getting dates about a young earth

[Bowman]

Bible verse that says this please.

Jeremiah 33.25

Just like the one above that just said transition and didn't indicate how long the transition was? If not, can you please share some of these?

From the birth of Eve...


And Yahweh Elohim built (way·yi·ḇen) the side which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her (way·ḇi·’e·hā) to the man. And the man said, This now at last( hap·pa·‘am) is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man. (Gen 2.22 – 23)


As the first human clone, three things in these two passages indicate that Eve was created as a child needing to be raised separate from Adam before she was presented back as an age-appropriate mate.

· The Hebrew verb ‘banah’, employed for the creation of Eve, carries with it the meaning to ‘have children’ and ‘obtain children’.

· The Hebrew verb ‘bo’ informs the reader that after Eve was created from Adam, she then had to be brought back to Adam because she was not with Adam. If Eve had been created as a same-age-adult as Adam, then why would Adam have not woken up with Eve by his side to begin with?

· The exclamation ‘hap·pa·‘am’ (at last!) by Adam indicates that he had been waiting for his mate for a very long time. ‘Paam’ carries with it the definition of ‘annual’ and ‘time’, indicating long duration.

 

[kodiak]

Jeremiah 33.25

So you believe that everything was created within the bounds of natural law?

that says "fixed order of heaven and earth" and he created a covenant with it. When did he do this and what exactly is the covenant?

From the birth of Eve...


And Yahweh Elohim built (way·yi·ḇen) the side which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her (way·ḇi·’e·hā) to the man. And the man said, This now at last( hap·pa·‘am) is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man. (Gen 2.22 – 23)


As the first human clone, three things in these two passages indicate that Eve was created as a child needing to be raised separate from Adam before she was presented back as an age-appropriate mate.

· The Hebrew verb ‘banah’, employed for the creation of Eve, carries with it the meaning to ‘have children’ and ‘obtain children’.

· The Hebrew verb ‘bo’ informs the reader that after Eve was created from Adam, she then had to be brought back to Adam because she was not with Adam. If Eve had been created as a same-age-adult as Adam, then why would Adam have not woken up with Eve by his side to begin with?

· The exclamation ‘hap·pa·‘am’ (at last!) by Adam indicates that he had been waiting for his mate for a very long time. ‘Paam’ carries with it the definition of ‘annual’ and ‘time’, indicating long duration.

‘Banah’ can mean have children, but doesn't always. It means to be built. Eve was built from Adam's side. It doesn't have to mean that Eve was a child.

Bo was also used in Gen. 2:19 and said the animals were brought to man. This does not imply distance. Also Bo can mean introduce. God brought the animals to Adam to name, some could have been a few feet from Adam, but they had to be presented to Adam to name.

Now ‘hap·pa·‘am’ does mean "at last!" However, context determines how long. Based on Gen 2:19, it appears to just be the last thing presented to Adam. "At last, after viewing all these creatures I am presented with a mate."

So it still appears that is doesn't necessarily mean they were created as infants.

 

[Dino246]

Then you concede that life died prior to the fall.

Once again, you have committed a logical fallacy. This time it is "affirming the consequent." While it is a little more complex in this case, basically you have made two premises, and because I acknowledged one (by refuting it), you assume that I agree with the other.

And, once again, a fallacy needs no rebuttal.

 

[Bowman]

So you believe that everything was created within the bounds of natural law?

Correct.

that says "fixed order of heaven and earth" and he created a covenant with it. When did he do this and what exactly is the covenant?

His laws of physics, obviously.

‘Banah’ can mean have children, but doesn't always. It means to be built. Eve was built from Adam's side. It doesn't have to mean that Eve was a child.

As you admit....it indeed does relate to children.

Bo was also used in Gen. 2:19 and said the animals were brought to man. This does not imply distance. Also Bo can mean introduce. God brought the animals to Adam to name, some could have been a few feet from Adam, but they had to be presented to Adam to name.

No matter how you slice it, a distance had to be overcome.

This would not be necessary if Eve was already by Adam's side.

Now ‘hap·pa·‘am’ does mean "at last!" However, context determines how long. Based on Gen 2:19, it appears to just be the last thing presented to Adam. "At last, after viewing all these creatures I am presented with a mate."

The very lexical definition points to a very long period of time.

So it still appears that is doesn't necessarily mean they were created as infants.

That each was created from the ground up, is the only way to view it.

Remember, OEC's are NOT constrained by time limitations, like YEC's are.

YEC's are the original reality show - in which all the said events MUST be made to transpire within a 24hr period of time.

Ever watch the series 24?!

 

[kodiak]

Correct.





His laws of physics, obviously.

You have yet to state when the covenant was made(After creation? when exactly?)...and if it includes that even miracles can't be used against it....

As you admit....it indeed does relate to children.

It can, but not in this instance.

No matter how you slice it, a distance had to be overcome.

This would not be necessary if Eve was already by Adam's side.

I brought a telephone to the person in the other room...that was a distance... You have yet to prove how far the distance was
and that verb can also mean introduce.....words have multiple meanings

The very lexical definition points to a very long period of time.

actually it doesn't...It can also refer to something existing now the ha signifies it is demonstrative and fits with the animals being brought to Adam...Adam didn't wander around the garden going to each animal...after seeing all the animals, he exclaimed at last because he finally saw another like him.

 

[Bowman]

You have yet to state when the covenant was made(After creation? when exactly?)...and if it includes that even miracles can't be used against it....

The laws of physics were set at the point of creation, per General Revelation.

It can, but not in this instance.

It can...and it does...

I brought a telephone to the person in the other room...that was a distance... You have yet to prove how far the distance was and that verb can also mean introduce.....words have multiple meanings

Context shows that Eve had to be brought back to Adam, as she was away.

Had she been created full formed, and age appropriate, then there would have been absolutely no need to have taken her away to begin with.

You are flailing...

actually it doesn't...It can also refer to something existing now the ha signifies it is demonstrative and fits with the animals being brought to Adam...Adam didn't wander around the garden going to each animal...after seeing all the animals, he exclaimed at last because he finally saw another like him.

The lexical definition stands.

 

[kodiak]

The laws of physics were set at the point of creation, per General Revelation.






It can...and it does...







Context shows that Eve had to be brought back to Adam, as she was away.

Had she been created full formed, and age appropriate, then there would have been absolutely no need to have taken her away to begin with.

You are flailing...








The lexical definition stands.

So a city is now a child because thats what that word can and does mean?
As I said before the very definition states introduce or present... And hasty generalization....other variables could be present
Yes it does as what I have stated....I gave you the exact definition....you must look at context

 

[Tintin]

and you've agreed the flood was c 2400 bc. I'm waiting for you to tell me how the people who wrote before 2400 bc didn't know about it except as a long past event>

Your second sentence makes no sense. The Flood happened roughly 4,500 years ago - yes. But everything we have today comes from the post-Flood period, save for most fossils which are from different stages of the one global Flood of Noah's time. People may have recorded information prior to the Flood, but the dating systems of the world have to be adjusted somewhat to align with a roughly 6,000-year old creation if we want to go by what the Bible infers.

 

[Tintin]

Bowman, if you really are the well-known theologian you say you are, that's very disappointing. Your skills in biblical hermeneutics are sorely lacking. And what's the use of a theologian if they just make the Bible say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say?

For the last freaking time, if Holy Spirit wanted to Moses to write that He (God) created the world over a long, long period of time, God would have chosen different words to describe the process of creation. There are, after all, Hebrew words that can be used to convey, if not millions and billions of years, at least long ages. But, unfortunately for you, Moses wrote that God created the world in six standard length days and rested on the seventh day.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant and you've agreed the flood was c 2400 bc. I'm waiting for you to tell me how the people who wrote before 2400 bc didn't know about it except as a long past event>

Your second sentence makes no sense. The Flood happened roughly 4,500 years ago - yes. But everything we have today comes from the post-Flood period, save for most fossils which are from different stages of the one global Flood of Noah's time. People may have recorded information prior to the Flood, but the dating systems of the world have to be adjusted somewhat to align with a roughly 6,000-year old creation if we want to go by what the Bible infers.

I see now you have a problem in understanding simple English. That explains a lot.

Let me put it even more simpler for you.

You say the Flood was 2400 BC. Yet no one in that day knew about it. Those who wrote before 2400 BC and looked back on the flood, thought it was PAST. So you are now saying there were two floods the later of which was totally unobserved.

Furthermore you claim it was followed by a four hundred year ice age that was also unobserved. No one in history knew that it had occurred. Strange that IF it were true, You do say some silly things.

 

[valiant]

Bowman, if you really are the well-known theologian you say you are, that's very disappointing. Your skills in biblical hermeneutics are sorely lacking. And what's the use of a theologian if they just make the Bible say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say?

For the last freaking time, if Holy Spirit wanted to Moses to write that He (God) created the world over a long, long period of time, God would have chosen different words to describe the process of creation. There are, after all, Hebrew words that can be used to convey, if not millions and billions of years, at least long ages. But, unfortunately for you, Moses wrote that God created the world in six standard length days and rested on the seventh day.

LOL who are you to say how God should write His word?

God says He created it in six God-days, and He made clear that they were NOT man days.

He didn't say how long it took except as measured in God-days, He wasn't bothered.

 

[notuptome]

Then a step-by-step process was followed in fashioning Adam....of which, takes time.

God spoke all of the universe into existence. How many steps are in speaking things into existence? Your thought premise is just plain silly.

As God, yes.

As human flesh, no.

And yet God inhabits all of eternity all the time.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Bowman, if you really are the well-known theologian you say you are, that's very disappointing. Your skills in biblical hermeneutics are sorely lacking. And what's the use of a theologian if they just make the Bible say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say?

For the last freaking time, if Holy Spirit wanted to Moses to write that He (God) created the world over a long, long period of time, God would have chosen different words to describe the process of creation. There are, after all, Hebrew words that can be used to convey, if not millions and billions of years, at least long ages. But, unfortunately for you, Moses wrote that God created the world in six standard length days and rested on the seventh day.

Is "last freaking" the same as "last ****ing"?

 

[ukok102nak]

. ... please
:read:
Revelation: 3. 12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation: 22. 1. And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

:smoke: where was the place that the man is created first?
please correct us if our question seems getting unto some
unthinkable thoughts :8)

for if man is created in the same place
why the lord god took him and put him into the garden of eden :hrmm:
:read:
Genesis: 2. 15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

: : then perhaps every species of different creatures that were sent to the man were also created from other places meaning outside of the garden and
some made inside but were not living along with the man
in the garden
:read:
Genesis: 2. 19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

:† ~ like humans today where we cannot live along with other animals
imagine a snake who can talked sleeping under your bed :rofl:


:ty:


godbless us all always

 

[Dan_473]

LOL who are you to say how God should write His word?

God says He created it in six God-days, and He made clear that they were NOT man days.

He didn't say how long it took except as measured in God-days, He wasn't bothered.

for me, the reason I don't accept "God-days" for the whole of the passage is that the sun rules over days.

 

[Bowman]

God spoke all of the universe into existence. How many steps are in speaking things into existence? Your thought premise is just plain silly.

As many as necessary.

And yet God inhabits all of eternity all the time.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

But not His flesh.

 

[Bowman]

Bowman, if you really are the well-known theologian you say you are, that's very disappointing. Your skills in biblical hermeneutics are sorely lacking. And what's the use of a theologian if they just make the Bible say what they want it to say, rather than what it does say?

For the last freaking time, if Holy Spirit wanted to Moses to write that He (God) created the world over a long, long period of time, God would have chosen different words to describe the process of creation. There are, after all, Hebrew words that can be used to convey, if not millions and billions of years, at least long ages. But, unfortunately for you, Moses wrote that God created the world in six standard length days and rested on the seventh day.

Your YEC worldview places God's General Revelation at odds with God's Special Revelation.

OEC's do not have this issue...nor do we need to be the bigots that most YEC's are...

 

[Bowman]

So a city is now a child because thats what that word can and does mean?

Show us where Eve is a 'city'.

As I said before the very definition states introduce or present... And hasty generalization....other variables could be present
Yes it does as what I have stated....I gave you the exact definition....you must look at context

You have brought nothing new to the table...

 

[notuptome]

As many as necessary.

According to scripture God said let there be and there was. Out of nothing came everything.

But not His flesh.

1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

To the eternal God flesh means nothing. This is way beyond your finite view of creation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[valiant]

for me, the reason I don't accept "God-days" for the whole of the passage is that the sun rules over days.

It doesn't rule before yom 4. it specifically ruled over man-days,