Dean Anderson

So which one of those three is not found in the Bible then?

Because I can (I think) give you chapter-and-verse for all three of them...

No assumptions required.

Roger Pearse

Is there a bible verse that states explicitly (not one that can be made to mean) that Adam was created 6000 years ago (counting from which year?).

Except for the silent presumption that the portions of the bible stating these things must be read as if written in a textbook of evolution composed at a US university some time after 1918...

It would be most interesting to hear this proposition defended, of course, if it can be. (If it cannot, of course, then you have some explaining to do, I would have thought).

This is the more relevant since I believe that even before the time of Christ I understand that we find the idea that portions of the OT were only inspired in their allegorical sense and that the literal sense was mainly incidental.

Among the fathers, although I have conducted no search, I do know that we can certainly find this idea in Origen De principiis, stated explicitly.

Likewise Eusebius of Caesarea asserts that the narrative of the Garden of Eden is an allegory of the human race before the fall (in the Chronicle book 1).

I suspect that we could produce endless citations from the fathers along these lines, even though they generally took the view that much of the biblical history was more reliable than pagan records (so Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum).

While I have no opinion on whether this is the One True Way to interpret the bible, and indeed have no need to have such an opinion, I hope I may be permitted to wish that those such as the original poster would make clear what they think this One True Way is, on what evidence, and how they know. After all, unless they can prove these things, their argument instantly turns into a strawman argument.

For them to be certain they are right, divine revelation would appear to be required, in fact, for these arguments to work. Do they indeed have access to this? If so, I have a few small requests which perhaps they might do for me.... mostly involving trivial, teensy-weensy, Swiss bank accounts....

Please can we have less of these frankly moronic attempts to disprove an unstated theological proposition by means of a category confusion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Merlin

1-from the geneology, yes
2-no. it doesn't actually say that.
3-no. is says on the/a 6th day. meaning there may have been other days between 5 and 6

Johnny Skeptic

To whom, to me, or to you? I assume that it makes a lot of difference to you what the Bible says about homosexuality. Isn't that right?

I will be happy to answer your question, but first, please answer my question. If you wish, I will start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum and ask you the question there.

Merlin

since homosexuality was common, there is no reason to believe they were putting words in God's mouth.
That could be counterproductive.
They said they were speaking in the name of God ( saying His message).

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that the only reason that ancient Jews opposed homosexuality was because God told them to oppose it?

Do you have any statistics regarding how common homosexuality was during the time of Moses? If it was common, did Moses tolerate it? He certainly did not tolerate a lot of other things.

Consider the following from a Christian web site:

http://www.contender.org/articles/jdghomo.htm

"There were 18 capital offenses in the written law of Moses and Homosexuality is one of them."

If that was true, I doubt that homosexuality was common back then.

Dean Anderson

There is a verse (Genesis 5:3) that says that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old.

There is a verse (Genesis 5:6) that says that Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old (i.e. 235 years after Adam's creation, when the above verse is taken into account).

There is a verse (Genesis 5:9) that says that Kenan (or Cainan if you prefer that spelling) was born when Enosh was 90 years old (i.e. 325 years after Adam's creation, when the above verses are taken into account).

[Skip about 100 such verses, each giving the date of an event in relation to the date of a previous event...]

There is a pair of verses (2 Chronicles 35:22 and 2 Chronicles 34:1) that say that Jehoahaz became King of Judah after Josiah had reigned for 31 years (i.e. 3554 years after Adam's creation, when the above verses are taken into account).

There is a pair of verses (2 Chronicles 36:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:6) that say that the sacking of Jerusalem and the Exile happened after Jehoahaz had reigned for 3 months (i.e. 3554 years after Adam's creation, when the above verses are taken into account).

So the Bible is very clear that Adam's creation was approximately (since, for example, when someone's age is listed there is no indication as to whether the event happened on the day of their birthday or a whole year later on the day before their next birthday, so there is +/- 1 year in each measurement) 3554 years before Nebuchadnezzar II conquered Judah.

Since we know that date very well, from records from multiple countries (it was in 597 BCE), that puts the creation of Adam at 4151 BCE with an error margin of +/- 100 years. I.e. about 6,000 (ish) years ago.

Looks pretty explicit to me.

I would hardly call treating a passage that says that King Josiah of Judah reigned for 31 years as if it should be read to mean that King Josiah of Judah reigned for 31 years an "assumption". Similarly, I would similarly hardly call treating a passage that says that Reu was 32 years old when his son Serug is born as if it should be read to mean that Reu was 32 years old when his son Serug was born an "assumption".

That's all very well, but we are talking about the views of modern Young-Earth-Creationism leaning inerrantists here, not the views of these people.

Clouseau

First, let's get the the garbage out. The vast majority of such people are no more Christian than you are. Christians preach the gospel of Christ, they don't put up aunt sallies to give atheists an illusion of success. So we'll re-write that.

Many people say that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old, based on what they like people to think the Bible says in Genesis. Now why is that a problem in your view, unless they want a job in mining, the oil industry, or biological research?

Then you made an erroneous statement.

Dean Anderson

Agreed.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

The definition of a week in Exodus 20:8-11 and Exodus 31:13-17 both give the creation of the world as a continuous six-day period followed by a seventh day of rest - which is to be emulated by humans; not as six arbitrary days with possibly thousands or millions of years between them.

Roger Pearse

Actually I think the word you are groping for here is 'no'. That you can infer some such conclusion based on some unstated methodology is no doubt correct. But then that brings us full circle.

You see, I think that you need to lay out your presumptions for inspection and criticism, and offer evidence for them. (I'm not convinced that you have clearly realised that you are making them, you see.)

At the moment all you are doing is reiterating statements based on assumptions that I have indicated are dubious, and that is merely a waste of valuable drinking time for both of us.

Are you asserting that the book of Genesis is of the same literary kind as the court histories of the Kings and Chronicles? If so, by all means explicitly state this proposition and offer evidence for it.

You need to indicate also how your comment is a reply to my own above. It doesn't seem to be, you know.

I suspect that perhaps you have some *theological* principle of interpretation in mind. But as I remarked already, I would like to see your qualifications to speak for God(s) more clearly defined.

This must seem like a repetitive post, and I'm sorry for that. But this is because you brushed aside my last post, in which I made these points, rather than dealing squarely with the issues.

You want to write rhetoric in order to abuse your enemies. But in this forum, it's a good idea to have some reasoned argument and definite information to offer.

In fact I'm discussing *your* statements. What anyone else but you or I thinks is neither here nor there, surely?

Unless you deal with real comments, won't your comments come down to "uneducated people in the backwoods sometimes say things that educated people of the same beliefs don't think necessary"? The answer to that is "yes they do." Whether you think that point worth making would be up to you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse