Adam and Eve were created on day 3

a reply to: Terpene


That's true, Terpene, but only because a thread like this is shallow waters. See, the fascinating thing here (or in those threads about big foot, flat earths, and so on) is to determine where rounda (or any alleged believer in those issues) does really believe in his/her stetements or not. My position is that people is reasonable and rational enough to know for sure those are stories funny enough to entertain your soul for a while, yet obviously unconnected with reality, which so awful and disgusting as to allow oneself to entertain those ideas. But just as what they are: stories.

Obviously, discussing whether Adam or Eve were created on day x or y is irrelevant. Actually, Adam or Eve are irrelevant. The relevant thing here is whether rounda really believes that discussion is relevant. It will be a complete surprise for me to meet someone who actually thinks, say, Big Foot is real, or that the Earth is flat. I think their alleged belief is just a protest, a complain, a refusal to accept a crazy world which is clearly unjust and cruel. Being that the case, I fully respect those views for what they worth: an evasion from that oppressing reality.

So, my question still remains: what's does it mean for rounda whether Z was created on day X instead of day Y? Why?

The question really reduces to just this: what does it mean for humans that something is true or false?

a reply to: Direne

So you're just wading trough.

If you ask me truth is mostly objective. therefore it means nothing they are just terms we like to attach to the story we choose to believe in...
truth has been claimed so many times by so many diffrent narratives it becomes obvious its not a static state and more defined by the general consensus...

I'm sure time will even prove me wrong

a reply to: Terpene

That's right. Time will prove us all wrong. Rounda even resorted to Aristotle and Plato. It is shocking that Aristotle, the father of logic, believed not just in one god, but in many gods. How could possibly he believe in gods when he was at the same time defining logic? Worse: Wittgenstein stated that if you belief in Logic then you should conclude Logic itself is untrue, hence one shouldn't either believe in Logic, according to him.

That's the situation right now (always was): neither gods, nor Logic are valid. Now what? If belief systems and knowledge are time-dependent, they degrade with time. The issue is whether truth also degrades with time. That would be... unnerving.

a reply to: Direne

If there is some such thing like an absolute truth, I doubt it...

The only constant is change... that is as close to an absolute truth as it gets!

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: rounda
Adam and Eve were created on day 3

In which time zone? Because that could be day 2 still for some...

Yes, it could be day two. It was the day the heavens and the earth were created, before the earth brought forth the foliage.

The heavens were created on day 2, and the dry land was separated from the waters, and the foliage was brought forth on day 3.

The way genesis separates days, though, the "night and the morning" being the completion of the day.

So yes, it's possible Adam and Eve were created on the second day or the third day.

The main point was they were not created on the 6th day.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Terpene

That's right. Time will prove us all wrong. Rounda even resorted to Aristotle and Plato. It is shocking that Aristotle, the father of logic, believed not just in one god, but in many gods. How could possibly he believe in gods when he was at the same time defining logic? Worse: Wittgenstein stated that if you belief in Logic then you should conclude Logic itself is untrue, hence one shouldn't either believe in Logic, according to him.

That's the situation right now (always was): neither gods, nor Logic are valid. Now what? If belief systems and knowledge are time-dependent, they degrade with time. The issue is whether truth also degrades with time. That would be... unnerving.

There's nothing "shocking" about bringing up philosophers who discussed forms.

The entire point of forms is that they are heavenly forms from which everything is derived, because you apparently had a problem with the creation of Eden and "living creatures" being created before they were created on earth.

Again, this is a discussion of a creation/origin story, not whether the God of the bible is real or not.

Get over yourself.

Ok, when did they first sin?

originally posted by: Jeremiah33three
Ok, when did they first sin?

That's never reported. Maybe they never did?

Taking the apple, however, was emphatically not a sin.

In order to sin, one must first know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. ie you have to know what you are doing is wrong, is a sin.

God forbid them from eating the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (because he wanted them to remain ignorant, and just do whatever he bade, without question or thought). So Adam and Eve, were incapable of knowing that breaking that one rule was a sin or, indeed, something they should not know.

An interest paradox, which just shows what a nasty piece of work God was back in them days!

OP:
decent observation, chase it outside of ATS. unfortunately it's hard to see your point being fairly discussed here.

and, keep in mind that Moses was extremely well educated by the highest scholars of Egypt; he was very much aware of axial precession and great years. (ever heard the term, "great day?")
while there is reasonable debate whether he was the sole author of genesis, it would be a stretch to believe he spent 40 years walking circles in the desert without talking about any of this with his kin.

Direne/AndyMayhew:
it's interesting how quickly/aggressively/mindlessly you have jumped on this and derailed the thread. nothing personal, but you could say i've spent some time observing human behaviour; and this looks quite like a reaction to being threatened. so, reign it in, check your facts/rebuttals, and good grief, stop representing your side of the argument as simple detractors.

it brings to mind what Zed said in Men In Black: "you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training."

a reply to: FrothMethod

It's interesting that another translation for the word "day" is also eon.

And there are many examples of a day being more than 24 hours in the bible.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


Most time periods in the bible are not as we understand them. For instance the "70 weeks" is not really 70 weeks, but groupings of weeks with time in between.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Except it's pretty obvious via geology, archaelogy, and genome sequencing that humans are descendants from other hominid creatures and we date back to between 300,000-800,000 years ago.. whereas the earliest signs of life on earth are from around 3.7 billion years ago.. and the earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old.

I'm all for the bible containing allegorical depictions of the big bang, formation of earth, and the rise of life...

But if we're doing that, let's keep it on rails.

Speaking of keeping it on the rails, what's the source empirical evidence for any of those outrageous claims? No appeals to majority, I want actual evidence that proves these assertions.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Here we go again. Another intellectual lightweight who thinks they've found something new in the bible, who also thinks it's a history and science reference tome.

For goodness sake...

I'm still waiting on your featherweight response in the other forum... Or do you concede that soft tissue is consistently found in dinosaur bones? Since soft tissue is consistently found in dinosaur bones, the evolutionary narrative crumbles.

I've always thought it was like this: Remember the story of Cain and Abel? They were the first two children born of Adam and Eve. Anyway, when Cain killed Abel, God put a mark on Cain so that when he went out into the world, people wouldn't kill him. What people? I believe it was the people created in the first Six Days. Adam and Eve were created later and put in the Garden of Eden. There had to be other people out somewhere or God wouldn't have put a mark on Cain so that he wouldn't be killed.

If there were no other people, I'm sure Cain's family knew all about what he had done to Abel. God wouldn't have had to put a mark on him just to remind his family of his murder, so it had to be for some other people.

a reply to: rounda




a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

now we're rockin'. skip forward a few pages, to the flood (lol) "myth"

6:4
"The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

think about it.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
I've always thought it was like this: Remember the story of Cain and Abel? They were the first two children born of Adam and Eve. Anyway, when Cain killed Abel, God put a mark on Cain so that when he went out into the world, people wouldn't kill him. What people? I believe it was the people created in the first Six Days. Adam and Eve were created later and put in the Garden of Eden. There had to be other people out somewhere or God wouldn't have put a mark on Cain so that he wouldn't be killed.

If there were no other people, I'm sure Cain's family knew all about what he had done to Abel. God wouldn't have had to put a mark on him just to remind his family of his murder, so it had to be for some other people.

Exactly. Cain went to the land of Nod, with his wife, had a son named Enoch who built a city.

A city for 3 people?

a reply to: rounda

Cain went to the land of Nod, with his wife, had a son named Enoch

No. Enoch was son to Jared, and not Cain. Get over yourself and read the Bible correctly.

originally posted by: FrothMethod
a reply to: rounda

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

now we're rockin'. skip forward a few pages, to the flood (lol) "myth"

6:4
"The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

think about it.

Gigantes, my friend.

Or Hercules, Achilles, or any of the other various demigods if you're Greek.

Understanding Genesis 6 is the key to understanding the rest of the bible, both old testament and new.

Don't forget about the "and after that."

The wives of Noah and his son's carried the nephilim gene, since Noah was pure in his generations.

Which reminds me of Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head 7, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: rounda

Cain went to the land of Nod, with his wife, had a son named Enoch

No. Enoch was son to Jared, and not Cain. Get over yourself and read the Bible correctly.

Oops. Getting over myself... I did attribute the city to Enoch, not Cain as it should be. Looks like Cain named the city after his son, Enoch.

Genesis 4:17
17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

a reply to: Direne

why. so. much. aggresion.

it's a discussion forum. rounda, since the OP, has clearly been after understanding and insight. taking correction graciously.

you, since your first post in the thread, have clearly been after a fight.

you're drowning your own voice out with venom. seriously, chill.

a reply to: FrothMethod

I was using an expression rounda used against me. Talk to rounda about aggression, not to me. On the other hand, your idea about what a fight is is somewhat an exaggerated one. We are peacefully discussing about details. You are drowning your own brain out with prejudices.

Talking about prejudices, whom did Cain marry to? His sister?

a reply to: rounda

Genesis 5:18
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.

It seems there are as many Enochs as stars in the sky.