Creation scientists

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY2RvJ-X76U

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Can anyone deny that the world is ever increasingly in the conditions described above? Can it be denied that the theory of evolution which atheists flock to, contributes heavily to such conditions? Where are all the idols of creatures the above scriptures refer to, and those bowing down to them? Can the belief in evolution concerning the development of creatures from simple to complex over many ages, unto our eventual existence, not be considered the same thing on an intellectual or spiritual level? Of course it can. God's word declares our origins one way, and evolution declares it to be another way. A way which makes us as dependent if not more so, upon those creatures from which we eventually developed into what we are today. Taking the glory God has declared for Himself in creating the world in six days, and changing into some unexplainable theory reliant upon the development of creatures before us. Creatures were created just as God's word declares.

[Rella]

Yep, because the entire Adam, Eve, Garden tale is figurative, not literal. It's designed to give us insight into man's nature, not give us a lesson in history.

Good morning Alan,

It is your belief that "the entire Adam, Eve, Garden tale is figurative, not literal"

Do you believe there actually was an Adam? I only ask for 2 reasons.

#1. If , as we read in Luke 3 the record has Jesus traced back to Adam, although Mathew traces Jesus from Abraham... I will grant you there can be 2 thoughts on if there ever was an Adam.

I have 2 links showing both.

The first can be found here and I am posting the link as it is presented in a way to be totally understandable.

I found it when checking for something else in another thread ( where I was in error about Mary's tie to David which is not important here... although this one says it in quite an understandable way. ( Conclusion:
Jesus is royalty. Through Joseph, Jesus is a legal descendant of King David, and through Mary He is royalty by blood. Someday, Jesus will reign as the promised Messiah and sit on the throne of David as the prophets predicted (Isaiah 9:6-7).) and have saved it as being quite easy to follow his blood line.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/genealogical-chart-adam-to-jesus/

Another from my files is not so easy to read, BUT

It answers Why did God even bother to give us in Luke the biological genealogy of Jesus after the legal genealogy already given in Matthew 1?

The Old Testament prophesied that Jesus will be a biological descendant of David: "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David ..." (John 7:42). The genealogy in Matthew establishes Jesus' legal Jewish heritage, but since Joseph wasn't His biological father, it does not establish Jesus' biological lineage to David. This genealogy through Mary in Luke establishes that lineage, and traces Him past Abraham, the first Jew, all the way back to Adam, the first man.

https://www.bibleversestudy.com/luke/luke3-adam-to-jesus-genealogy.htm

With assumed discrepancies as to the number of generation between the two accounts. (Second explains) then my second question.

#2. I will assume that you do believe there was an Adam as he is listed in Luke's pedigree of Jesus.

Is it safe to assume that you do not believe Adam to have been the first man?  (No problem there.. I don't either)

But if you do not believe there was an Adam  but he being only part of a figurative story....

If you are correct I submit that most of the bible has to be a series of allegories... there can be no other explanation.

After all...you said " the entire Adam, Eve, Garden tale is figurative, not literal. It's designed to give us insight into man's nature, not give us a lesson in history"

Simply amazing that Moses would pick the name Adam for the man in the story and that name is the the same name that Luke has at the beginning of Jesus' bloodline.

And if you say yes there was an Adam... where Jesus' recorded bloodline began. Why would there be no record of before Adam of things going back further because my send link above has Adam listed as " Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God."?

Simply amazing I am dumbstruck for the moment 

[DaveW]

to me, man's body is not the special creation from God, it is man's spirit, breathed into consciousness by God.

You make the western mistake of making too much of a hard division between spirit soul and body.  The ancient Jews/Israelites saw them all together as ONE.  That is why Paul talks about the WHOLE man and lists the 3 parts in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

[DaveW]

As to a logical world view. Sad to say that you present in illogical world view and then try to convince others that is God's PROPER biblical world view.  Just as God is the author of the natural laws this world operates under, God is also the author of logic and the logical.  You would teach otherwise.

There is logic and then there is logic.  Western logic, consisting of deduction and induction, (described first by Aristotle - an idol worshiper) is not the logic of God or His word.  Biblical logic (aka Hebraic logic) is quite different, although there are many similarities. It is sometimes called Adductive logic.  Suggest you study that out for yourself.

[4WD]

There is logic and then there is logic.  Western logic, consisting of deduction and induction, (described first by Aristotle - an idol worshiper) is not the logic of God or His word.  Biblical logic (aka Hebraic logic) is quite different, although there are many similarities. It is sometimes called Adductive logic.  Suggest you study that out for yourself.

Of course. The thought process that says red is red except where I want it to be blue.

[DaveW]

Of course. The thought process that says red is red except where I want it to be blue.

Not dismissed quite so easily.  Here are some resources to start you off:

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3324

https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/philosophy-of-the-hebrew-language.htm

https://books.google.com/books?id=L-wI8OGpvTUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=adductive+logic&source=bl&ots=VhVhFLJrl7&sig=R7UfqoH4cgeggsbpgG7KGT0EpmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIvsi0mOT7xwIVh4I-Ch0Z6Q7G#v=onepage&q=adductive%20logic&f=false

http://www.thelogician.net/JUDAIC-LOGIC/Torah-Adductive-Logic-2.htm

https://www.firefromheaven.org/images/PDF/Hebrew_vs_Greek_Thought.pdf

[Rella]

You make the western mistake of making too much of a hard division between spirit soul and body.  The ancient Jews/Israelites saw them all together as ONE.  That is why Paul talks about the WHOLE man and lists the 3 parts in 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Answering for myself and not Alan.

WE make too much of a hard division between spirit, soul and body?

I would think there is a natural hard division when we are told that at death

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells us 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

This had been a good link and explains basically what I feel since I have been into man being a triune being also. And for me does make a hard division with the body



https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/118-1-soul-spirit-leaves.htm

Go to Introduction 1.1

#1. THE SPIRIT and SOUL LEAVE the BODY at DEATH

This bible study uses a Greek Unicode font and a Hebrew Unicode font and is printable.

Where are the Dead Index || Search this website || Bible Studies Index

Spirit and Soul Leaves Index

Introduction 1.1
#1.1 THE SOUL GIVES LIFE to THE BODY and LEAVES the BODY at DEATH
#1.2 THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE to THE BODY and LEAVES the BODY at DEATH

Introduction 1.1

There is one fundamental mistake that many people seem to make when teaching about death, and that is that they treat the soul or spirit and body as a single entity after death. This is wrong. The soul or spirit leaves the body at death and can no longer be coupled together with it as a single entity after that, until resurrection. To get the right understanding the spirit or soul have to be treated separately when people are dead. This bible study gives plenty of scripture evidence that the spirit or soul leaves the body at death.

#1.1 THE SOUL GIVES LIFE to THE BODY and LEAVES the BODY at DEATH

GENESIS 35:16-20
16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor.
17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said to her, Do not fear; you shall have this son also.
18 And it came to pass, as her soul1 was departing, that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin.
19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.
20 And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel's grave to this day.

1 KINGS 17:17-23
17 And it came to pass after these things, the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so severe, that there was no breath left in him.
18 And she said to Elijah, What have I to do with you, O you man of God? Have you come to me to call my sin to remembrance, and to kill my son?
19 And he said to her, Give me your son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20 And he cried to Yahweh, and said, O Yahweh my God, have you also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by killing her son?
21 And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to Yahweh, and said, O Yahweh my God, I pray you, let this child's soul1 come into him again.
22 And Yahweh heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul1 of the child came into him again, and he revived.
23 And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him to his mother: and Elijah said, See, your son lives.

ISAIAH 53:12
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul1 to death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

MATTHEW 10:28
28 Do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul2, but rather fear him who is able to ruin both body and soul in Gehenna.

REVELATION 6:9-11 (John)
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls2 of those who were killed for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given to every one of them; and it was said to them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren who should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Note: In the Old Testament the Hebrew word translated soul1 is נֶפֶשׁ , 'nephesh' Strong's 5315. In Genesis 35:16-20 we see an account of Rachel giving birth to Benjamin. The labor was difficult and the scripture says, "Her soul was departing" (v18) "And Rachel died" (v19). It seems from this that when a person dies the soul departs; it goes somewhere but we are not told where it goes here. In the account of Elijah raising the widow's son from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-20) he prayed for the child's soul to come back into him. God answered his prayer and the child's soul entered into him and he came back alive. This refutes the false teaching that says the soul ceases to exist at death. Jesus "poured out his soul to death" (Isaiah 53:12) also confirms that the soul leaves when a person dies. In the New Testament the Greek word for soul2 is ψυχή 'psuche' Strong's 5590. It is basically the equivalent of the Hebrew 'nephesh' in the Septuagint but it is used more in a spiritual sense in the New Testament; the non-physical part of a human being. In Matthew 10:28 we are told that men can kill the body but not the soul. This is proof from the words of Jesus himself that you cannot treat the body and soul as being in the same condition when a person dies. The soul does not die when a person dies. Jesus also said, "Everyone who lives and believes in me shall certainly not die for ever." (John 11:26). Now those who heard him all died physically so he could only be referring to the soul or spirit. The soul leaves and goes somewhere. In Revelation 6:9-11 we are told that the souls of the righteous dead are under the altar, which is obviously in heaven (Revelation 8:1-3; 9:13; 14:17-18; 16:7). These were killed for their testimony and they were crying out (Revelation 6:10). They were not asleep, or non-existent, nor did they "know nothing" as some teach. They were receiving white robes (v11) and waiting for other Christians to be killed so that they could be resurrected when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

#1.2 THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE to the BODY and LEAVES the BODY at DEATH

JOB 34:14-15 (Elihu)
14 If he sets his heart upon man, if he gathers to himself his spirit1 and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again into dust.

PSALMS 104:29
29 You hide your face, they are troubled: you take away their spirit1, they die, and return to the dust.

ECCLESIASTES 3:21 (Solomon)
21 Who knows the spirit1 of man that goes upward, and the spirit1 of the beast that goes downward to the earth?

ECCLESIASTES 8:8 (Solomon)
8 There is no man who has power over the spirit1 to retain the spirit1; neither does he have power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those who are given to it.

ECCLESIASTES 12:7 (Solomon)
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit1 shall return to God who gave it.

LUKE 8:54-55
54 He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, Child, arise!
55 And her spirit2 returned, and she rose immediately; and He gave orders for something to be given her to eat."

LUKE 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit2: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit.

JAMES 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit2 is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

REVELATION 11:9-12 (John)
9 And they of the people and tribes and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.
10 And those who dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another; because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit2 of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon those who saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying to them, Come up here. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies saw them.

Note: The word translated spirit1 in the above scriptures is the Hebrew word רוּחַ 'ruach' Strong's 7307. It occurs 378 times in the Old Testament and in the KJV it is translated Spirit or spirit (232x), wind (92x), breath (37x), side (6x), blast (4x), and 11 various other translations.
The word translated spirit2 in the above scriptures is the Greek word πνεῦμα 'pneuma' Strong's 4151. It occurs 385 times in the New Testament and is translated Spirit or spirit (273x), Ghost or ghost (91x), and various others (21x) in the KJV. Ecclesiastes 3:21 can be interpreted spiritually, so 'man' refers to a righteous man and 'beast' refers to a sinful man. This would indicate that a righteous spirit returns to God as Ecclesiastes 12:7 says, even as Jesus expected his to go to his Father (Luke 23:46). An unrighteous spirit goes to 'Sheol' in the Old Testament (Isaiah 14:9-10; Ezekiel 32:21) or 'Hades' in the New Testament (Luke 16:23). As the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26) it seems obvious that the spirit must enter into a person again in order for it to come to life. This is exactly what happens as the spirit of Jairus' daughter returned for her to be resurrected (Luke 8:55), and also the two prophets (Revelation 11:11 KJV).

[DaveW]

WE make too much of a hard division between spirit, soul and body?
I would think there is a natural hard division when we are told that at death

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells us 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

This had been a good link and explains basically what I feel since I have been into man being a triune being also. And for me does make a hard division with the body

The division is temporary, just as Our Lord's separation from the Father and Spirit was temporary. 

When we come to final judgement we will be all (spirit soul and body) together again.  That is why we believe in a PHYSICAL resurrection of the dead.

[Rella]

The division is temporary, just as Our Lord's separation from the Father and Spirit was temporary. 

When we come to final judgement we will be all (spirit soul and body) together again.  That is why we believe in a PHYSICAL resurrection of the dead.

Except our bodies will be changed.

[DaveW]

Except our bodies will be changed.

Yes, but still the same body.  Just as our Lord's resurrected body still bore the scars from the crucifiction.  Same body.

[Texas Conservative]

Good morning Alan,

It is your belief that "the entire Adam, Eve, Garden tale is figurative, not literal"

Do you believe there actually was an Adam? I only ask for 2 reasons.

#1. If , as we read in Luke 3 the record has Jesus traced back to Adam, although Mathew traces Jesus from Abraham... I will grant you there can be 2 thoughts on if there ever was an Adam.

I have 2 links showing both.

The first can be found here and I am posting the link as it is presented in a way to be totally understandable.

I found it when checking for something else in another thread ( where I was in error about Mary's tie to David which is not important here... although this one says it in quite an understandable way. ( Conclusion:
Jesus is royalty. Through Joseph, Jesus is a legal descendant of King David, and through Mary He is royalty by blood. Someday, Jesus will reign as the promised Messiah and sit on the throne of David as the prophets predicted (Isaiah 9:6-7).) and have saved it as being quite easy to follow his blood line.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/genealogical-chart-adam-to-jesus/

Another from my files is not so easy to read, BUT

It answers Why did God even bother to give us in Luke the biological genealogy of Jesus after the legal genealogy already given in Matthew 1?

The Old Testament prophesied that Jesus will be a biological descendant of David: "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David ..." (John 7:42). The genealogy in Matthew establishes Jesus' legal Jewish heritage, but since Joseph wasn't His biological father, it does not establish Jesus' biological lineage to David. This genealogy through Mary in Luke establishes that lineage, and traces Him past Abraham, the first Jew, all the way back to Adam, the first man.

https://www.bibleversestudy.com/luke/luke3-adam-to-jesus-genealogy.htm

With assumed discrepancies as to the number of generation between the two accounts. (Second explains) then my second question.

#2. I will assume that you do believe there was an Adam as he is listed in Luke's pedigree of Jesus.

Is it safe to assume that you do not believe Adam to have been the first man?  (No problem there.. I don't either)

But if you do not believe there was an Adam  but he being only part of a figurative story....

If you are correct I submit that most of the bible has to be a series of allegories... there can be no other explanation.

After all...you said " the entire Adam, Eve, Garden tale is figurative, not literal. It's designed to give us insight into man's nature, not give us a lesson in history"

Simply amazing that Moses would pick the name Adam for the man in the story and that name is the the same name that Luke has at the beginning of Jesus' bloodline.

And if you say yes there was an Adam... where Jesus' recorded bloodline began. Why would there be no record of before Adam of things going back further because my send link above has Adam listed as " Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God."?

Simply amazing I am dumbstruck for the moment 

Simple answer.  It wasn't figurative.  Life started somewhere. It can either be with Adam like mentioned by the books of Moses and by Jesus Himself, or it can be a retarded fish frog.

[Alan]

Yes, but still the same body.  Just as our Lord's resurrected body still bore the scars from the crucifiction.  Same body.

So babies will still be babies and old people will still be old?

[DaveW]

So babies will still be babies and old people will still be old?

Unless you can find me a verse that says otherwise, that is a possibility.

The fact is scripture never addresses that point. So it does not really matter one way or the other.  We do not need to know.

[Amo]

I would think there will be babies who will grow up. Possibly a whole lot of babies that were never even given the chance to be born. Certainly many who are old as in years, but probably none who are old as we now experience. As in closer to the end.

[4WD]

Unless you can find me a verse that says otherwise, that is a possibility.

The fact is scripture never addresses that point. So it does not really matter one way or the other.  We do not need to know.

Actually, I think scripture does address that point.  That you think it doesn't should give you concern about there even being anything physical in eternal life.

[Alan]

I would think there will be babies who will grow up. Possibly a whole lot of babies that were never even given the chance to be born. Certainly many who are old as in years, but probably none who are old as we now experience. As in closer to the end.

Not sure that lines up very well, if babies grow up, do young children also get older? Teens? Is there some median age in heaven that is bliss for all that enter?

[DaveW]

I would think there will be babies who will grow up. Possibly a whole lot of babies that were never even given the chance to be born. Certainly many who are old as in years, but probably none who are old as we now experience. As in closer to the end.

Based on what chapter and verse???

[DaveW]

Actually, I think scripture does address that point.  That you think it doesn't should give you concern about there even being anything physical in eternal life.

I would like to see what you have on that.

[4WD]

I would like to see what you have on that.

Obviously, not much at all.  But there is no indication that I see that there is anything physical about or in heaven or about eternal life. It fact it seems to me that Paul's discussion of all of that in 1 Corinthians 15 would suggest to me that everything there is not physical but rather spiritual.  I have books in my library that try to convince me otherwise, but they haven't succeeded.

[Rella]

Simple answer.  It wasn't figurative.  Life started somewhere. It can either be with Adam like mentioned by the books of Moses and by Jesus Himself, or it can be a retarded fish frog.

No it is not simple.

Certainly life began somewhere. I will not suggest how because first I dont know and neither do you ....

But to say it was either with Adam or  a retarded fish frog.... you are ignoring them mentioned in Genesis 26 when he said '' and let them have dominion"

[Texas Conservative]

No it is not simple.

Certainly life began somewhere. I will not suggest how because first I dont know and neither do you ....

But to say it was either with Adam or  a retarded fish frog.... you are ignoring them mentioned in Genesis 26 when he said '' and let them have dominion"

No, it is that simple.  Either the gospels are wrong or the view that we are descended from some retarded fish frog is wrong. 

Genesis 1:26, not Genesis 26 has nothing to do with what you are mentioning.  Men have dominion over the rest of creation, this has nothing to do with where Adam came from.  We are told where Adam came from.  Are the gospels wrong as well about the geneaology of Jesus?

[Rella]

No, it is that simple.  Either the gospels are wrong or the view that we are descended from some retarded fish frog is wrong. 

Genesis 1:26, not Genesis 26 has nothing to do with what you are mentioning.  Men have dominion over the rest of creation, this has nothing to do with where Adam came from.  We are told where Adam came from.  Are the gospels wrong as well about the geneaology of Jesus?

Yes, 1:26... my error.

I am simply saying that God mad man in their image.... he made them male and female in the same verse and told them to take care of all the other animals.

I maintain this man and woman were made before Adam was.

Can I prove it... NO

Can you disprove it... NO

I maintain that Jesus' blood line tied back to Adam. PERIOD.

And I maintain that from Adam forward where our own bloodlines should tie back to... that Adam was made for a specific purpose.

Can I prove it no. but it has been from Adam ... a flesh and blood man that 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, (Genesis 2:7).

He did not breath life into the couple made in Gen 1 the same as Adam.

He did make a couple in Gen 1 to watch over all. Adam was taken and placed in the garden and after no suitable helper from the animals was found for him  God said it is not good for man to be alone and made Eve from Adams rib.

YES.. I firmly believe that.

Adam was the start of something .... the first couple was not.

[Texas Conservative]

Yes, 1:26... my error.

I am simply saying that God mad man in their image.... he made them male and female in the same verse and told them to take care of all the other animals.

I maintain this man and woman were made before Adam was.

Can I prove it... NO

Can you disprove it... NO

I maintain that Jesus' blood line tied back to Adam. PERIOD.

And I maintain that from Adam forward where our own bloodlines should tie back to... that Adam was made for a specific purpose.

Can I prove it no. but it has been from Adam ... a flesh and blood man that 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, (Genesis 2:7).

He did not breath life into the couple made in Gen 1 the same as Adam.

He did make a couple in Gen 1 to watch over all. Adam was taken and placed in the garden and after no suitable helper from the animals was found for him  God said it is not good for man to be alone and made Eve from Adams rib.

YES.. I firmly believe that.

Adam was the start of something .... the first couple was not.

I can disprove it.  God's Word. 

I can at least understand someone's view based upon current science.  The view presented about a previous couple before Adam is preposterous and based upon nothing.

[DaveW]

Obviously, not much at all.  But there is no indication that I see that there is anything physical about or in heaven or about eternal life. It fact it seems to me that Paul's discussion of all of that in 1 Corinthians 15 would suggest to me that everything there is not physical but rather spiritual.  I have books in my library that try to convince me otherwise, but they haven't succeeded.

Since our eternal existence will be on the New Earth (see Rev 20 and 21) It would seem we have a physical existence for eternity.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Since our eternal existence will be on the New Earth (see Rev 20 and 21) It would seem we have a physical existence for eternity.

That makes sense.

Also, there's the part where a non-physical existence is non-existence. 

[Cobalt1959]

I am simply saying that God mad man in their image.... he made them male and female in the same verse and told them to take care of all the other animals.

I maintain this man and woman were made before Adam was.

And that would be at complete odds with what Genesis says. 

Genesis 2:19-25 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Adam, who's name we aren't given until verse 2:20, is the first man.  Eve was created for Adam and is the first woman.  There were no couples before this.   There were no people anywhere before this.  This is 000,000 on the odometer.  Time for mankind, as a couple, starts at this point.  The text is abundantly clear.

[Rella]

And that would be at complete odds with what Genesis says. 

Genesis 2:19-25 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Adam, who's name we aren't given until verse 2:20, is the first man.  Eve was created for Adam and is the first woman.  There were no couples before this.   There were no people anywhere before this.  This is 000,000 on the odometer.  Time for mankind, as a couple, starts at this point.  The text is abundantly clear.

Sigh.

You know I disagree with this.

BUT before you say I am insulting you or something like that know that I am not.

I also will acknowledge that the other YEC believers will agree with you.

I am going to send you a PM of a paper that addresses this in my perspective.

NO I am not going to post it here for it is too long and I am just not in the mood for the dressing down that a couple will do to me.... not today.

Give e a ew min then go look for it.... if you are online.

[Texas Conservative]

Why won't you post the link of the paper of your assertion in this thread?

You told someone else to let disagreement roll off your back.  If you are going to make some out of left field assertion, back it up.

[Rella]

Why won't you post the link of the paper of your assertion in this thread?

You told someone else to let disagreement roll off your back.  If you are going to make some out of left field assertion, back it up.

Ill send it to you too cause I dont want everyone jumping on me at the same time.

One at a time in a PM is enough

Anyway... there is no link... it is in my docs.... it is my paper.....

So give me 5 min to copy it and send it for you also

[Rella]

And that would be at complete odds with what Genesis says. 

Genesis 2:19-25 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Adam, who's name we aren't given until verse 2:20, is the first man.  Eve was created for Adam and is the first woman.  There were no couples before this.   There were no people anywhere before this.  This is 000,000 on the odometer.  Time for mankind, as a couple, starts at this point.  The text is abundantly clear.

You said this to a response of mine

I am simply saying that God mad man in their image.... he made them male and female in the same verse and told them to take care of all the other animals.

I maintain this man and woman were made before Adam was.

As I reread a reply of yours you seem to be stuck in Gen 2.... Adams entry into things.

Gen 1 tells us... and this time I shall quote directly

"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."

So it is not at odds at all.

"There were no people anywhere before this.  The text is abundantly clear."

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And that would be at complete odds with what Genesis says. 

Genesis 2:19-25 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.  21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.  22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

This assumes that Genesis is a single composition, but it isn't.  Its a collection of texts.  If these are two separate sections written at different times, Rella's idea makes sense.

Adam, who's name we aren't given until verse 2:20, is the first man.

The Hebrew word for "man" is "Adam," which occurs first in Gen 1:26.  There's a ambiguity of translation here... should it be translated "man" or transliterated "Adam?"  In truth, it is both, but it's impossible to do that in English. 

While we're at it, it could also be translated "red" which is the same Hebrew word, or transliterated as the name "Edom" which is also identical.

Eve was created for Adam and is the first woman.  There were no couples before this.   There were no people anywhere before this.  This is 000,000 on the odometer.  Time for mankind, as a couple, starts at this point.  The text is abundantly clear.

Well, all of this assumes that it is literal.  Which is to say, you've assumed your conclusion.  That's a logical fallacy.

Jarrod

[Cobalt1959]

Well, all of this assumes that it is literal.  Which is to say, you've assumed your conclusion.  That's a logical fallacy.

It is quite certainly not a logical fallacy.  When you say that Genesis is not literal, that is your opinion.  It is not a proven fact, so there is no logical fallacy.  I can say it is literal, but the farthest I can go is to say that is my opinion.  Since we are not the original authors we cannot know either position with 100% certainty one way or another.  I realize there is a theory out there that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors.  I give that about as much credence as I do anything else that comes for the so-called "higher biblical criticism" hacks.  Just yet another effort to rob the Bible of it's power.

[Rella]

It is quite certainly not a logical fallacy.  When you say that Genesis is not literal, that is your opinion.  It is not a proven fact, so there is no logical fallacy.  I can say it is literal, but the farthest I can go is to say that is my opinion.  Since we are not the original authors we cannot know either position with 100% certainty one way or another.  I realize there is a theory out there that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors.  I give that about as much credence as I do anything else that comes for the so-called "higher biblical criticism" hacks.  Just yet another effort to rob the Bible of it's power.

I actually agree with much of what you say here.

I will say that the style changes somewhat through out the first five books, but that could just be from Moses not having sat down and penned it straight through.  Longer breaks make one's general form alter some. I have seen that with my own writings from a long time back.

Anyway. Until we get to eternity we will not know unless they do discover some other info like the dead sea scrolls.

Same with the book of Mark. Many say more then one author. Others say 3 different lengths.

Personally I tend to agree Genesis is literal, albeit poorly written areas that create some confusion

And I also take Revelation to be literal.  Within the four corners of the bible we have the beginning and the end.

As you say " Since we are not the original authors we cannot know either position with 100% certainty one way or another. "

The Bible itself claims that " all Scripture ", so the whole Bible, was inspired by God .... see 2 Timothy 3:16-17. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.... So, it is not only the basic concepts or story line that is inspired, or only the words of Jesus Christ, but every single Bible verse from Genesis to Revelation.

So, unless we are told that something is an allegory or a parable (as Jesus often did) I say it is literal.

What we do not know is how the 66 books were chosen to make it into the the Christian canon. They were pick by common man.

We know there were other gospels and forbidden books that did not. And the RCC has more books then the protestants.

So until we find out the wrong ones were picked I call it literal.

[4WD]

What we do not know is how the 66 books were chosen to make it into the the Christian canon. They were pick by common man.

Actually, we do know how those books were chosen.  There is a whole field of study dedicated to such a question.  There are four great general studies of God's special revelation, His written word.  They are the critical, the historical, the exegetical and the theological. The answers to your question concerning the canon are to be found in the critical study.  There are books written on the subject. As with most studies of the Bible, there is little consensus, but the information is out there for you to study and consider.

[Amo]

Not sure that lines up very well, if babies grow up, do young children also get older? Teens? Is there some median age in heaven that is bliss for all that enter?

The concept of getting older will be no more, as we presently understand it. The concept of growing spiritually and intellectually is certain for all of us. I can think of no good reason for God to bypass the process of growing up for children physically as well. Especially in the atmosphere of heaven which will no doubt be an absolute delight. For children and their parents.