Is God a liar, or is the creation account true?

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I'm pretty sure I wrote it in this thread once, but there is immense irony in those espousing a hard literal rendering of the Creation story because it is couched in the terms of viewing history in modern scientific and rationalism. It completely divorces a key hermeneutic of reading the text as the original audience would have read or heard it.

 

Additionally, those so eager to read Genesis 1-3 “as written” completely lose that eagerness when it comes to Genesis 4. A “clear reading” indicates the presence of people outside of the Garden of Eden.

[dad2]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Additionally, those so eager to read Genesis 1-3 “as written” completely lose that eagerness when it comes to Genesis 4. A “clear reading” indicates the presence of people outside of the Garden of Eden.

False. There is nothing about people outside the garden. By the time Adam and family have children, a few of which are mentioned as is the custom of the bible record, that is after the fall. Notice they were already bring sacrifices to God? There was no need for that before the fall. Not only that, but it clearly mentions that time had gone by. ('came to pass in the process of time') It also shows how crops had grown and flocks increased. Adam and Eve of course at this time had no restrictions that would come later about incest. So we have all sorts of possibilities here of daughters and sons having babies as well as all the daughters Eve probably had that would not be in the first born male record. Reproduction was the name of the game. Some of those folks had migrated east. By the time Cain murdered his brother, there were people living in what was called the area of Nod. 

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, dad2 said:

False.

Chronologically, Seth and other children were not born until after Cain fled.

This is why I say that the enthusiasm for “reading the scripture as written” is much reduced when it comes to Genesis 4.

Edited September 26, 2021 by one.opinion

[dad2]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Chronologically, Seth and other children were not born until after Cain fled.

This is why I say that the enthusiasm for “reading the scripture as written” is much reduced when it comes to Genesis 4.

No one mentioned Seth. Your apparent assumption that there were not plenty of people being born has no basis. Maybe someone thinks there were no sheep or cattle being born either? The firstborn male was the usual person cited in the lineage records. That was not a record of all people on earth! 

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, dad2 said:

No one mentioned Seth. Your apparent assumption that there were not plenty of people being born has no basis. Maybe someone thinks there were no sheep or cattle being born either? The firstborn male was the usual person cited in the lineage records. That was not a record of all people on earth! 

You are perfectly illustrating my point. You are choosing to believe a non-biblical assumption, rather than believing a “plain reading” of what the Bible says.

[David1701]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

...

As I am certain you are aware, “yom” is used in the Bible for many other meanings, as well.

...

Do you know when "yom" means a literal day and when it can mean something else?

Whenever "yom" is accompanied by a number (day one, day two, etc.), by "morning", or by "evening", in the Bible, it ALWAYS means a literal day.  Only when day is not accompanied by any of a number, "morning" or "evening" can it refer to something else.

In Genesis 1, "yom" is accompanied by a number, "morning" and "evening"!  How could God make it any clearer that literal days are meant?

Edited September 26, 2021 by David1701

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, David1701 said:

How could God make it any clearer that literal days are meant?

Testimony of evidence in God’s creation supporting a 6000 year old earth would go a long way to making this clearer. For example, if nothing in the universe was more than 6000 light years distant, that would be pretty obvious.

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

You are perfectly illustrating my point. You are choosing to believe a non-biblical assumption, rather than believing a “plain reading” of what the Bible says.

It is anything BUT unbiblical to believe that God commanded reproduction. It is not an option to assume that sacrifices representing the Lamb to come one day would have begun in the garden before the fall. Nor is it 'non biblical' to understand that Eve was the mother of ALL living. Gen 3:-20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. Anything else you invent is what is non biblical.

[dad2]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Testimony of evidence in God’s creation supporting a 6000 year old earth would go a long way to making this clearer. For example, if nothing in the universe was more than 6000 light years distant, that would be pretty obvious.

Nothing is more than that distance. No one knows how long (how much time) was involved in any light getting to where we start to see it! (the solar system and area) No one knows that time out in the far universe is as we know it here. You have merely observed light move in our space and time here, and tried to apply that to all the universe by faith and faith alone. Man has been only something like 1.2 light SECONDS away from earth!! The farthest probe is not even a lousy light day away!

[Desopixi Seilynam]

On 9/23/2021 at 9:28 PM, teddyv said:

Is pi exactly 3?

29.9079368 / 9.52 === 3.14159

Math.round(29.9079368) == 30
Math.round(9.52) == 10

Yes, pi is generally 3.

One using a 1x stick to measure a perfect circle would
generally count 10 sticks one way and 30 the other way,
and that is the record we have in the Bible,
the scribe using a stick to measure the already built artifacts.