crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
There was no creation, as there is no god.
We are a blind product of a billion years of evolution, and various disasters.
We are a blind product of a billion years of evolution, and various disasters.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How long ago was Adam created?
- Thread starter Francine
- Start date
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Proverbs 26:5
Smoke
Done here.
Matthew 5.22: Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Actually, Psalm 144.1 in the Greek numbering is "I will extol thee, my God, O king; and I will bless thy name for ever and ever." In the Hebrew numbering, it's a good Republican verse: "Blessed be the Lord my strength who teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.")
kai
ragamuffin
well there was obviuosly a creation , and the existence of a god is up for debate thats why you on RF
Francine
Well-Known Member
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
Setting aside the fact that I see the Bible as simply a book written by men who had no understanding of anything that came prior to some arbitrary ancestor, I still have a problem with this method of aging the Earth by the Bible.
1. It assumes that the 7 days it took for God to create the world were 7 days by earthly reckoning.
2. (And by far the bigger issue) Is how the timeframe of years has been reckoned. In the course of the Bible's many rewrites, did someone take into account the shift in calendars in 46BCE? That the way the Jews logged time differed even from the Roman calendar that precedes the one we currently use?
For the Romans, anyway, the calendars predating the Julian calendar of 46BCE (which is the predecessor to the very similar Gregorian calendar we use today) only counted 10 months in the year - the 61 days of winter did not count. So already the count of calendar years is screwed, making it seem like more years passed than actually did.
Next, look at the ages of people in Genesis. Seth lived 912 years? Jared lived 962? Are we to believe that people have been living for shorter and shorter life spans, not longer ones with increased health? No, something was lost in translation here. Whether it be the way the ancients counted "years" or that the world that was translated as 'years' actually meant something different, I think it's still safe to say that Methuselah did NOT in fact live 969 Gregorian (or modern) years.
Suffice to say, if we're aging the planet Earth based on the book, we have to realize that it is in fact YOUNGER than 6000 years old.
Now, are we convinced that taking the Bible literally is absurd yet?
1. It assumes that the 7 days it took for God to create the world were 7 days by earthly reckoning.
2. (And by far the bigger issue) Is how the timeframe of years has been reckoned. In the course of the Bible's many rewrites, did someone take into account the shift in calendars in 46BCE? That the way the Jews logged time differed even from the Roman calendar that precedes the one we currently use?
For the Romans, anyway, the calendars predating the Julian calendar of 46BCE (which is the predecessor to the very similar Gregorian calendar we use today) only counted 10 months in the year - the 61 days of winter did not count. So already the count of calendar years is screwed, making it seem like more years passed than actually did.
Next, look at the ages of people in Genesis. Seth lived 912 years? Jared lived 962? Are we to believe that people have been living for shorter and shorter life spans, not longer ones with increased health? No, something was lost in translation here. Whether it be the way the ancients counted "years" or that the world that was translated as 'years' actually meant something different, I think it's still safe to say that Methuselah did NOT in fact live 969 Gregorian (or modern) years.
Suffice to say, if we're aging the planet Earth based on the book, we have to realize that it is in fact YOUNGER than 6000 years old.
Now, are we convinced that taking the Bible literally is absurd yet?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
My theory on that is that eating from the Tree of Life had lingering diminishing effects on subsequent generations until a normalcy was reached.
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
Maybe I missed it in the previous posts, but where do you get that theory? According to the Bible there were two trees - the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and God cast them out of the garden and set up a guard to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, which would enable them to live forever.
Unless you're referring to the previous posts about 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Which is refuted by:3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Deception and lies are not one and the same. God spoke of the death of their innocence, while the Satan spoke of the death of their bodies.
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Unless you're referring to the previous posts about 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Which is refuted by:3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Deception and lies are not one and the same. God spoke of the death of their innocence, while the Satan spoke of the death of their bodies.
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I thunk it up myself based on a couple of things. First was that eternal life seemed to come from the tree and not inherent to Adam. Second there seems to need to be a continual eating of the Tree (Revelation). Third was the diminishing lifespans.
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
Except that they weren't allowed to eat from it to begin with. Surely god would have noticed if they were snacking from the other tree too, and if that were the case, I'm sure it would have been mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't miss important details like that!
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
They were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.Except that they weren't allowed to eat from it to begin with. Surely god would have noticed if they were snacking from the other tree too, and if that were the case, I'm sure it would have been mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't miss important details like that!
Genesis 2:16-17
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
CelticRavenwolf
She Who is Lost
Would you look at that, you are right.
But then what to you make of the following passage?
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So maybe you really are onto something with your theory then. I always took this to imply that Adam and Eve had not got around to eating from the tree of Life yet, so God wanted to get them out before they did. Perhaps it is more that God cast them out of the garden and denied them the tree of Life as a favour, so that man wouldn't keep eating from it and live forever in his curse... If that be the case then your theory on life span gradually shrinking isn't as far-fetched as it initially appears.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Most of my far fetched theories are based on reading scripture as it is instead of how it is usually (mis)interpreted. It takes a long time to deprogram from some of the rubbish that is standard teaching. Look how long the theology surrounding the church replacing Israel in prophecy has stuck around long after Israel became a nation again.
