How Was Eve Formed?

[BCSpace]

Nope, the fossil record is very real. And it got there somehow. The flood perhaps? You remember that one?

The problem there is that fossils were laid down over millions of years and in more than one layer. No, a world-wide flood does not account for them

[changed]

The problem there is that fossils were laid down over millions of years

47 Old things are done away, and all things have become new.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 12:47)

what does it mean to become "new"?

In the future the Earth will become celestialized right? Do you think many years after the fact people will debate about how long ago this actually happened because they find ruins of some ancient city somewhere? Just curious...

[kawikadave]

47 Old things are done away, and all things have become new.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 12:47)

what does it mean to become "new"?

In the future the Earth will become celestialized right? Do you think many years after the fact people will debate about how long ago this actually happened because they find ruins of some ancient city somewhere? Just curious...

Seems clear that Christ is talking about the Law of Moses, not changing the fossil record of the earth.

[Hoops22]

The problem there is that fossils were laid down over millions of years and in more than one layer. No, a world-wide flood does not account for them

Then Genesis not true. What do you do with all the times Gen was referenced in the Bible?Besides, it is quite possible that the fossil record could have been deposited by the flood. You are pressing a dating method on the record. But, I'm more interested in my first question.

Funny that Hoops would be in bed with the Jehovah's Witnesses on this one!All the Best!--Consiglieri

Along with a lot of scientists much, much smarter than me.

[Ambrose]

Then Genesis not true. What do you do with all the times Gen was referenced in the Bible?

I'm curious why Genesis has to be read literally? Why does "unliteral" [sic] mean "untrue"?

[Hoops22]

I'm curious why Genesis has to be read literally? Why does "unliteral" [sic] mean "untrue"?

It seems to me that the language in Gen 1 is clear and specific. If God did inspire it - as I believe He did - then He chose his words carefully.

And, why should we not read it literally? Wouldn't you agree that we should read His word literally when it seems possible to do so? And, finally, I come at Gen 1 from the perspective that it is God's word and, therefore, the scientific record must conform to that. Others approach it the opposite. My point with this is that there is no middle ground.

btw, you're one of our catholic friends, correct? If so, I love the catholic faith and have long believed that my expression of faith would do well to emulate yours in some ways.

If you're a mormon, well, then, I guess I'm just a hater.

[BCSpace]

The problem there is that fossils were laid down over millions of years and in more than one layer. No, a world-wide flood does not account for them

Then Genesis not true.

How so?

Besides, it is quite possible that the fossil record could have been deposited by the flood.

How so?

You are pressing a dating method on the record. But, I'm more interested in my first question.

I'm more interested in facts and truth.

[Ambrose]

It seems to me that the language in Gen 1 is clear and specific. If God did inspire it - as I believe He did - then He chose his words carefully.

I agree that the words were chosen carefully. But I do not think that the language is as clear and specific as a quick glance might tell you.

And, why should we not read it literally? Wouldn't you agree that we should read His word literally when it seems possible to do so?

I agree. But I also believe that we should listen to inspired teachers on just what these texts are trying to illumine in our lives. Perhaps it's because I am a convert to the idea of a deity that I struggle with Genesis, but it seems like there is a rightly documented history of people seeing Genesis as more than a logbook of God's manual labor.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.

QUOTE(St. Augustine (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19â??20)

)

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

btw, you're one of our catholic friends, correct? If so, I love the catholic faith and have long believed that my expression of faith would do well to emulate yours in some ways.

I'm not baptized yet! I still have a few more months. Pray that I make it. And to be honest, sometimes I wish we had more zealous sermons from the pulpit, but I have to go to Protestant churches to hear those.

EDIT: Please, help me to understand your position. I do not understand the evidence for Genesis being literal. :-)

[consiglieri]

Dear Hoops,

I meant no disrespect to you personally. You are an okay guy, and I genuinely appreciate your presence on this board.

It seems to me, though, that you are forcing too literal a reading of what Genesis means when it says "day."

Why does that have to be a 24-hour period?

Even in English, "day" is used for other purposes.

"Day of the Dolphin."

"Day of the Dinosaur."

And so forth.

You know that we measure a 24-hour day by that period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis, in relation to the sun around which it revolves.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how it could be a 24-hour day in Genesis for the first several "days" before the earth and sun were even created?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hoops22]

I meant no disrespect to you personally.

I didn't think you did.

You are an okay guy,

You have a gift for the understatement.

and I genuinely appreciate your presence on this board.

Sure, today.

It seems to me, though, that you are forcing too literal a reading of what Genesis means when it says "day."

Actually, I think I'm taking the text as it is plainly presented. Others are forcing a different meaning on it.

Why does that have to be a 24-hour period?

Even in English, "day" is used for other purposes.

"Day of the Dolphin."

"Day of the Dinosaur."

And so forth.

You know that we measure a 24-hour day by that period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis, in relation to the sun around which it revolves.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how it could be a 24-hour day in Genesis for the first several "days" before the earth and sun were even created?

I'll answer that next. Fair question.

[ThePhy]

... too literal a reading of what Genesis means when it says "day."

Why does that have to be a 24-hour period?

Even in English, "day" is used for other purposes.

"Day of the Dolphin."

"Day of the Dinosaur."

And so forth.

You know that we measure a 24-hour day by that period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis, in relation to the sun around which it revolves.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how it could be a 24-hour day in Genesis for the first several "days" before the earth and sun were even created?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In Feb of 2004 I attended a debate in Denver between a young-earth pastor and a couple of Christians who were also scientists (and believe in an old earth). In the course of the presentation this issue of how to interpret the word â??dayâ? in the creation account came up. The Christians quoted a couple of Biblical commentators who held that the word â??dayâ? could be vastly longer than it means to us today.

In response the pastor pulled out one of his reference books and said, â??Iâ??ll see your two Biblical commentators and raise you fifty. I have a list of more than 50 of the worlds leading scholars who all concur that the word â??dayâ? can only mean a 24 hour period.â?

That shut the scientist up on that approach.

[Hoops22]

Of course the Hebrew word "yom" can be interpreted the same ways as our "day". I don't dispute that. The question becomes whether in the creation story if it should.

The Day-Age theory does not accomodate the assertions of science

1) the order of fossils foundd in the geologic column do not correspond to the order of creation as described in Genesis. So this theory doesn't fix the problem it is supposed to address

2) The sun would not have been created until millions of years after plant life.

3) Adam introduced death with his sin. Yet this theory would require death before Adam even existed.

The first day is said to close with the evening and the morning. The implication is that God worked during the day and did not work during the night. Thereby setting up a pattern for us.

In addition, Gen 1:1 literally reads "day one". The absolute beginning of time.

Then we have this verse:

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

God is clearly giving us a pattern for our work week and our day of rest. And He claims of Himself that He created in six literal 24 hour days.

[kawikadave]

In response the pastor pulled out one of his reference books and said, â??Iâ??ll see your two Biblical commentators and raise you fifty. I have a list of more than 50 of the worlds leading scholars who all concur that the word â??dayâ? can only mean a 24 hour period.â?

That shut the scientist up on that approach.

I'm sure I could find scientists that support the theories of the Abominable Snowman, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abduction, Atlantis, etc. Regardless of this, I don't know that I'm any more convinced.

I don't believe "my scientists can beat up your scientists" method of discovering truth is the answer.

[kawikadave]

God is clearly giving us a pattern for our work week and our day of rest. And He claims of Himself that He created in six literal 24 hour days.

Hmmm... I'm still missing where he said He created the earth in a 24 hour periods. You think you cited something that shows this, but I don't see it.

This might be a bit more difficult proving to this group, since LDS believe that God marks time differently from man. Makes things a bit more complex when talking about "days."

[Hoops22]

Hmmm... I'm still missing where he said He created the earth in a 24 hour periods. You think you cited something that shows this, but I don't see it.

This might be a bit more difficult proving to this group, since LDS believe that God marks time differently from man. Makes things a bit more complex when talking about "days."

Right here:

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[kawikadave]

Right here:

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Again, where does it say how God is measuring his days? As has been mentioned previously, he worked a few days before there even was a sun or moon to mark a 24 hour period. Just because he tells us to rest on a seventh day just as he rested, doesn't mean that his day is the same length as our day.

[ThePhy]

Of course the Hebrew word "yom" can be interpreted the same ways as our "day". I don't dispute that. The question becomes whether in the creation story if it should.

The Day-Age theory does not accomodate the assertions of science

...

I mention the pastor â?? scientist debate just out of interest. Personally, I stand on the sidelines and watch the battles over how to reconcile Biblical passages with the conclusions of science. As an atheist, I see efforts to rationalize the Bible as like efforts to rationalize the Popol Vuh or the Koran or the Enuma Elish or the I Ching, or the Avesta,

[BCSpace]

Again, where does it say how God is measuring his days?

Indeed. Neither Genesis 1 or Exodus 20 appear on the list of verses in Storng's and Thayer's for which "yowm" specifically means a 24 hour period. It could also be a year or an epoch or indefinite period of time.

[Hoops22]

Indeed. Neither Genesis 1 or Exodus 20 appear on the list of verses in Storng's and Thayer's for which "yowm" specifically means a 24 hour period. It could also be a year or an epoch or indefinite period of time.

I don't have strong's so I wouldn't know.But the passage I cited make it clear that God thinks He created in six days. Despite what strongs thinks.

Indeed. Neither Genesis 1 or Exodus 20 appear on the list of verses in Storng's and Thayer's for which "yowm" specifically means a 24 hour period. It could also be a year or an epoch or indefinite period of time.

Indeed. You have not dealt with my other reasons for discarding the day-age theory.

[kawikadave]

Indeed. Neither Genesis 1 or Exodus 20 appear on the list of verses in Storng's and Thayer's for which "yowm" specifically means a 24 hour period. It could also be a year or an epoch or indefinite period of time.

I don't doubt that God could have created the earth in 6 days if he wanted to. Based on what we can see of the earth (God gave us senses, encourages learning, has revealed much about science, etc) it appears he did something other than that, unless he is explicitly trying to fool us or our science is COMPLETELY wrong (which I doubt).

The difference between 6,000 and 4,500,000,000 is not a rounding error.

[Hoops22]

I mention the pastor â?? scientist debate just out of interest. Personally, I stand on the sidelines and watch the battles over how to reconcile Biblical passages with the conclusions of science. As an atheist, I see efforts to rationalize the Bible as like efforts to rationalize the Popol Vuh or the Koran or the Enuma Elish or the I Ching, or the Avesta,

That's fine with me.

But you will agree, there's no middle ground here, right?

I think we should reconcile science with scripture (you think differently) - if we believe scripture. If we're not willing to believe it, then science becomes our god.

[BCSpace]

I don't have strong's so I wouldn't know.But the passage I cited make it clear that God thinks He created in six days. Despite what strongs thinks.

No it doesn't. The only thing that is clear is the the word is translated into English as "day". Even in English, that word does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period.

[kawikadave]

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

Day: a period of time for the earth to rotate once on its axis. The ordinary day, or solar day, is measured relative to the sun, being the time between successive passages of the sun over a stationary observer's celestial meridian.

An earth day is measured as 24 hours because of our distance from the sun and the rotational speed and size of the earth. If the earth or sun wasn't formed yet, then...???

[Hoops22]

I don't doubt that God could have created the earth in 6 days if he wanted to. Based on what we can see of the earth (God gave us senses, encourages learning, has revealed much about science, etc) it appears he did something other than that, unless he is explicitly trying to fool us or our science is COMPLETELY wrong (which I doubt).The difference between 6,000 and 4,500,000,000 is not a rounding error.

That's fine. Then this discussion points out what our god really is. You want to understand scripture through the filter of science - that is your right.My only point is that Gen 1 is clear that God created the universe from nothing. And that He fashioned the earth in six literal days. He's clear about that, imo. What you do with that is up to you.In addition, there is science out there that can and does agree with the biblical record. So when you say science, which do you mean? The 4.5 billion year one. Which, btw, not too long ago, was 2.5 billion years.And it's not based on what you SEE of the earth. It's based on how you choose to interpret what you SEE of the earth. You have chosen one way. I choose to let scripture speak for itself. As I believe it is God's word.

No it doesn't. The only thing that is clear is the the word is translated into English as "day". Even in English, that word does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period.

But you have yet to give me one single Biblical reason why we should believe it is not a 24 day.

[Hoops22]

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:An earth day is measured as 24 hours because of our distance from the sun and the rotational speed and size of the earth. If the earth or sun wasn't formed yet, then...???

It does NOT say that the fixed light source around which the earth rotates - and we know there is movement from verse 2 - must be the sun. We do know that there is light. And all we need is a fixed light source to divide the day from the night and make a "day".

I don't doubt that God could have created the earth in 6 days if he wanted to.

And we have at least one reason why He would want toEx 20 - giving us the pattern of work and rest.