Man was in Pangaea

[dad2]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're still trying to force a literal re-interpretation on a figurative account.  

It's called "altering God's word."   I wish you'd stop it.

It wouldn't be much worse than the other things you've added to scripture.  Why not just accept it as it is?

 

 

Sorry you think Scripture is unreal. Jesus did not teach this. Acknowledging that there really was a tower being built after a migration, and God came down to stop it is not adding to Scripture. Knowing that a split happened in Peleg's day is not something anyone invented. Believe it or not. When someone pretends to respect Scripture but acts completely contrary in all statements, I have to think that they are some sort of sock puppet or something.

Edited February 8, 2023 by dad2

[dad2]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The work of the Lord in creating human life involved both fashioning from the dust and inbreathing. The word formed (from yāṣar, Genesis 2:7) describes the work of an artist. Like a potter shaping an earthen vessel from clay, so God formed man from clay. Man was made by divine plan; also he was made from the earth. [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

God’s breathing the breath of life into man transformed his form into a living being (lit., “a living soul”). This made man a spiritual being, with a capacity for serving and fellowshipping with God. With this special Creation in mind, the reader can see the significance of the Fall. Since the Fall, regeneration by the “inbreathing” of the Holy Spirit is essential in order for people to enjoy fellowship with God. [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

So God made man forming man from the dust of the ground. It needs to be noted that man does not contain any chemical not found on the planet Earth. DNA does not show any chemical compound or element not already present on the Earth. When God breathed into man, He gave life to an exquisitely formed a being of dust, dirt, and clay which would become Adam. Evolution played no part in creation, IMHO.

You seem to be agreeing that God formed a man from the dust and gave him life. That was done on day six.

[dad2]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's another of your alterations of scripture:

Genesis 11:3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. ⁴ Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

⁵ But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. ⁶ The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. ⁷ Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

⁸ So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. ⁹ That is why it was called Babel^[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

But this could not have been the break up of Pangea during a flood:

Who said it was? The days of Peleg did not end at Babel! It was after that when God scattered them all over the world.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Peleg was born after the flood.

 

This is news?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, dad2 said:

You seem to be agreeing that God formed a man from the dust and gave him life. That was done on day six.

What's a day?

[The Barbarian]

34 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Who said it was? The days of Peleg did not end at Babel! It was after that when God scattered them all over the world.

So you now realize the division in the days of Peleg was linguistic, not geologic?   Good.

As you see, it could not have been the breakup of Pangea, since Peleg was born after the flood.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know you would like Genesis to be different than it is.   Sorry you think Scripture is unreal. Jesus did not teach this.  

42 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Acknowledging that there really was a tower being built after a migration, and God came down to stop it is not adding to Scripture.

But confusing the division caused by God in the days of Peleg, with the breakup of Pangea, is your revision of God's word.    For all your professed willingness to accept God's word, you continue to try to change it to your liking.

 

 

[dad2]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

What's a day?

 

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

What's a day?

If it has a morning and evening, a day is a day. Why, would you prefer to try to take it out of context?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, dad2 said:

If it has a morning and evening, a day is a day. Why, would you prefer to try to take it out of context?

Because the Hebrew for day is not how you interpret it. Your false interpretation has led you to a false understanding of Genesis.

The Hebrew word יום (yom, Strong's #3117) means a "day," but not specifically a twenty-four hour period, but instead more generically like in "a day that something occurs." An example would be "a day of the month" (Genesis 8:4), "in that day Yahweh made a covenant" (Genesis 15:18) and "until the day" (Genesis 19:37). [Ancient-Hebrew.org]

Edited February 8, 2023 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[dad2]

14 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Because the Hebrew for day is not how you interpret it. Your false interpretation has led you to a false understanding of Genesis.

It can be used in more than one way. When it is a day with a morning and evening, it is a day in the usual sense of the word. Your saying it is false is truly a falsehood.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, dad2 said:

It can be used in more than one way. When it is a day with a morning and evening, it is a day in the usual sense of the word. Your saying it is false is truly a falsehood.

So are you saying the Ancient-Hebrew Language organization doesn't understand the Hebrew Language as well as you?