Dream on, too late, ain't gonna happen....
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Humans descended from monkeys
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Dream on, too late, ain't gonna happen....
quantumfaith
Active Member
I am an equation Nazi, not an grammar nazi
Humans are monkeys with car keys. :laugh:
Yes, from materials of the earth man was formed and to materials of the earth he will return. There is no actual basis for believing the Hebrew word refers to one specific arrangement, i.e. dust, dirt, plaster, rubbish, etc.
The issue is not to refute godless creation, the issue to reading more into the text than the text actually says. I am a minimalist, and study scripture with the mind-set of "what is the least God is saying, without taking anything away from what He is saying. That is where the gold bearing ore (same word) is to be found.
And again, the creation of Eve is consistent with my view that God formed Adam and Eve from materials of the earth. God formed Adam, including his rib cage and/or "other part" and Eve was formed from the material that had been formed into a rib or other part of Adam.
Well one of us is certainly "wresting" with scripture to claim the word translated, dust, powder, animal ashes, ore, plaster, mortar, debris, rubbish, earth, ground, soil, can not refer to materials of the earth in general. Simply insisting on the traditional translation without study of the whole range of uses and acceptance that a more generic meaning than one kind of material is evidently the meaning of the word is without merit. Note in Deuteronomy 28:24 we have powder and dust, with the word translated powder always translated as dust except in this verse. To avoid having the translation read dust and dust, they changed the translation. Both words are also translated powder, and so we do not get powder and powder. What would powder and dust from heaven be? Why not dust and debris, i.e. from a meteor like in Russia, or from a volcano? Loose soil or sand or dust from the area is not in view. A meaning that is consistent with both uses, i.e. material of the earth, whether local or from heaven, seems to me to reflect the actual meaning of the word.
Unless a person is willing to study how words are used in every case, assertions that it must mean this and cannot mean that are underwhelming.
Unless a person is willing to study how words are used in every case, assertions that it must mean this and cannot mean that are underwhelming.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Not one translation, English or otherwise says what you do. I believe you are trying to make Gods Word fit naturalism. Read God's reply to Job and tell me He even hints at naturalism in His creation recap.
As far as the text, if I said "from my state I came, and to my state I will return" you would not think "state" could be anything but identical. From hominids we came and to the ground we will return makes absolutely no sense.
Exactly, Webdog, you do not like what study shows because you see it as motivated to rewrite scripture to accommodate naturalism. But the motivation was to determine what scripture actually says, without regard for any agenda.
No one said the two materials of the earth are not referring to the same materials. Materials were formed by God into His design, and then given the breath/spirit of life. When we die, our spirit returns (if saved) to God in heaven, but our body returns to materials of the earth.
What you seem to want to do is to say God could not alter a primate to form Adam, because we do not return to a primate. Consider a dead body, much like a dead primate, both made from "the materials of the earth" and both undergo decay and become part of the earth, with bone material taking quite a while to finish the process, whether primate or human body.
And to repeat, I am not saying or suggesting that the "materials of the earth" were dust, or soil, or mortar, or a primate. I am saying scripture tells us God used "materials of the earth" but certainly all the ones found in our human body were either taken from the earth or transformed by God so as to put everything Adam needed into his body, so that when the "breath/spirit" of life was added, he had all the iron, cobalt, and other chemicals needed for the function his body.
No one said the two materials of the earth are not referring to the same materials. Materials were formed by God into His design, and then given the breath/spirit of life. When we die, our spirit returns (if saved) to God in heaven, but our body returns to materials of the earth.
What you seem to want to do is to say God could not alter a primate to form Adam, because we do not return to a primate. Consider a dead body, much like a dead primate, both made from "the materials of the earth" and both undergo decay and become part of the earth, with bone material taking quite a while to finish the process, whether primate or human body.
And to repeat, I am not saying or suggesting that the "materials of the earth" were dust, or soil, or mortar, or a primate. I am saying scripture tells us God used "materials of the earth" but certainly all the ones found in our human body were either taken from the earth or transformed by God so as to put everything Adam needed into his body, so that when the "breath/spirit" of life was added, he had all the iron, cobalt, and other chemicals needed for the function his body.
Last edited by a moderator:
Explain how one DNA strand reforms itself into another more complex strand using naturalistic means. Also show where the word translated dust. / dirt is ever translated as an animal in Scripture.
In addition, given what we know of the life cycle of carbon, there will be no trace of it after 250k years. That alone kills the theistic naturalism theory.
Ground in the Bible describes a location, not an element. From the ground you came and to the ground you will return speaks of location not matter.
In addition, given what we know of the life cycle of carbon, there will be no trace of it after 250k years. That alone kills the theistic naturalism theory.
Ground in the Bible describes a location, not an element. From the ground you came and to the ground you will return speaks of location not matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Webdog, as I said, I am not trying to accommodate naturalistic means, so why you seem to be asking me to explain it is as if you are not reading my posts.
Then you ask me show you where our word is translated as animal. Why should I, since I never said it was!!! I said ashes as in animal ashes. Are you unable to do a word study and find that usage or determine the word is not translated as animal ashes?
Ok, here is how you can do it:
1) Google Blue Letter Bible
2) Enter a verse with the word to be studied in it. In our case enter Genesis 2:7.
3) Click on search, and a screen with verses starting with Genesis 2:7 should appear.
4) Click on tools to the left of Genesis 2:7.
5) A breakdown of the verse, a list of each word in the verse will appear.
6) Scroll down to the word being studied, i.e. dust which in Hebrew "aphar" Strong's number 6083.
7) Click on Strongs number scroll down to the list of verses using the Hebrew word (in various forms.)
8) Read down the list, looking for the word that precedes (comes before) the red strong number H6083.
9) Find where the translation reads ashes. (For example Numbers 19:17)
10) Read the verse and determine what is being referred to. In this case the ashes of a heifer according to the KJV.
Bible study is fun, but it does take time and effort.
Then you ask me show you where our word is translated as animal. Why should I, since I never said it was!!! I said ashes as in animal ashes. Are you unable to do a word study and find that usage or determine the word is not translated as animal ashes?
Ok, here is how you can do it:
1) Google Blue Letter Bible
2) Enter a verse with the word to be studied in it. In our case enter Genesis 2:7.
3) Click on search, and a screen with verses starting with Genesis 2:7 should appear.
4) Click on tools to the left of Genesis 2:7.
5) A breakdown of the verse, a list of each word in the verse will appear.
6) Scroll down to the word being studied, i.e. dust which in Hebrew "aphar" Strong's number 6083.
7) Click on Strongs number scroll down to the list of verses using the Hebrew word (in various forms.)
8) Read down the list, looking for the word that precedes (comes before) the red strong number H6083.
9) Find where the translation reads ashes. (For example Numbers 19:17)
10) Read the verse and determine what is being referred to. In this case the ashes of a heifer according to the KJV.
Bible study is fun, but it does take time and effort.
And that pretty much settles it. But wait! Van knows more of how to translate Genesis because he has a concordance and a computer.
quantum's all over it because he thinks he can get Adam's parents from it.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Wonder who built the fire to make those ashes; and what kind of ashes coal or wood? Of course, "afar" was made by that almost man into whom God implanted a soul.:smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
I see the usual suspects are posting nonsense to change the subject, rather than offering any sort of rebuttal to the fact that the Hebrew word translated dust in Genesis 2:7 is translated as powder, as dirt, as soil, as earth, as ground, and as ashes. Not to mention debris and rubbish, plaster and mortar.
Sorry folks, but this is what you get when you try to actually discuss Bible study.
In Genesis 2:7 we find the word "ground" which is the Hebrew word Adamah. Note this is not the same Hebrew word as "ground" found in Job 14:8 (Aphar).
So materials (aphar) of the earth (Adamah) continues to stand without any actual challenge. I have provided the reasoning why this translation (or understanding of the underlying meaning) seems best to me, i.e. because "aphar" is used to refer to diverse materials from dust and dirt and soil, to mortar and plaster, debris and rubbish, and the ashes of animals.
Sorry folks, but this is what you get when you try to actually discuss Bible study.
In Genesis 2:7 we find the word "ground" which is the Hebrew word Adamah. Note this is not the same Hebrew word as "ground" found in Job 14:8 (Aphar).
So materials (aphar) of the earth (Adamah) continues to stand without any actual challenge. I have provided the reasoning why this translation (or understanding of the underlying meaning) seems best to me, i.e. because "aphar" is used to refer to diverse materials from dust and dirt and soil, to mortar and plaster, debris and rubbish, and the ashes of animals.
Last edited by a moderator: