How Was Eve Formed?

[kawikadave]

That's fine. Then this discussion points out what our god really is.

God did not give us senses and a brain so that we would ignore them. Using the tools God has given us to learn about his creations does not turn science into a "god."

You want to understand scripture through the filter of science - that is your right.

Science does not clearly explain how the earth was formed, how man came to be, the age of the earth, etc. Man has theories that certainly have valid points. God also has not clearly explained the same things. He says he created them. He doesn't say how. He doesn't say how long it took (besides the phrase "six days.")

My only point is that Gen 1 is clear that God created the universe from nothing.

Where does it say this again? I must have missed it.

He's clear about that, imo. What you do with that is up to you.

I have no problem with you believing that. I don't think it says the same thing you think it says. I don't know how he did it. I don't know how long it took. In the end, it doesn't really matter. But I think using our brains, our senses, and the tools he has blessed us with is a good thing.

In addition, there is science out there that can and does agree with the biblical record.

I'm sorry to say, but it is mostly discredited and debunked. Again, 6,000 is not a rounding error of 4,500,000,000 or 2,500,000,000 or even 1,000,000. If the earth is really only 6,000 years old, God has covered his tracks better than the Lone Ranger with a mile-wide broom.

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

I think you've been given a few. In any case, I'm fine if you could continue to believe it was 24 hours. It's not that important.

[sean0scott]

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.... 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.

Do you believe that Eve literally ate fruit of knowledge of good and evil?

How do we go about separating the literal from the figurative/allegorical?

[ThePhy]

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.

I have friends who have been scientists for decades, any yet devoutly accept the Bible. I canâ??t say that I have ever had one of them clearly explain how they rationalize the science and the Bible. In my case (years ago) part of my move into atheism was when I admitted to myself that I was continuously struggling to keep what I was learning in science and what I believed in sync. In one relatively significant day I demanded of myself that I quit trying to force fit a square peg into a round hole. If they werenâ??t compatible, then to pretend they were was dishonesty in itself. Long story short â?? I walked away from what I had held to be sacred truth.

If we're not willing to believe it, then science becomes our god.

Too strong. My respect for science is strong, but it is not at all a god to me. It is the most demonstrable and rational explanation I can find, but I credit it with no divine power, or sacred texts, or expectations accorded to a personal and loving god.

[Hoops22]

God did not give us senses and a brain so that we would ignore them.

This argument inevitably comes to this. Who said we SHOULD ignore them. In fact, it was Christians who gave us "science" to begin with.

Using the tools God has given us to learn about his creations does not turn science into a "god."

Fine. But one comes to this from one of two perspectives. Either God's word is just that and information should be considered in light of that. Or it isn't.

I fail to see how accepting the bible as God's word is somehow intellectually vapid.

God also has not clearly explained the same things. He says he created them. He doesn't say how. He doesn't say how long it took (besides the phrase "six days.")

I suppose I can accept the premise that He did not explain the mechanism He used by which nothing became something. But why should he?

Where does it say this again? I must have missed it.

"Bara", creating something from nothing. Gen 1:1

I have no problem with you believing that. I don't think it says the same thing you think it says.

No one has given me a compelling reason to think otherwise.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.

But it does matter to me. Genesis is quoted or referenced more than any other book in the bible. That has significance.

But I think using our brains, our senses, and the tools he has blessed us with is a good thing.

Thus implying that those who believe Gen don't?

I'm sorry to say, but it is mostly discredited and debunked.

Well, actually, not it isn't.

Again, 6,000 is not a rounding error of 4,500,000,000 or 2,500,000,000 or even 1,000,000.

True.

If the earth is really only 6,000 years old, God has covered his tracks better than the Lone Ranger with a mile-wide broom.

Really? I think the evidence matches up quite nicely with a literal interpretation of Gen.

It's not that important.

I think it is to Bible believing Christians.

[Bat-Man]

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

If you really want to get literal, Genesis 1:5 states that God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, so as long as there was light, it was Day, and when darkness (or Night) came the end of that day (Light) was at an end.

God works in the Light, as you may know, and not in Darkness.

There is also some other scripture which can be cited to bring up some other points, if anyone is interested in finding it.

[sean0scott]

"Bara", creating something from nothing. Gen 1:1

Is it possible that that there are scholars who disagree about the meaning of this word?

[Hoops22]

Is it possible that that there are scholars who disagree about the meaning of this word?

Certainly. And there are many who do not.

I believe up to about 1830 +/- almost EVERY scholar believed that "bara" meant ex nihilo and that day meant 24 hour day.

Are they to be dismissed?

[kawikadave]

Certainly. And there are many who do not.

I believe up to about 1830 +/- almost EVERY scholar believed that "bara" meant ex nihilo and that day meant 24 hour day.

Are they to be dismissed?

I believe that up to 1830 and beyond, scholars believed that malaria was caused by breathing "bad air." Are they to be dismissed?

[Bat-Man]

Certainly. And there are many who do not.

I believe up to about 1830 +/- almost EVERY scholar believed that "bara" meant ex nihilo and that day meant 24 hour day.

Are they to be dismissed?

There would be no need to dismiss them, or what those people said, if you didn't believe them in the first place, so a better question would be:

Why should you believe what they say and believe is true?

There are all sorts of reasons for believing people, and a lot of those reasons make logical sense, somewhat, but just because something makes sense doesn't necessarily mean it is true.

[sean0scott]

I believe up to about 1830 +/- almost EVERY scholar believed that "bara" meant ex nihilo and that day meant 24 hour day.

Are they to be dismissed?

Certainly not... though I wouldn't consider their findings weighty enough to declare that Genesis clearly pronounces creation ex nihilo; I'm not comfortable promoting either stance based on the term bara.

By the way, a happy beginning of the NBA season to you.

[Hoops22]

I believe that up to 1830 and beyond, scholars believed that malaria was caused by breathing "bad air." Are they to be dismissed?

But we're talking about Biblical scholars. A fixed set of information. (unless you're lds )

[Lachoneus]

"Bara", creating something from nothing. Gen 1:1

That is not what "bara" means. In its basic meaning "bara" means "to cut" or "to cleave." God creates by dividing what already exists, not ex nihilo.

[BCSpace]

I believe up to about 1830 +/- almost EVERY scholar believed that "bara" meant ex nihilo and that day meant 24 hour day.

Prior to the Nicene Creed, early Christians believed that the Father and Son were separate Gods, that the world was not created out of nothing and that there are three major degrees of salvation. Are they to be dismissed?

[kawikadave]

But we're talking about Biblical scholars. A fixed set of information. (unless you're lds )

Have we not progressed in our understanding of language in the past 178 years? We certainly learned a lot more about malaria. I'd hate to think all those college professors and theologians haven't learned anything about Hebrew and other Semitic languages in 178 years. Maybe they should give up if they're not adding anything.

[katherine the great]

A fixed set of information.

There's no such thing in language--especially when it spans thousands of years of different culture. What did the word "gay" mean in 1930?

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't have strong's so I wouldn't know.[...]

I have no intention of entering into this fray, I just thought for future reference (and for your personal studies) you might find this useful (the NT section has a groovy little feature where you can see the Greek of various manuscripts for a given verse).

Of course, I have been told by those smarter than I that Strongs isn't the best place to go when in need of a lexicon, but I suppose itâ??s better than nothing in a pinch.

Enjoy.

-Stu

[BCSpace]

Of course, I have been told by those smarter than I that Strongs isn't the best place to go when in need of a lexicon, but I suppose itâ??s better than nothing in a pinch.

Probably correct, but it's typically well respected in the EV community whcih is why I refer to it in debate.

[consiglieri]

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.

So now Genesis teaches God hates night watchmen?

[Hoops22]

There's no such thing in language--especially when it spans thousands of years of different culture. What did the word "gay" mean in 1930?

And yet you know what it meant. As do I.

So now Genesis teaches God hates night watchmen?

Just lds night watchmen.

[consiglieri]

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.

So, Hoops, do you also believe the earth is a flat square, with pillars on the corners holding up a huge, curved crystalline substance over our head in which the stars are imbedded, and above which vast amounts of water are held back which can be released upon the earth at God's direction through the "windows of heaven"?

I mean, if science isn't going to be your god . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hoops22]

Have we not progressed in our understanding of language in the past 178 years? We certainly learned a lot more about malaria. I'd hate to think all those college professors and theologians haven't learned anything about Hebrew and other Semitic languages in 178 years. Maybe they should give up if they're not adding anything.

From roughly 300 to 1830 we had a document that was fairly fixed - I think the catholics have that pesky extra psalm or something -. Thereby, they were able to study the document without it changing.But given that, do you think the fact that scholars thought malaria was caused by the air we breathe helps your cause or mine?

Prior to the Nicene Creed, early Christians believed that the Father and Son were separate Gods, that the world was not created out of nothing and that there are three major degrees of salvation. Are they to be dismissed?

That is simply not true.

[consiglieri]

From roughly 300 to 1830 we had a document that was fairly fixed - I think the catholics have that pesky extra psalm or something -. Thereby, they were able to study the document without it changing.But given that, do you think the fact that scholars thought malaria was caused by the air we breathe helps your cause or mine?That is simply not true.

I think the fact Christianity taught for over a thousand years that the sun revolved around the earth may play into this somewhere . . .

Do you still believe that biblical teaching, too, Hoops?

I mean, that was the consensus of the fixed set of Bible scholars.

[Hoops22]

Certainly not... though I wouldn't consider their findings weighty enough to declare that Genesis clearly pronounces creation ex nihilo;

I understand. Though I would give it more weight than you, I suspect, I agree.

I'm not comfortable promoting either stance based on the term bara.

Nope, me neither. But Ex 20 I find convincing. As well as others.

By the way, a happy beginning of the NBA season to you.

Yes, the world is finally reorienting itself to where it should be.

[Lachoneus]

But Ex 20 I find convincing.

What about Genesis 1:14? How does verse 14 fit into your understanding of the word "day" as used in Genesis 1?