Questions on Genesis From Croker

Conversation
1

https://youtube.com/c/AssemblyofCalledOutBelievers.

Having no response. I consider that I am perceived as being in error in my limited learnings.

Can I ask @swamidass and @MHeiser whom I have respect for their teachings yet at the same time conflicts the more I learn.

I am no one important as far as anyone has to listen to my understanding, as I accept it could be a imagination of my heart be wrong.
I joined this discussion for clarity and growth in my understanding and dialogue through scripture about your own maybe flawed understanding. Brothers and Sisters helping each other if you like.

The link attached is a breakdown of the days of creation and prophecy. I know the most valuable commodity man has on the planet is time. If you consider my understanding
( life) worth the time to watch the link attached and correct my leanings? I would be most appreciative.

I don’t agree with everything said in the link, yet the breakdown and insight into the language if true is very thought provoking.

Brotherly Love G

2

Symbiosis and previous link for young earth creation based on our creators word.

A response to previous request to @swamidass and @Mheiser in peace?

Your silence is deafening to us looking for dialogue.

Brotherly Love G

3

Heiser is not in this forum. I’m not clear at all what your question is to me.

4

I concur with @swamidass in replying “Whaaa??” to your question. If you would try again, this time concentrating on explaining clearly what you’re asking, that would help.

5

Thank you for acknowledging my post @swamidass and @John_Harshman.

Sorry if I have been unclear to you both.

Basically, What I am asking is that does not scripture point to a young creation of nearly 6000 years? This is if you accept Isaiah’s words?

King James Bible
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

New King James Version
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

NASB
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My plan will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

NASB 1995
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

NASB 1977
Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Amplified Bible
Declaring the end and the result from the beginning, And from ancient times the things which have not [yet] been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will do all that pleases Me and fulfills My purpose,

There is a purpose!

So are we in agreement that this scripture directs us back to the beginning of the Bible?

Being renowned and respected scientists in your fields. I am sure you are very familiar with examining and extracting empirical evidence to try and marry up your discoveries with mankind’s theories of how and when life appeared in all its manifestations. ( Even though my own personal journey has all been based on WHY? )

Have you ever used your analytic skills to dissect the very first sentence of the Bible in the original language?
This all points to Symbiosis everything happening over a very short time at the same time, the six days as stated.

Are you aware that when you dissect the first seven words of the Bible in Hebrew, the letters and words serve to announce the following days of creation that also is twofold as prophecy over the next seven thousand years?
This could only be confirmed with hindsight of the actual time we are living in.

This all serves to reveal the nature of a Loving creator with a plan for all of us. He does not hide his plan and this sentence serves where you are concerned to reveal a young creation that happened all at the same time.

I am not a scientist, yet do respect what I learn from educated people like yourselves. What I love more is our creators word as it reveals in more simple terms for everyone without the understanding the need for understanding cells.
How? By a intelligence beyond our comprehension at present.

The LORD Challenges Job in what understanding we have.
Job 38 - 42 Please read what our creator says to Job.

When? It is revealed in scripture in the first sentence of the Bible. I refer you to the link previously provided for this sentence announcing days of creation in each of the seven words in Hebrew. Each word also reflects a 1000 year prophecy too.

I am in awe of our creator being able to reveal each 1000 years of time as well as the days of creation in one sentence at the beginning of his word.

Would not all our efforts be better focused on including myself, on admitting we are no good at loving our neighbour collectively, we all turn a blind eye to the suffering of our fellow humans as though it’s not happening in reality.
We take for granted we have hot water coming out of a tap, we take for granted our waste is flushed away. We have swathes of empty offices at present and homelessness does not collectively move us to action.

We in the modern world are always asking the question. Why does God allow all this suffering. When in fact it is us producing it and allowing it.

Yes he does have the record of all our individual accountability and the ability to put all suffering right, and will soon.

So let’s all look out for each other by whoever is put in front of us and express genuine concern for basic needs, rather than wasting time on promoting our discovered perceived knowledge that does not promote or reflect the Loving Nature of our creator. We collectively put being smarter than the next guy over the whole and complete teaching of our creator.

Cain said “ Am I my brothers keeper “

The truth is yes we are.

Please watch the link before responding as no point otherwise. It is awe inspiring if you really want to understand when with insight into each word and letter.

If you disagree, I have no problem being corrected and have no pride to offend.

Sorry for thinking @MHeiser was on this forum. I watched some of @swamidass interactions with @MHeiser about localised flood,

You have to imagine that into scripture when every creeping thing and all flesh was destroyed.

The scientific hydroplate theory explains this global flood for me.

Brotherly Love

G

6

Some of this will be addressed in an upcoming interview that you may enjoy. Are you familiar with John Walton’s work?

1 Like
7

No. It isn’t clear that any particular period is meant by “from ancient times” or that it even refers to the beginning of the world.

We are not.

No, I haven’t. What do you mean by “symbiosis”? It doesn’t seem to be what I mean by it.

No, and I sincerely doubt that it’s true. Sorry, but I don’t intend to watch the link. You may ignore me if you prefer. And you should be aware that I’m an atheist, so I don’t think that Genesis is evidence for anything about the real world, however you interpret it.

1 Like
8

Hi,

John Walton as many of us do , has a wild imagination. Imagining thesis into scripture by doing a gymnastics from one scripture in one book to another. Our selfish human desire to prove a point, any doctrine can be formulated if we juggle scripture. I have even believed what I now deem as false doctrine.

Everyone forgets why all flesh except Noah and family, was removed in the second millennium from creation. It was because all flesh had corrupted its way. Our imaginations as a human was evil from youth up.

John Walton none the less is a brother and will not be judged by my input.

I would just like him to answer one question in peace based on his understanding on Adam, the first mans mortal existence of being made from dust, he claims this is just alluding to mankind in general. I know how he gets to this conclusion based on other references to man returning to dust in the scriptures.
Does he acknowledge that we inherited our mortal existence from Adam’s disobedience?
If not, I would follow up with a second question based on Genesis 2.17

ESV
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

What would Adam and Eve’s condition as regards to mortality be if they never disobeyed? The punishment was death for disobeying the command. So if they obeyed would they and we be living forever?

I look forward to the interview with John Walton nonetheless.
I may be corrected on some leanings or more dismayed at the imaginations of his heart.

Brotherly Love

G

9

That is not what he thinks. He believes Adam and Eve are real people in a real past.

10

I say in peace.
I know he believes in Adam and Eve.
Yet I think you will find that he believes what was stated.

JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) 2015 || BOOK REVIEWS

Regarding Adam, then, Walton claims that there is nothing unique about the fact that he was formed from dust. The Bible says that people in general were made from dust and return to dust (Job 10:8–9; 34:15; Psalm 90:3; 103:14; 104:29; Ecclesiastes 3:20; 12:7) so Walton believes this merely alludes to human mortality. In this sense, he asserts, Adam could be ‘made from dust’ (i.e. mortal) and still be the offspring of earlier human ancestors.

Brotherly Love

G

11

That is what a lot of scholars (not all) think, and does not mean:

Have you read the GAE yet? It sems like that book would be really helpful to you.

12

Hi John,

I am happy to talk to you and respect your existence as a atheist. I have not had your life or any other persons experience and therefore can not judge any persons understandings

I can only judge my own based on what I experience and discover. I don’t personally belong to any church denomination or subscribe to any religion. I know scripture has been added to and taken away from in my deep dives into original txts and try to find evidence of true inspiration from a source outside of ourselves within the original txts. I personally do not believe the fallen angel doctrine.

Why I do believe in a God is we are all subject to the laws of physics, chemistry etc. DNA which I’m sure you understand to a much greater level than myself, in my analysis can not write itself.

For me there has to be a law maker of scientific laws that we have discovered. Simply put Design requires a designer.

I have yet to find any scientist that can evidence one Kind evolving into another Kind. I know there is evolution of Kinds within Kinds, different types of the same kind that is.

I am happy to engage in conversation with you nonetheless. In our opposing beliefs it all comes down to interpretation of data available and if that interpretation is correct?

We have all these opposing religions that all claim to worship God, yet they all have their own interpretation of who he favours and how he should be worshipped. For me there can only be one absolute truth and that is my search in examining history, and the original languages and beliefs.
In simple terms things just have to make sense. There are no past or existing family members or even my own family who have any belief in a God. So I am well accustomed to appearing to be the raving loon in the family. I do not force them to believe me, they are just accustomed to me wanting to understand.

I would be interested in your take on Antony Flew? He was the Father of Atheism reasoning in the modern era,
after the scientific discoveries and understanding of DNA. He being a man of empirical evidence proof and still applying the same standard to his complete U turn to believing in a God.

Many modern atheist still use his arguments to engage in a debate. Even when his was the most ardent and respected atheist, he would debunk other atheist reasoning (Richard Dawkins for example) as not a sufficient argument for atheism. He protected the atheism stance from contemporary professed atheist’s who produced weak arguments.
He obviously was a very brave man and did not let pride hide his new discoveries that changed his mind.
He just simply found his evidence.

G

13

Are you aware that the same technique has been used equally effectively with Winnie-the-Pooh?

2 Likes
14

Not sure what you mean by that. DNA, of course, doesn’t “write itself”; it’s copied by a set of DNA polymerases that replicate it imperfectly, so that mutations happen. But there seems no need for any divine intervention in the process.

Sure, by definition. The question then becomes whether there is in fact design. I see no evidence of that.

I might be able to help you with that if you will just tell me what Kinds are and how to recognize them. For example, what Kind do humans belong to, and what other animals are in that Kind?

He wasn’t. In fact I had never heard of him until he became famous by becoming some sort of theist. The common explanation is senility, for which there seems some credible evidence. Anyway, arguments from authority bore me.

1 Like
15

Scientific laws don’t need a lawgiver. They are descriptive in nature.

At the moment you read my comment, DNA molecules in certain cells of your body would have written themselves indirectly via well-known molecular processes.

Ignoring you don’t properly define “kinds”, it seems you can accept that humans and chimpanzees (which are extant primate kinds) share a common ancestral primate kind.

A large clinical trial was done to evaluate whether a new drug, B, was better at lowering blood pressure than an old one, A. We will assume the trial was conducted properly, that is, it was randomized, double-blinded, adequately powered, etcetera. We will also assume the baseline blood pressure (that is, blood pressure values before treatment with either drug) was equal (100mmHg) in both arms of the trial. The following results were obtained:

Drug A (old): 70mmHg
Drug B (new): 40mmHg

If the result above is statistically and practically significant, please interpret the above data?

Totally irrelevant to the present discussion.

2 Likes
16

John>Not sure what you mean by that. DNA, of course, doesn’t “write itself”; it’s copied by a set of DNA polymerases that replicate it imperfectly, so that mutations happen. But there seems no need for any divine intervention in the process.

G>I meant who wrote the first code of DNA or where was it copied from or replicate itself from? Replicating imperfectly because we lost perfection maybe? So am I correct or wrong that if the DNA polymerases replicated perfectly, would we still die? Would we stop the ageing process if DNA replicated itself perfectly?
Sorry another question. Does the DNA of a child/baby replicate in the same way? I would like to understand how the process works in that we grow strong to a certain age and then appear to decline.

G>For me there has to be a law maker of scientific laws that we have discovered. Simply put Design requires a designer.
[/quote]

J>Sure, by definition. The question then becomes whether there is in fact design. I see no evidence of that.

G>It has always fascinated me that we hear a noise and look in that direction, how our brain receives and computes what we are taking in.
The same for animals too, why have we not evolved to have the strength of a ape, or the eyesight of a eagle. Wings would have been good too in the event of a flood. Sorry I’m dreaming again. I have seen technology evolve and fear mankind tinkering with DNA rather than trying to understand it at a natural
level of curiosity and awe at its mechanics. We will end up in trouble
I know we share so much in common with the chimpanzee, yet there is a whole lot of difference in our self awareness that we try to explain everything to ourselves about everything around us. Design is everywhere for me.

I might be able to help you with that if you will just tell me what Kinds are and how to recognize them. For example, what Kind do humans belong to, and what other animals are in that Kind?

Seeds of animals and humans can only mate and reproduce within its own kind. We might get variants in appearance yet still are of that kind. Also plants and tree seeds having all that information stored up in itself to produce food for us , insects and animals? Do not the animals and plants and insects have to have appeared all at the same for survival.Co dependent I mean. One can not survive without the other? That’s what I meant by symbiosis.

He wasn’t. In fact I had never heard of him until he became famous by becoming some sort of theist. The common explanation is senility, for which there seems some credible evidence. Anyway, arguments from authority bore me.

Noted and really grateful for your replies.

17

It might be that somatic mutations are responsible for aging. But we’d still die from all sorts of other things. No, we didn’t lose perfection. Perfect replication is not a practical possibility. No mechanism can entirely prevent mutations.

Of course it does.

Tradeoffs and contingency, in two words. Every benefit has a cost, both varying with environment, and the optimum lies at different points in different species. Also, much is determined by history; sometimes you can’t get there from here.

Sure. But what if that’s your imagination?

Please don’t answer my question with gibberish. I asked: “What Kind do humans belong to, and what other animals are in that Kind?”

No. Symbiosis can in fact evolve. It doesn’t have to be that way from the beginning.

It would be easier to read your posts if you learned how to quote. Just highlight the bit you want, and a button saying “Quote” will appear. Click on it. It’s that easy.

1 Like
18

Who told you that? I bet it wasn’t an atheist.

Do you know that from reading Flew’s work, or were you just told it?

Flew’s stature and importance was vastly overstated by a number of creationists and apologists who are, quite frankly, liars. You appear to have been misled by them.

3 Likes
19

I first came across Antony Flew when I was browsing the epistemology section in the library. I was underwhelmed by his book on epistemology.

It was sometime later that I learned that Flew was a leading atheist. This seemed strange (and unbelievable). I already knew of other atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. The information that Flew was a leading atheist came from a Christian, which made it somewhat suspect. I cannot recall hearing any atheist pointing to Flew, though many point to Russell, to Dawkins, to Christopher Hitchens and to several others.

2 Likes
20

I know we are describing what is there.
I have considered for life to be possible, the different discovered laws had to be aligned with precision out of an infinite range of possibilities and interact in a coordinated way with each other for the universe, earth, and everything within, for life in it to exist.
Do you accept all these laws came about by chance for us to exist? We all exist and our own existence wether we believe in God or not, has a consciousness that we as humans are exceptional creatures compared to any other life forms behaviour.
I perceive that no matter who we are, we all have a in built desire to worship. That could be a pop star, actress, football team, individual, politician, religion, a ideology, money, ourselves, lover, the list is endless. That is a universal thread amongst ourselves that I see, whatever we personally worship without even realising it, we have produced in our own mind something to worship. Is that necessary for existence, other animals do not exhibit this behaviour as far as I perceive.
That is a in built law of human nature wether you are good bad or ugly. The law giver created us this way, we just don’t direct it towards our creator and as a collective worship our own understanding or self gratification with no accountability because as a collective we worship self.

No, I don’t see ancestral, I see that we can not produce with them, so we are not of the same kind in my opinion. I accept that any animal that can mate with another and produce offspring is Gods definition of Kind. I do not deny that we have a the same designer who obviously knew we would advance to understanding our existence. I see all the similarities and the difference between beast and man, man being set apart as the domineering one that influences the path of our journey as a collective. Good and bad influences.

I am not a scientist, and I don’t claim to have the insight into the workings of cells, so I am learning from all of you in this regard. Kindly explain your point in layman’s terms?
What I do understand is that I neither personally claim to have the Holy Spirit that appears to be on tap to God fearing men.
What I do have is a logical mind and understand that all clinical trials and the complexity and mechanics that you all do understand, for which I personally am grateful for. Still does not reflect the conditions that existed to form the first cell.
Has anyone been able to make a cell from nothing?
Has anyone discovered a molecule that does not degenerate over time?
Has anyone been able to recreate the perceived determined conditions that of the first living cell that produced itself prior to biology and manifested a cell? Would a cell survive in the prebiotic conditions or degenerate? You are all living organisms conducting these discoveries.The cell did not have lab conditions to start of with.
How do we get from something living and reproducing from nothing in the conditions that we as a collective have determined existed?
This is what I try to wrap my head around.
For me there had to be a intelligence behind it initially. A live intelligence coordinating all the complexities to marry up with each other is what I have to consider.

I think all commentators to the discussion are relevant. Dead or alive, I like to understand why someone believes something and the only way I could measure why a atheist changed his view and how it has been framed and presented in the media is to ask other atheist’s there perspective on his change of mind.

Thank you for your replies

G