't more information about that first race.

I think the poetry (as with a lot of the bible) is speaking of what took place then goes directly into detail of what took place.

Still, just my take on it. This is what makes sense to me.



posted on Mar, 17 2023 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
There are two stories of creation in Genesis because when the book was written, there were two common variants of the myth and the compilers didn't know which was the true one, so they combined them. Likewise with the flood story.


Genesis 2 is elaborating on the creation described in Genesis 1. It is common even in today's literature to state the thesis and then go into more detail with the ensuing text.


No, they are two different stories (with different authors) edited into one narrative. That's Bible fact.


Isn't fact without proof. Show your proof. You're here to convince me. So do it.



posted on Mar, 18 2023 @ 05:47 AM
link   
www.bibleodyssey.org...

See also:

www.bibleodyssey.org...

(This is based on actually studying the Bible and what it says, rather than just accepting what you are told like good little sheeple*)

Oh, and it's unlikely any of it was written by Moses



* ever wondered why followers of Jesus Christ are called sheep?
edit on 18-3-2023 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2023 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Because 2 different people brought up neanderthals...

Neanderthal man (named after the Neander district in Germany where the first fossil was found) was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.”⁠ As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look. (Ice, by Fred Hoyle, 1981, p. 35.)

In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.” (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.)

In other words, they are not a seperate race nor a seperate species than humans (us). They are descendants from Adam and Eve. There is no good justification for having a different name for them as if they are a different species or race. Calling them Neanderthals as if they are, is a matter of evolutionary propaganda. Similarly, differentiating between Homo Sapien and Homo Sapien Sapien (yes, they actually invented this ridiculous term to do that*), is just more propaganda. (*: also to classify certain apes as homo sapien, but not homo sapien sapien, which is then reserved for actual humans, and then they say "modern humans", so they can differentiate between supposed other older species of humans and ape-men; it's an intentionally confusing game of obscuration, making things more vague, and pretending that they have evidence for some type of transition between apes and humans, i.e. pithecus and homo)

There are humans and there are animals, and the reason we have these 2 different terms has been for centuries to differentiate between those 2 groups or classes of lifeforms. Until frauds like Charles Darwin started marketing their pseudoscience to the public. While twisting the meaning of simple words that should be easy to understand and use correctly, if it weren't for their propaganda campaign.
edit on 18-3-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2023 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

What about our ancestor, homo erectus?



posted on Mar, 18 2023 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I have wondered if the stories are different because they are different perspectives and events from two different groups of people.
Chapter one being the view of the "earthly man", created on day six.
In this version God is transcendent. He is above all, creates all and sets earthly men and women on their path to be fruitful and multiply.

Chapter two being the view of the "spiritual man", created after the seventh day and placed in the Garden. In this version God is not so distant. He walks and interacts with the spiritual man frequently. Once they are cast out, we begin seeing that a separation has occurred and God becomes more of a transcendent being once again.
Yet, throughout the old testament, God still has a one on one relationship with the most spiritual characters.


Excellent observation!

This is clear from the text.

When God Creates man in Genesis 1 it's image only.

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.


This man and woman didn't have the breath of life that you see with Adam. These were primitive hominids that were given an upgrade in their DNA to have dominion over other animals.

This is why you see all of these different hominid species that stayed isolated from each other for years and evolved different features.

The image is who Caine was scared of and they lived in places like the land of Nod. This is also where he got his wife from.

The animals were Created before the image and came forth from the waters(Cambrian explosion which originated in the waters exactly as the Bible said it did).

With Adam, these animals were in the Garden and were Created from the dust of the ground after Adam.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

See, Adam(likeness) was different than the image in verse 1.

The image is why you see different hominid species that remained isolated. When the likeness(Adam's descendents) left the garden they wanted to explore the earth, absorb other hominids and build modern civilization with advanced science. They created governments, jobs and places for social gatherings.

The Bible explains these things without all of the convoluted hybrid common anscestors . All you need is body plans within a phylum and the highly designed genetic code. There's 36 phylum that gives you all of the diversity we see today.

I write computer code and I can write a program that gives me millions of different house designs based on 30 initial designs lie a ranch, tudor or colonial. All you need is the code giving you variations of these 30 initial designs(phylum).

The Bible says these new plans originated from the sea. God Created 3 times in Genesis 1. Verse 1, 21 and 27. In verse 20-21 the Bible says:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Boom! This is what's called the Cambrian explosion and all of these new phylum began to come into existence and has given us all of these different body plans within their kind! We're under the phylum chordate. The phylum arthropod includes lobsters, crabs and spiders.

All you need is the highly designed genome and epigenome giving you variations of these different kinds or phylum. Here's more about the Cambrian:

Cambrian Explosion: Life Diversification in the Oceans

“The Cambrian Explosion is one of the most fascinating intervals in the history of life. About 540-510 million years ago, a burst of evolution gave rise to the largest diversification of life in Earth’s history.”
link

It also says:

Almost all animals today branched off from the first 40 million years of the Cambrian period. It went from primitive life to something resembling modern organisms today. In this remarkable evolutionary event, new lifeforms started in the ocean. Then, it eventually colonized the land.

The Bible says you have to look at every jot and tittle.

The Bible says first all of this life was brought forth from the waters like in the Cambrian. Then it says this life eventually colonized the land. This matches the Bible perfectly.

First it says God Created life from the waters:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Then from this life that started in the water God brought forth more life from the land.

Also, I know that all Christians will not agree with me but that's fine we're all brothers and sisters in Christ.

My hope is that people who are atheist, agnostic or a materialist will read these passages again and ask why is image separated from likeness and how does this relate to genetics. I pray that it's God's Will to give the increase.



posted on Mar, 18 2023 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: whereislogic

What about our ancestor, homo erectus?


Its brain size and shape fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that “the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens.”⁠ (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol. 8, p. 1032.)

Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to “modern man,” Homo sapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now (since 2008) been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homo habilis and Homo erectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” states Meave Leakey, one of the authors of the report.

Homo erectus is a case that shows a person has to be careful not to accept all he sees in illustrations of missing links. One textbook asks: “Were they hairy?” It answers: “Probably not​—at least no more so than many people living now.” But on an earlier page the same book shows one as a hairy monster. Is that honest?

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were not “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing​—the chain itself does not really exist. What has been presented as evidence has, in some cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied.

In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. (Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.”* This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. (Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.) (*: The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.)

Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.

Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?

Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.” (Science and Justice, Vol. 43, No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthropology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Reconstruction’​—Recognizing the Fallacies, ‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and Realizing Method Limits,” by C. N. Stephan, p. 195.)

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.” (The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151.)

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”⁠ Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠ (Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41.; Lucy, p. 286.)

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”⁠(1) So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”⁠(2) Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”⁠(3) (Peking man was classified as Homo erectus)

1. New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259.

2. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224. (this one has a book title that triggers propagandabots, just a heads-up)

3. Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304.
edit on 18-3-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2023 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Timber13
As I read Genesis, I find it full of information about both.
God created man and woman on the 6th day. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. That was His commandment to them.
God rested on the 7th day, and sometime after created Adam and the Garden.
I see it as the earthly men/women created on day 6 had more in common with the other animals created during creation, as in not being spiritual.
Adam on the other hand, was something different. He was gifted with a spirit and would have lived in the garden forever, if not for the sin that led to them being thrown out.
As I said, this is my view. Many people look strictly at what the Bible says. There is a lot that it does not say and is left to interpretation.



posted on Mar, 20 2023 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
I have always enjoyed your post as they are very insightful.
I have a little off topic subject I have often wondered about and would like your input.

How long was Adam in the garden? Did he age in the garden?
The reason I ask is, there is a lot of controversy between Christians about the age of the earth.
We have those that use a strict interpretation of the genealogies without taking into account the two questions above.

I know there are several different answers published regarding these questions but I was wondering about your interpretation.



posted on Mar, 21 2023 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: whereislogic
...
How long was Adam in the garden? Did he age in the garden?

There's no absolute or exact timeframe given in the Genesis account, but it's probably years rather than days. For one, he had to name all the animals after all. Also Adam says regarding Eve: “This is at last bone of my bones.” (Gen 2:23) The expression “at last” indicates that quite some time had past, not exactly an expression you would use if only 24 hours or a few 24-hour days had passed.

The 'days' in Genesis 1 are also not 24 hours each. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved. Adam and Eve were both created on the 6th creative day (or period).

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days*, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so? (*: The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, and our sun, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.)

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days.” For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere. (In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ’ohr, light in a general sense, but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma·’ohrʹ, which refers to the source of light.)

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures​—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—​started to appear on the fifth “day.”

The Bible’s narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative days. (For example, during the sixth creative day, God decreed that humans “become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, 31) Yet, this event did not even begin to occur until the following “day.”​—Genesis 2:2.)

Adam technically aged, but not in the way we age from the moment everything is just downhill and things start breaking down (cells are no longer as quickly replaced as they die, causing the physical phenomena associated with aging, wrinkles, grey hair, health problems, etc). He had everlasting life after all before the whole forbidden fruit-eating fiasco.
edit on 21-3-2023 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2023 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to “modern man,” Homo sapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now (since 2008) been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homo habilis and Homo erectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” states Meave Leakey, one of the authors of the report.


Not necessarily, unless you also accept that dogs could not have evolved from wolves, Tamworth pigs and wild boars cannot both exist, and the domestic cat is totally unrelated to any wild cat ....


But in any case, does it matter if Habilis and Erectus had a common ancestor, just as Neanderthals and Denisovans did?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join