Mt 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

2Ki 17:13 Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah through all His prophets {and} every seer, saying, " Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you through My servants the prophets."

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

Deuteronomy 31:-26 It came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, "Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you.

What more could God have said or Moses have made clear about the source and voracity of the words of the Law? It is clear that when Moses finished writing the words of the Law it was given a place of utmost importance and sacredness, it was place beside the ark of the covenant and was to be a witness against the children of Israel. Why would God have instructed Moses to place the words of the Law in the Most Holy Place if it were words of men which expressed opinions and personal understandings or ancient knowledge or anything but the singular word of God. When God stands as a witness His words are not open to interpretation and application, God does not philosophize.

Why would the Son of God make such a remark as not the smallest letter or stroke pass from the Law... unless He was certain that the words of the Law were the words of God?

If the possibility were to be considered that there were two creations, at least 2,000-6,000 years apart, the creation account could and would fit into a scientific setting. The reason there is a problem is that theologians and scientists refuse to even consider an alternate understanding. I may be incorrect, but I realize that what both sides are saying now will never be resolved unless an alternative understanding is entertained. What is being taught in collages and universities, both secular and religious, is a faith based understanding of origins. Faith based, because neither side is able to prove through scientific investigation where it all started and how the process functioned.

As I noted in my post -



As Paul notes in Romans 5 -- there is only one fall of Adam.

As we can see all evolutionist material to date - they need 100's of millions of years for animals to "evolve" and they need millions of years for humans to evolve.

"Journey through four million years of human evolution " at Arizona State's evolutionist site if you want to see "what they think they need" instead of a 6,000 year old history of life on earth.

http://www.becominghuman.org/


in Christ,

Bob

Adding 6000 years to an existing 6000 year timeline does nothing for evolutionism. It would still be stuck. Having all of life be created TWICE in that period of time would be even worse for them.

in Christ,

Bob

Genesis 1:21 And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind, and God saw that they were good.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind, quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and it was so.

Genesis 1:25-28 And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good.
And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth. And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them. And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.

Genesis 2:7-9 And God formed the man [of] dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. And God planted a garden eastward in Edem, and placed there the man whom he had formed. And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:19 And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it.

Clearly the Adam (earthman) was created before the animals discribed in verse 19, because of the words used "God formed yet farther out of the earth". God formed Adam out of the earth and yet farther out of the earth the beasts of the field and birds of the air.

The foregoing texts are from an English translation of the Septuagint. I find it interesting that the translators translate the beasts in chp. one as reptiles (dinosaures?) and flying creatures (pterydactyles?)and the beasts of chp. two as beasts of the field (no reptiles) and birds of the air (flying creatures).

Also the words used for mankind (male and female) are different than those used for the Man from whom the woman (Strongs #802 ishshah) was taken. The males (Strongs #2145 Zakar) and females (Strongs #5347) were created at the same as the last of God's creation before He rested.

On the sixth day of creation God created the nations. The distinct genetic blueprints we have today (Races of mankind). God gave them teachers (Watchers/Shepards) to give them the working knowledge they needed to live and thrive on the earth. The chief administrator/teacher was known by the name Lucifer (bringer of light/knowledge). Lucifer became full of himself and stole the earth through deception and lies. Adam and Eve were to restore God's glory to this earth, which is why they were created thousands of years after the first creation. Before they could accomplish this they needed to pass the obedience test. This proved too difficult for them and restoration then rested upon God becoming flesh.

Would it be to outrageous to even have some study about this.

The idea that Genesis chapter one and chapter two are two different creation events does nothing to make the Bible compatible with secular science.

The fossil record is Creation's biggest hurdle. It does not contain any human fossils with antediluvian fossils. Death entered the world because of sin and sin entered the world through man. Thus there was no death on the planet before there was man. Two separate creation events does not resolve that.

The differing language used in the first two chapters of Genesis are more easily understood as being two different authors rather than two different events. The first three verses of chapter two seem to fit better into chapter one. Genesis 2:4 sounds like it is the beginning of it's own account of creation.

I don't want to sound as if I don't believe that Moses couldn't have written the entire book of Genesis himself. That certainly is a possibility. I am sure that if he didn't write it himself, he compiled it. The testimony of Ellen White doesn't convince me either way. Even if Moses wasn't the original author but was rather compiled the accounts of various authors, he would have still "written" those accounts and thus it can be said that he "wrote" the book of Genesis.

Shane,
Moses did not put in the chapter breaks, the translators did. What I am saying is that Genesis starts with two creation accounts, using different Hebrew words in each account. I am not saying the the Hebrew words in the first account are different from the second, I am saying there are differences in some specific words, which I posted previously. My only interest in giving considerstion to two creation accounts is a starting point for research, scientific and theologic.

Flesh and blood is finite, this was the reason for the tree of life in the garden. Adam and Eve and everything with the breath (nepesh) of life is mortal. Adam and Eve were barred from the tree of life so they would not live forever. The penalty for eating of the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil was not to die, but to be executed on the day of disobedience. This is why the Son of God was executed on the cross, he received the judgment that was Adam and Eve's. Because of this God redeemed the people of God and restoration would take place.

I understand the chapters and verses were made by the translators just as the punctuation was added. It isn't so much different words being used as a different style. My Strongs tells me the words for animals and birds were the same: "chay" & "`owph" (2:19). Chapter one is more detailed. It contains more descriptions such as: "tanniyn", "nephesh", "chay", "ramas", "`owph" and "bhemah" (1:20-24). Yet there is no reason to conclude these were two different events with two different sets of animals being created.

Shane, Your point is well taken. My assertion does not meant disprove your understanding of creation. My observation of the English translators of the Septuagint raised an interesting idea, the idea that the first animals in the creation story consists mainly of reptiles, both terrestrial and avian, and the second more mammalian and birds. I do understand that the Greek words for the beasts are the same, my point is the translators translate them differently. My suggestion is, why not make an unbiased study of the information to see if the impasse which exists between science and theology may find some resolution through the process of weighing the evidence. The evidence proves the science, to a point, and calls into question the theology. What we are left with is teaching a theory in our educational institutions which is neither true not does it work for either case, that theory being naturalistic evolution, which is what the RCC seems to have accepted.

The Bible clearly teaches that sin caused death and sin came through man. Thus death could not come before man. The fossil record appears to show that death did come before man. No new interpretation of Genesis is going to resolve that conflict.

Paul is the only one who says this and Paul has no credibility except what he gives himself.

2Co 3:1
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you?

Find where sin came through man and sin caused death, anywhere in the Bible, except in the writtings of Paul or his protege/student Luke, and I will accept your statement.

The fossil record shows what it shows because the evidence can't lie, only people can.

Joh 8:44
"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So now we are being asked to not only believe in two creation events but also discard the epistles of Paul, the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke? I am not there.

I expect that someday you will be, maybe sooner than you think.

My request is simple. Show that Paul is not a unique theology, and that Pauls teaching is consistant with the God of the Law and Prophets and with the teaching of the Son of God in the Gospels, as recorded by the eyewitnesses, and I will believe Paul.

I expect that someday you will be, maybe sooner than you think.

My request is simple. Show that Paul is not a unique theology, and that Pauls teaching is consistant with the God of the Law and Prophets and with the teaching of the Son of God in the Gospels, as recorded by the eyewitnesses, and I will believe Paul.

Shane,
The Bible does not clearly teach that sin and death came through man, Paul does. If sin and death came through man then Satan is a man not a fallen angel. Also for you to say that two creation theory would not bring creationists and evolutionists closer together is a smidge disingenuous. While it would not bring hard liners on either side closer it could get those of us who understand the inherent difficulties with each finally talking to each other instead of arguing.

When God speaks of history does He speak in a linear manner or in a serpentine manner? It is my observation that in the Scriptural histories the writers were linear with one event following another. Why then would not Genesis 1 and 2 be linear as well? Something to think about.

The first man recorded in the Bible to have sinned was Adam:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Genesis 3:6, 7

Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth, and they disobeyed God's command, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:16).

I don't see how this contradicts what Paul said.

Sin entered through Adam.

Shane, there is much you will be learning in the next few years. The bible is also a history of the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore it does not have anything to say about others in the world (all over the world) All of the humans that were created in the first 7 day creation were following the teaching of the watchers--them being those from heaven sent by God to teach mankind (all of the races)--but they were led astray and away from the real God--the Creator and this was the reason why God needed witnesses to bring the truth to a wicked world. So no, Adam was NOT the first sinner. If you can prove me wrong without Paul's, Luke's or the unknown writer of Hebrews, give it a try.

I believe in multiple creations. I believe the universe was created apart from and before the Genesis creation week. I believe a creation event occurred when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. I believe a creation event happened at the end of the Flood. Most certainly Jesus created a bunch of bread and fish to feed the five thousand.

I don't believe that Genesis chapter one and two are describing two different events.

Musicman1228:

Admittedly, I've never heard someone say they didn't think the Bible was clear that sin and death came through Adam. I think we would be border line playing with semantics to say who it "technically" came through. For all intents and purposes I'd say Genesis is very clear about why humanity is now living in a sinful world. I liken it to the following analogy:

Two people grew up in a house together, never stepping outside because they were told they would die from the heat of the sun. One day and man in an orange full body suit comes to the door. Jim is upstairs sleeping, so Julie answers the door. She's quite surprised to see someone standing outside. To make a short story shorter. The orange man convinces her to come outside, and then she convinces Jim to come out side. Not long after being exposed to the sun they both die.

Question. Who is responsible for their death? The man who convinced them to come outside? I suggest that they are responsible.

True Satan tempted Eve, but Eve was the one who made the ultimate decision for herself, and so did Adam. Now, since Adam is human and Satan is an angel (spirit), it only makes sense to me to say that sin entered humanity through Adam.

Dr. Rich,

I think you need to show me from the Bible that Adam was not the first man to sin. And where do get that others were created beside Adam and Eve during the first seven days of creation. The chronologies of the Bible start with Adam, so if Adam sinned, by default he's the first. I'm really astounded at how one could interpret otherwise. Please show me how you are coming to this conclusion.

The point is that death entered the world through Adam. Satan was able to tempt Adam and Eve but only from the forbidden tree. Satan's sin would have never caused death on planet Earth. Death entered by sin and sin by Adam.

If someone doesn't want to believe in Paul or Luke I suggest they go off and start their own religion with their own Bible that doesn't have anything written by Paul or Luke. That is not the Seventh-day Adventist church. The Adventist movement accepts all 66 books of the Bible as being inspired and good for doctrine.

I have to agree with Shane.

Musicman and Dr. Rich, both of you have a very different understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Bible than the SDA church. With this in mind it almost becomes pointless to discuss anything with you because we're debating topics with two different standards.

By what authority do you pick and choose what is from God? You are a very dangerous path my friends.

Can you prove your belief or opinion from the words of Jesus? If not, then perhaps you will need to do some real soul searching. Try it and see.

Again, believing and proving are two separate issues. We all agree that God created this world in 6 literal 24 hour days. Gen.1:26 shows that God created 'mankind' not a single human. Isaiah speaks of the Son of the Dawn (Lucifer) deceiving the Nations. It does not say Satan deceived Adam and Eve. If Genesis is a history on a linear time line then Chapter 2 events had to occur after Chapter 1 events. The bottom line is that as of now NO ONE KNOWS. There is, however, a lot of evidence, if you look closely, that Adam and Eve were created by God as a counter to Satan having taken over the world by the deception of naming himself as 'creator god'. God needed a Kingdom of Heaven on earth to tell the peoples of the earth the truth about God, that He is the Creator God, and that there is an impostor masquerading as the Creator. He therefore created Adam and Eve, placed them in the Kingdom (Eden) for safe keeping until He could train them to take the truth to the world. Unfortunately they failed the test of obedience and here we are. That has been Satan's method since the beginning and it is ultimately the deception he will use at the end to get the whole world following after the beast, which he controls. If it worked once why won't it work again? For most of the world it will, which is why most of the world will be lost.

Is this Branch Davidian theology?

I don't study any sources but that found in the words and Spirit of Jesus Christ, His eyewitnesses, and the Old Testament. Any theology derived from those is mine alone. I do research with a group of friends, but anything that I have found true I have processed on my own. That way I never have to make excuses for what I believe.

Musicman,

Who said that God created a single human? No one did. God created Adam and Eve first. Show me from the Bible where it says otherwise.

Revelation 12:9 refers to Satan as the "old serpent." I think it's a fairly logical conclusion to think that the serpent that tempted Eve was either used by Satan or that he made himself to resemble a snake. I don't think it matters how he used the serpent, the point is that one of his names is "old serpent."

Your reference to Isaiah 14:12 does talk about Satan. True, he does deceive the nations, but what has this got to do what happened in Genesis.

In Hosea 6:7, it's implied that Adam was the first to break the covenant with God. Granted it does not say that directly, but we should note that Adam is being used as the example. Why? If Adam was the first man, and the first man to sin, it would only make sense to use him as an example.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

They have a very special kind of wisdom. If you don't believe me just ask them.

Ahhhh, I think that was Paul. Are we back to trusting the epistles of Paul again?

How about this one:

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellers there is safety." (Proverbs 11:14)

I think you're confusing me with Dr. Rich. Maybe It's time to change my name

Wayfinder:

"On the sixth day of creation God created the nations."

You don't provide any scriptural evidence for this.

The Bible says this about what was created on the sixth day in Genesis 1:24-27:

"[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (KJV)

In verse 26 it says let us make "adam," which is translated as man or men in this verse. It's a collective term to refer to a group of people. We find out who comprises that collective in verse 27: male and female.

I noticed you provided a plural interpretation of male and female, suggesting that God created more than one male and female. However, you're starting to stretch what the Bible says. If you continue reading in Genesis 2, it makes it very clear that the male and female that is being spoken of is Adam and Eve.

On what basis from the text do you conclude that nations were created on the sixth day?

LOL. Good point but wrong Richard.

I read Genesis differently from most, does this make me a fool, Rich4truth? I guess the only way I would not be a fool is if I believed just like everyone else. Jesus said that the wide gate leads to destruction and the narrow gate leads to life. The 'many' go on the easy, wide way. I guess I must be a fool for looking for the narrow gate.

If you believe what everyone believes you will get what everyone gets.

That being said you don't really think that I like bucking the system, that I do this just for fun. It is on the narrow way that you lose friends and loved ones. It is much easier to be on the wide way where it is easy to travel. The narrow way is the same way the Jesus Christ chose. He lost friends and family. His brothers, including James, tried to get Him killed by having Him go to Jerusalem before His time. How do you think that made Him feel.

Do you think that you (Rich4truth, Robert, Oldsailor and others) are the first or will be the last to get upset when I propose something outside the theological norm? It is tough following Jesus Christ and him alone in the face of people that are obviously knowledgeable, well intentioned, dedicated and committed to their belief system. When faced with someone like me who does not believe in the same things that you do, that tests everything you stand for, it doesn't surprise me that you get personal, because you take my challenges personally. I do not believe the same way you do, nor do I believe in the same things. Most of you believe firmly in Paul and EGW and I don't. I have NEVER said to you that I think you should change what you believe and in whom. I have only told you why I believe the way I do. It has been inferred from this that I am trying to convince you to reject Paul and EGW, and this is not the case. I KNOW that is impossible for people that are true believers to go back on something they hold so dear.

I assumed when I came to this forum that new ideas and concepts were open to discussion. I thought that this was a place where I could test myself against the best of the best as far as theological discussion was concerned. I have a lot to learn and I was hoping to learn a lot here. And so far I have. I have been shown some inconsistencies in my belief system that need work. But I am no longer going to participate in situations that turn these discussions into personal attacks because we can't figure out any other way to win. This is NOT ABOUT WINNING, it is about eternal life. It is not about looking at someone of this forum as the enemy, someone to be beaten to a pulp when you can't win with what you believe. If we can't do well here with each other (who are on the same side in this world) then we will not win against the real enemy when we come face to face with him.

The one thing that I have noticed in all of us that participate on the forum is that we are serious about defending that which we believe to be true. And because of that we automatically get defensive when someone challenges our beliefs. This shows arrogance in believing that we have all the truth. We all need a good dose of humility in order to be able to really listen to the opposing point of view, take it seriously, and help each other to find the truth without finding fault. In looking closely at this I have seen this in myself, I don't like it, and for which I now ask your forgiveness.

If we can all do this (me included) then I'll stick around and continue to enjoy the fellowship of people who are on the forum. If we can't do this then I'll be gone, because I do not want to be considered a stumbling block to the spiritual growth and development of anyone. I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ who is my first, last and always. If this is not sufficient to keep my place on the forum then I will go, with no hard feelings.

Show evidence that it was the intention of Jesus' brothers, including James, to have Christ killed.

Believing what everyone believes would be evolution. Seventh-day Adventists are definitely in the minority in regards to our belief on origins as well as many other things.

I do not recall addressing anything but issues here, and I certainly do not recall saying anything that should cause anyone to think I was upset.

Musicman, I did not call you a fool. I'm sorry if you thought I did. I have given you the benefit of the doubt in most cases, I have read everything you have offered up. I even went to your website and read, to see what you believe. I don't know excactly how you got on this track, but I can see that it leads off the path.

When others point out something wrong with your view, it's like water off a ducks back. You plow right ahead as if the facts don't matter. Do I want you to leave? No. (who would I argue with) But in all seriousness how do you debate someone who has thrown out the writings of Paul, Luke, the book of Hebrews, most of the NT really, and Ellen White?

If it were just you and I talking, I wouldn't even bother to refute you anymore, but it's not. And when I see you getting people to believe that EGW is no good along with Paul and others, yes I get a little upset. Don't take it personally. I wish there was some way I could really help you.

You've stated:



In regards to Rev. 19: 7, can you show where in Revelation or elsewhere in the NT the word "autou" is translated as "their"? You say you looked it up carefully. Where did you find that "autou" (masculine singular) is understood to signify a plural pronoun, "their"?

Shane Hilde
Sorry I had to leave so abruptly I am on call at the hospital and was called in.

As far as the creation of the nations in concerned, you are right, the evidence is sparse at best, what is needed is simple common sense. One issue that I needed to consider is the fact that we have different races in the world with unique aspects to their DNA, such that when the DNA is studied, one can determine the race of the individual. The issue is, how is this explained by a singular and unique pair (Adam and Eve) and the fact that they both have the same DNA, because Eve was taken out of Adam.
Another issue is the extra biblical record, which shows what was taking place in other ancient cultures, such as the Sumerians. I don't know how you feel about that, but I feel it cannot be ignored. Among the extra biblical texts are also the book of Enoch, I am not saying this should be considered as highly credible, but it does exist. The other issue is the evidence being unearthed. Much of this evidence does indeed support and confirm the biblical account, but some evidence would refute, not scripture, but how it has been interpreted. For instance, Shane said the fossil record shows that there was death before sin came, when confronted with this one must decide, the bible or the evidence, as I wrote, evidence doesn't lie people do, just so you know I am not making reference to anyone in particular or generally.

Now what does the Bible say that would help connect some of the dots? Well there is some good evidence that the Bible refers to some of the same gods that appear in the Sumerian record, I am not saying that this confirms the entire record of Sumer, it most certainly does not. It fact I find that at least 75% of that account to be in serious question.

Here are the texts for the gods of Sumer.

Nu 13:22
When they had gone up into the Negev, they came to Hebron where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendants of Anak were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

Nu 13:28
"Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified {and} very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there.

Nu 13:33
"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

De 9:2
a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard {it said,} ' Who can stand before the sons of Anak?'

The Anakim, sons of Anak, sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim.

Ge 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore {children} to them. Those were the mighty men who {were} of old, men of renown.

So either Noah was a Nephilim or the Nephilim were gods (fallen angels), there is no other way I can think of that they would survive the flood.

This is a lot of material and I will stop here for it is getting late. One last text, which may help.

Isa 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

Eze 28:16
"By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire.

It would appear these are referring to Lucifer and his fall, if so than the language used may confirm the nations before Adam and Eve.