How is it that in the beginning in Genesis 2 when God created the 1st Adam and Eden....

[aspen]

ok - I understand what you are saying. I disagree about the scientific evidence for a young earth, but I have been wrong before - perhaps God and I will have a good laugh about it someday.

 

[Axehead]

If we started with 2 people, and each couple in each generation had produced 3 children who in turn reproduced, the population of the earth would be 6,455,917,690 people in 1090 years.

Here is a calculator for you if you would like to change up the variables a bit.

 

[the stranger]

to hold God to a 24 hour day would be silly-time as we know it didn't start till day 4. So to me before day 4 could of been 10;000;000;000;000;etc years.carbon dating is impossible when the things you are dateing have absorbed the earth which would add these greater number of years to them.and if earth is named earth what was named eden,or where was eden, not the garden it was in eden?God didn't call adam adam untill after he decided to create eve. had a hurge to type

<< Genesis 1 >>
New International Version 1984


14And
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate
the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and
days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Carbon dating is not near as reliable is many people tell you.

God bless. Just keep Jesus as Lord

God created lights to serve as signs to mark the days, not that the days were not already laid out in 24 hour periods. This can be seen in psalm 136: 7To Him who made the great lights,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting:

8The sun to rule by day,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting,

9The moon and stars to rule by night,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting.

 

[Groundzero]

moses the one who struck the rock?= and God called knowledge the beginning' = i disagree because if you don't comprehend this you wouldn't understand my answer. :unsure:

Comprehend what? You make absolutely no sense at all.

If we started with 2 people, and each couple in each generation had produced 3 children who in turn reproduced, the population of the earth would be 6,455,917,690 people in 1090 years.

Here is a calculator for you if you would like to change up the variables a bit.

"Here is a calculator . . . ." ROFL

A millstone around your neck is a bad thing.......

Also, the only evidence for a young Earth is from outside the scientific community.

the point of Genesis is that God is sovereign and we are not.

From outside the scientific community? I know a well-known site who has something to say about that: http://creation.com/ and in case you weren't able to find them, a list of scientists who believe in a LITERAL Biblical account of creation. http://creation.com/creation-scientists . So please, enough of this tripe about a young Earth not being held in the scientific circle.

God is sovereign? Well why can't we just take what he says? He says it was day ONE then it was day one!!!! Instead of this absurd reasoning that God said, it was day ONE and we say, Oh, so it was 1,000,000,000 years!!!! How foolish do we want to be?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

As far as populating the earth ......

I have heard that when an actuarial study is applied to the 8 people of Noah starting 4000 years ago ..... we would end up with roughly 5-6 billion people on earth ....... fairly close to what we have today

Actuarial studies are relied upon by insurance companies ...... people and governments who plan for population growth etc .... and is considered quite accurate.

It takes into account disease , famines , wars etc.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

there were certain named rivers and places such as Ethiopia already on the earth? Could it be because the earth is far older than our Adamic race? And notice that the man and woman created together in Gen 1:26 were not placed in Eden, but were told to RE-plenish the( rest of the) EARTH in Genesis 1:28. But the 1st Adam created alone, yet male and female in one body before the LORD removed Eve from Adam's bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, yet they were not ever told to replenish the earth for they were naked and not ashamed because they had no genitals for they were holy beings and did not reproduce. It was only after they fell to the lower level(sin nature) that they were given skin with reproductive organs and now EVE was to bare the children for part of her punishment.... and in pain.


KJV

Hi afaithfulone,

After studying Heaven and Earth in the New Testament and found it to be speaking of the people and the Temple, in Jerusalem. My primary source was not by my study as much as it was by a Jewish Hebrew Scholar and educator here in America. She wrote an article about Jacob's vision and pointed out it was at the same place that Abraham took Issac up as a sacrifice and the same place where the temple in Jerusalem was built. All were on Mount Har Moriah. She called it Heaven and Earth, the place where man and God meet. http://www.racheladelman.com/

So when Jesus spoke of Heaven and Earth to his disciples, they knew it was the Temple that he spoke of. With this knowledge we can also know in the book of Revelation that when it speaks of the old Heaven and Earth had passed away and he saw a New Heaven and Earth, it would be the Temple within us.

This being the case, that it represents the place where God and man meet, when Genesis speaks of creating the Heaven and Earth it would have been speaking of Adam and the Garden where God would meet with them.

This is why some places already had a name, and that Cain was able to find a wife in a city that he traveled to.

 

[forrestcupp]

The first three chapters of Genesis show some overlap - they are not separate accounts of the creation story; they just showcase different details. The named rivers were probably given names AFTER Adam and Eve were around, but when spoken of in divine revelation were already addressed by the Lord as what Moses knew them to be called.

If you will, the first Biblical "wedding" took place in Genesis chapter 2, before the serpent tempted Eve. This would have happened right before the "blessing" in which Adam and Eve were told to "be fruitful and multiply".

I believe the "bearing children in pain" statement comes not just from the act of childbirth, but also the sin-stained human nature that would follow. If sin had not entered the world, you wouldn't have rebellious teenagers and such as we do now (and as they did - look at Cain). I'm not an expert in Hebrew though, so I can't know the original statements and intended messages

Summary: Chapters 1 - 3 tell the same story, just focusing on different details. The only gap for an "older earth" theory falls inbetween verses 1 and 2, and possibly between verses 2 and 3.

Great post. Genesis 1 was a summary of the entire creation story. In chapter 2, we go back into a more detailed, personal account of the creation of man. Plus, it appears to me that the only plants that were created after man was the garden. Also, I agree with ZebraHug that Genesis was written by Moses, and he was describing the event and location based on current locations that people would understand. A lot of terrain would have been changed by the flood, anyway.

Also, like you were saying at the end, I heavily lean toward believing in the Gap Theory between Gen. 1 verses 1 & 2. It just makes a lot of sense, and looking at it that way, science can go hand in hand with a literal interpretation of the creation event. The events in verses 3 and on were actually a recreation of an older earth that had become formless and void (maybe by the fall of Lucifer? (another can of worms)). From the original creation to the recreation, there could have been billions of years. Who knows?

But then you have the whole thing about whether man has only been around for 6,000 years or not, even if the earth is old. The interesting thing is that there have been studies into the "mitochondrial eve" that are starting to show that the first woman was closer to 10,000 years ago rather than 200,000. If that's true and the gap theory is true, then there's no reason a literal interpretation of creation couldn't go hand in hand with science.

It's also curious - Genesis 1 and 2 do indeed use different identifiers for God, but it doesn't say how the man/men/people knew the Lord. I wonder if this is the Holy Spirit inspiring Moses to combine the two widely-held creation stories of the time, most likely because they are both true, and the two stories used differing naming conventions? (The Yahweh creation story and the Elohim creation story).

In my opinion, it's not because Moses is trying to save face and be apologetic of different accounts, but because chapters 1 and 2 have different purposes. Chapter 1 is about God Almighty creating the heavens and the earth. Chapter 2 is about The Lord's personal involvement in the creation and establishment of the first man and woman. That's why Moses uses Yahweh in chapter 2 instead of elohiym.

 

[Axehead]

Comprehend what? You make absolutely no sense at all.



"Here is a calculator . . . ." ROFL



From outside the scientific community? I know a well-known site who has something to say about that: http://creation.com/ and in case you weren't able to find them, a list of scientists who believe in a LITERAL Biblical account of creation. http://creation.com/creation-scientists . So please, enough of this tripe about a young Earth not being held in the scientific circle.

God is sovereign? Well why can't we just take what he says? He says it was day ONE then it was day one!!!! Instead of this absurd reasoning that God said, it was day ONE and we say, Oh, so it was 1,000,000,000 years!!!! How foolish do we want to be?

Are you the only one that thought the calculator was funny, besides me? LOL

 

[veteran]

So the Genesis creation account isn't literal just because one can't understand 'how'... it is literal?

The creation account of Gen.1 is veiled to most, mainly because they listen to men's traditions, whether they be secular or old Christian tradition. An old Christian tradition says Eve ate an apple when Genesis does not specifiy what the fruit was.

In Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27 there is a difference with the article with the word 'aadam' vs. the word 'aadam' with no article. Hebrew 'aadam' without the article can mean 'mankind', but with it means a specific man. It's pointing to creation of both general mankind (the races), and a specific man Adam in those verses. Makes sense too, because the races of mankind did not evolve, God created them.

This is how Cain could go to the "land of Nod" with people already there. And there's somewhat of an element of archaeological proof with the Semite who came to the land of ancient Sumer whom they called Sargon, from which the oldest archeaological record of the creation account was derived in the Babylonian tablets (the Babylonian account is heavily masked with the ancient Sumerian priest's language and symbology of their time). Per the tablet history, Sargon shows up among the ancient Sumerians out of nowhere, and gives them knowledge of science and agriculture, and starts the first pagan religious worship of Bel. Was this not the very nature of Cain being cast out of Eden to the land of Nod? I think it is.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I think we have to put the brakes on for a minute and realize that the "two different accounts of creation" originates from a group of people who are trying to disprove the bible and find errors in scripture.

They present what appears to be a good case.

To counter that , some theologians have done an excellent job of reconciling the so-called "two accounts of creation"

The accuracy of the Genesis Creation record withstands the the critique of the atheists.

It is wise to carefully study the opinion of the atheist versus the creationist and come to your own independent conclusion.

At that point you have some knowledge.

 

[veteran]

I think we have to put the brakes on for a minute and realize that the "two different accounts of creation" originates from a group of people who are trying to disprove the bible and find errors in scripture.

They present what appears to be a good case.

To counter that , some theologians have done an excellent job of reconciling the so-called "two accounts of creation"

The accuracy of the Genesis Creation record withstands the the critique of the atheists.

It is wise to carefully study the opinion of the atheist versus the creationist and come to your own independent conclusion.

At that point you have some knowledge.

Why are you bringing up the idea atheism about this matter? I don't see anyone here denying the idea of God's creation, do you?


What the Babylonian tablet creation account linked to ancient Sumer and Sargon possibly reveals, if Sargon indeed was Cain, is simply the corruption Cain fell into from murdering his brother Abel. The Genesis account is accurate. The Babylonian tablet creation account is not reliable, even some pastors believe it over Genesis (those pastors I would not trust).

 

[Rex]

Well veteran your in a league I also choose not to listen to myself.

People that believe man kind did not spring from Adam and Eve and the apple was in reality a sexual encounter IMO have lost their way as well.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Veteran .... you maybe did not get my point , but that is fine. I said it was "the atheists" who claimed issues with the two accounts of creation

Theologians and scholars do not , neither do I , ..... my point being that if Christians have issues it comes right from the pages of the atheists .... or from the people trying to disprove the accuracy of the bible.

 

[veteran]

Well veteran your in a league I also choose not to listen to myself.

People that believe man kind did not spring from Adam and Eve and the apple was in reality a sexual encounter IMO have lost their way as well.

You mean I'm not in the league of men's doctrines and traditions?? Thank you, because that's right, I stay in God's Word.

Most are probably afraid to do a little thinking for theirself about this, since the idea that all people came from Adam and Eve means the theory of evolution. No proof of it in God's Word, and there's no scientific or archaeological proof for it either. Same idea with Noah after the flood, Church tradition holds that all peoples that populated the earth after the flood 'evolved' from Noah's family also.

When our Heavenly Father first created 'aadam', that genetics has never changed since for this world. Likewise for the races of mankind, which is still why it's impossible for a man and woman of one race to produce offspring of another race.

Veteran .... you maybe did not get my point , but that is fine. I said it was "the atheists" who claimed issues with the two accounts of creation

Theologians and scholars do not , neither do I , ..... my point being that if Christians have issues it comes right from the pages of the atheists .... or from the people trying to disprove the accuracy of the bible.

Well, I disagree with you, because as Christians we have responsibility to rightly divide God's Word in understanding, and understanding the creation event in Genesis is no less important.

Nor can we as believers just strike out the physical evidence God left on the earth to understand it, like trying to say that's from atheists trying to disprove it. God left the evidence for us to discover and understand, not atheists.

 

[Rex]

Most are probably afraid to do a little thinking for theirself about this, since the idea that all people came from Adam and Eve means the theory of evolution.

LOL I'm speechless, Adam and Eve means the theory of evolution, ROTF LOL

Enough said, I won't even ask you to comment on your believing in Eve's sexual encounter with Satan, I suppose that to proves evolution as well LOL

 

[veteran]

LOL I'm speechless, Adam and Eve means the theory of evolution, ROTF LOL

Enough said, I won't even ask you to comment on your believing in Eve's sexual encounter with Satan, I suppose that to proves evolution as well LOL

Where did you ever read me saying Eve had sex with Satan? You're going terribly out of the way of the subject here to make false accusations you cannot back up.

And thank you, for proving that you're a believer on evolution theory, because that's exactly what it means when implying that all the races of mankind evolved from Adam and Eve, or from Noah.

In Gen.15 there are especially two peoples that cannot be traced back to any... of the offspring of Noah, namely the Kenites and the Rephaims (giants).

Our Heavenly Father created all the races of man in the beginning (as the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27 does show), they did not evolve!

You probably even believe the stupid tradition of men that the Black race came from Ham's sin against Noah, and that they have been cursed?!?

 

[forrestcupp]

Most are probably afraid to do a little thinking for theirself about this, since the idea that all people came from Adam and Eve means the theory of evolution. No proof of it in God's Word, and there's no scientific or archaeological proof for it either. Same idea with Noah after the flood, Church tradition holds that all peoples that populated the earth after the flood 'evolved' from Noah's family also.

When our Heavenly Father first created 'aadam', that genetics has never changed since for this world. Likewise for the races of mankind, which is still why it's impossible for a man and woman of one race to produce offspring of another race.

You're contradicting yourself. In one breath, you're talking about things not lining up with science and archaeology, then in another breath, you're saying that everyone descending from Adam & Eve or Noah promotes the theory of evolution, so it couldn't be true. Creationists don't believe in interspecies evolution. But evolution within a species is obviously seen, even in historic times. You're acting like you think black people and white people have different DNA.

 

[veteran]

You're contradicting yourself. In one breath, you're talking about things not lining up with science and archaeology, then in another breath, you're saying that everyone descending from Adam & Eve or Noah promotes the theory of evolution, so it couldn't be true. Creationists don't believe in interspecies evolution. But evolution within a species is obviously seen, even in historic times. You're acting like you think black people and white people have different DNA.

Sorry, but you're so full of men's ideas and traditions that it's likely impossible for you to understand what I'm saying.

Evolution theory is false, and is actually a proponent from the old schools of esotericism; their final stage of evolution they remain publically silent on is from a man to a god, like Buddhism's Nirvana state. Evolution theory is pseudo-science, not real science. Real science will always align with God's Word and visa versa.

Nor is there any proof of evolution within the human species, because mixing of the races is how changes occur, not by evolution. Mutations in humans are not the norm either, although evolution tries to use that as a norm for the springing forth of natural changes to try and support their theories. Features and attributes of the various races which God originally created in the beginning go back thousands of years to show they have not evolved.

Nor did the Black race come from a curse, as some pop Christian traditions have taught concerning Ham's sin against Noah in Gen.9. Now if you can't realize how that statement supports God's creation of all races how He intended, then you might want to weigh a lot of the ideas of men and of the world you've latched onto.

Either one believes in creation, or they believe in evolution; it cannot be both, because they contradict each other. So the contradiction certainly is not mine, because I choose to believe in God's creation of all things, including that of all the original races of mankind.

 

[Anti-Nimrod]

As far as the age of the earth. It clearly says in the "beginning" God created the heavens and the earth. We do not know how long this beginning was. We only know that light, His Glory or Illumination, was possibly the light created the first day. The reason I say His Glory is because things which emit light ie: sun,moon and stars, were not created until the fourth day. Time only began for humans since he said let there be light on the first day. It could be that the beginning took a very long time.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

We must remember that God "Spoke everything into existence"

He just said the words and voila .... there it was

At least that is how creation is described in the genesis record.

I do not feel God had to speak , and then wait for a long time for something to happen.

He said "let there be light" .... and from that moment on there was an "entity" called light ..... he could make the sun three days later to give us the light we are most familiar with .... and that would not be in conflict