@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

why wasn't there a universal agreement on the trinity?? u'd think the trinity would be an obvious concept for your mystery god

The Trinity is not an "obvious" concept to anyone - not even those you referenced and others who question the doctrine are agreed on their conclusions, and one should wonder why they are not 'universally agreed' among themselves.

One helpful way of looking at the subject would be the time in history when the basic tenets were recognized as established. The Council of Nicea took place very long after documents recognized as the Scriptures have been established. By way of broadening this point, one may ask if it was right there at the Council of Nicea that the Scriptures were written. If that is not the case, then those who tend to read and interpret it from that point alone are failing in their assumptions already.

Hi stephanay,

What is worrying is the location - why a "hotel"?

Try asking him that question and watch his reaction. Love is a wonderful gift - but it should be enjoyed by both people involved in a relationship. If he's not comfortable being honest with you on this, you have every reason to be quite concerned.

May God grant you both the needed wisdom.

@Jagoon,

Language is a wonderful thing! It can be quite problematic sometimes when we try to connect the dots. Anyhow. . .

Jagoon:

@syrup
I am not trying to sneak in anything! I am only stating the obvious. Sleeping with one's girl friend or fiance is not listed as a sexual sin,

However, the implication derived from what is stated definitely shows it up as a sin. Why? Because one may give so many reasons for the "girl-friend" idea, but the basic question is: "Am you married to that person?" Since fornication has been given as "sex with someone to whom you are not married", isn't it obvious that this activity with the girlfriend identifies itself as such?

Jagoon:

why should i assume it is just because some that is what we have been made to believe.

It would be quite unhealthy to "assume" anything - whether in favour or against the topic. Rather than make presumptions, the more beneficial thing to do is examine the basis of our convictions - this is what we are trying to do by understanding and discussing Leviticus 18 based on the definition you offered.

Jagoon:

I am not saying itis not a sin but i need real evidence that it is not just presumptions,.

Good. The "real" evidence is to explain for us how you hope to convince your reader that having sex with a "girlfriend" does not violate your own definition - "sex with someone with whom he is not married".

No matter how we juggle the word "girlfriend", she could never translate into "married". One's wife, mother an girlfriend are not the same set of relationship. The only that qualifies is the first ("wife", while the others ("mother" and "girlfriend" will violate your own definition. Agreed?

Jagoon,

Please calm down. . . we are very interested in your views.

@Jagoon,

Please clam down and let's reason amicably.

Remember I asked for your definition of "fornication"? I am thankful that you offered one as "sex with somone you are not married to". Now, applying that definition to the several indicators in that chapter - Leviticus 18 - my query was quite simple: are you* married to anyone of those examples I outlined?

Since you cannot argue that you are married to your mother (v.7 - no insult to you please), nor to your father's wife (v. 8 - that is another man's wife), nor yet to your neighbour's wife (v. 20), or yet again to your uncle's wife (v. 14) or brother's wife (v. 16). . . what would warrant your zippers to fly in their direction?

Wait. . . if a 'reasoned pally' took his mother as his girlfriend (following your protest), would it be cool for him to have sex with her? What do you call that - and how does that differ from the definition that "fornication" is clearly the act of having "sex with someone to whom he was not married"? It is beyond argument that this pally cannot marry his own mother - so where is the "girlfriend" thingy being sneaked in here?

Besides, the chapter does not even mention "girlfriend" - so where did you get that idea from?

@Jagoon,

Jagoon:

@syrup
exegesis eisegesis genesis , aunty i am getting a bit more confused here o! my theology no reach that one. infact you have suceeded in confuing me further

Okay, I aplogise - deeply sorry to have risked confusing my reader more than settling the issue simply. I'll try to watch out for my use of diction in future. I do hope that the words used my my repostes could have benefitted you where I explained the terms (exegesis and eisegesis)?

God bless you.

@OLAADEGBU,

I have been blessed each time I visit this motherboard to read contributions from many people. Nigerians are wonderful people - and I thank God for the fortune of having married one!

God bless you much.

@Jagoon,

Jagoon:

@eezzy
That doesn't explain why fornication (The most common sexual pracise) is not listed as a sin in Leviticus 18 which lists and explains all the immoral sexual practise.

Let's suppose that "fornication" is not "listed" as a word in that chapter (Leviticus 8). What word would you give to the the idea of having sex with any one of the following people to whom you are not married (using your definition of the word in question):

syrup:


    *v.7  - "your mother"

    *v.8  - "your father's wife"

    *v.14  - "your uncle's wife"

    *v.15  - "your daughter-in-law (your son's wife)"

    *v.16  - "your brother's wife"

    *v.18  - "your wife's sister"

    *v.20  - "your neighbor's wife"

Another definition of fornication is given by WordWeb dictionary as - "Extramarital sex that wilfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations". Would you throw out that definition as not applicable here as well? If so, why?

@Jagoon,

Thank you for your reply - it affords me a working frame within which to dissect your query. The reason why I initially asked for a definition was because the term "fornication" means so many things to so many people. . . and that is why TV01's succinct answer proved helpful ("It depends what you refer to, or who you ask!".

This was your definition of "fornication" --

Jagoon:

. . . fornication is when you have sex with somone you are not married to and my analogy is that fornication occured as a mis representation of sexual immorality in some versions of the bible. the correct translation is sexual immorality and fornication is not listed amongst the immoral sexual practices.

Now, if fornication could be defined as "sex with someone you are not married to", then I submit that this very concept are self-evident in many verses in the Leviticus which you quoted. Let's see some of them:

Jagoon:


Leviticus 18

Unlawful Sexual Relations

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

Okay, the point is clear - no sex with someone to whom you are not married, and pretty much is seen in several verses above as highlighted. The simple question to ask is: "are you((*) married to the person?" _{[I use you(*) in a generic sense, not particularly meaning yourself, Jagoon].}. Can we remind ourselves of a few given in that list? Here:


    *v.6  - "any close relative" - [this is elaborated upon in the subsequent verses, but others besides close relatives are mentioned]:

    *v.7  - "your mother"

    *v.8  - "your father's wife"

    *v.14  - "your uncle's wife"

    *v.15  - "your daughter-in-law (your son's wife)"

    *v.16  - "your brother's wife"

    *v.18  - "your wife's sister"

    *v.20  - "your neighbor's wife"

The basic question besides all arguments is simple: "are you(*) married to these people?" Remember the definition above on fornication - "sex with someone you are not married to", that should solve out problem.

To have questioned whether the word "fornication" appears in the Bible as a mistranslation in some versions does not remove the fact that having sex with someone to whom one is not married is precisely demonstrated in Leviticus 18.

After all this, what's my answer to the topic question: "Is Fornication Really A Sin?" My answer is YES.

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:

I can smell some diabolical double talk here, could both posters be one and the same? Your guess is as good as mine

Lol. . . I am not sure that is the case. I have also been mistaken for someone else in the past, though.

I believe syrup has dealt conclusively with your question except that your mind is already made up and you don't want us to confuse you with the facts

They might as well mistake us to be one and the same!

@Jagoon,

If one were making assumptions and theorizing, it would be plain - because such a thinker would only be making out-of-hand statements and not being able to establish their presuppositions fairly by Scriptural principles.

The basic principle I offered was a reminder to "exegesis"  - which is what I applied. At least, you have not faulted that, other than rejecting it summarily without proffering something alternatively that may be more substantial.

Now, let's apply that to the basic concerns: the statement that "God could have created other people apart from Adam and Eve" may appear on the surface to still hold water - infact it might catch so many people out of the blues - but the direct question is: WHEN did that happen? If your view is that it happened before Adam and Eve arrived, then certainly you are inclined to take the "pre-Adamic man (or 'men')" theory.

If that is the case, we are asking you to present your theory more cogently other than alluding to "highly suggestive" . . "non-explicit" ideologies. How do I gain any confidence in your presumption when you haven't proffered the substance from Scripture itself to substantiate your ideas? May I remind you that "eisegesis" holds no water - none whatsoever. Infact, when you build your theory on eisegesis, such a theory always finds itself backed up the wall - 10 times out of 10!

That is why it does not come across as a surprise (at least to me) that you have only been making the "non-explicit" and "highly suggestive" paradigm without a solid pointer for your thoughts.

I appreciate the idea in its own right - but I have also presented why it is deeply flawed. It fails to hold itself cogently under scrutiny. More than that, I also proffered reasons why an alternative view could be more satisfactory - the view that the collective verses both from OT and NT say that Adam was indeed the first man. Can you find where it states otherwise without eisegesis?

Pam Rin:

(this is my first contribution on the bloc) i am new!!

@Pam Rin,

First, a hearty welcome to the Forum. I hope you get so thrilled to stay on for a good while to come.

When you posit that the Bible account is full of flaws and is "laughably short", it came across to someone like me that you really haven't studied it, but only wished to join the party of those who start out laughing than calmly examining issues before making any statement.

It is interesting that you stated your belief in creation, but you did not tell us anything about how, why and what you believe about that "creation". Would it not be fair that you present your own alternative account and be open for discussion - so that you give others the opportunity to examine whether or not your own theory is as impeccable as you assume out of hand?

A word about "image". True, the Biblical account in Genesis states that God created man in His own image and likeness. But does that necessarily make God into a man with "flesh and bones and blood"? Is that what the word "image" suggests - even in context? Could it be possible that you assume so much without an informed study?

We understand that an "image" does not mean that same thing as a "clone". The former (image) has several connotations - and one helpful meaning in context here might be suggested in WordWeb dictionary as "Language used in a figurative or non-literal sense". So, was God speaking of Himself as having bones and blood and flesh when using the term ""image?

holychic:

@Syrup
your post was helpful when it comes to cleansing my soul.
but my body it didn't help, i've committed fornication in the past, so i need to cleanse my body and mind from all those thoughts because i've decided to go celibate and my past still hunts me.

You're plainly honest - this is highly prized.

Have I committed serious sins before I came to know Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord? Yes indeed. Am I proud of them? Not at all. Am I non-challant about them? No - on the contrary, they were a source of constant pain to me even before I was saved. So, how did I find peace of heart? I would say that for me, it was prominently by two things: (a) prayerful understanding of God's Word, and (b) the fortune of faithful friends who know Jesus Christ for real rather than in a shallow sense!

Appreciating the fact that everyone's situation is different, what else could I offer that might be beneficial to you? Let's see:

(a) You're not alone

Please understand that other people struggle with even more serious problems. But one thing that helps them is their honesty. They come without pretences to God Himself - and He proved His power real to change their lives (including me).

What other "serious" sins haunted these people? They are many; but one of such faithful friends that God sent my way showed me two examples: (i) Moses (ii) Paul. What identifies these two men as "serious" offenders? Murder. However, when they had an honest encounter with God, both men were seriously broken - so much so that Moses the mighty prince was a feeble man with stuttering speech, too scared to go back to Egypt.

Okay, we know the rest of the story. But what is so evident in these men's lives is this - God's power proven in their lives. My friend challenged me: "Did God forgive these men?" I answered in the affirmative. Then the challenge: "Why can't He do the same for you and grant you peace?" I was struck - and that led me to trust God more.


(b) God is Faithful

Mere words are powerless to save. They may be helpful (such as you read these lines), but nothing can substitute for the reality of God's power in a person's life. God is more than willing to transform our lives, set us free and enrich our very being with His grace. . . and He does this by His Holy Spirit. That is why for those who have come to know Jesus Christ in a real way, they will guarantee to you that nothing will avail without the Spirit who brings the reality.

But is it so difficult? By no means. I was surprised how easy it was for Him to set me free - the very day when I simply trusted Him with childlike faith. Even when it was a feeble whisper in the privacy of my room, that very moment my burdens were dissolved - and I knew it!


God knows your predicaments - more than that, He bless and enrich your life. Difficult? Not at all. Just trust Him - even if it is a whisper that comes from the debts of your heart and you don't know any theology, it pleases Him and you will never remain the same with such burdens.

God bless you.

@Jagoon,

Interesting points you may be suggesting, but again they are seriously flawed. Let's look at them:

Jagoon:

@ all
I am yet to see any posts which diproves the fact that there were other people in existence at the time of Adam/EVe/Cain/Abel.

There are answers that disprove the "facts" fallacies and fancies that suggest pre-Adamic men. The arguments so far adduced for those theories are weak, and none who hold that view have come back to offer something more cogent.

This is what one one would expect when doing studies of this nature:

(a) state the propblem or hypothesis

(b) offer reasons for your inferences

(c) Since this is rather a theological exercise, it is wise to also apply the rule of Scripture to arrive at a good understanding - this is called "exegesis" (the opposite, which is reading one's bias into scripture, is called "eisegesis" - big difference). Please see 2 Pet. 1:20 where we are cautioned that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" - meaning that one cannot just take a verse and arrive at an inference without looking at other verses on the same subject! This is why I often gave verses to show that other verses are corroborating what conclusions I might have.

If you had an alternative model, could you proffer such so that we may follow your train of thought? To assume out of hand that Genesis 1 suggests pre-Adamic men and fail to build your assumptions by Scriptural rule (exegesis) is to play the match and score your own goal as the referee!

Jagoon:

Although some people have tried to explain otherwise i would submit they are just trying to defend what they have always assummed to be true

Infact, that is precisely what you did. You assumed a position, are still holding to that, and yet have been unable to afford us rigorous discussions to buttress your point. Now you just hope to 'convert' your readers by appeal to emotion. Not so cool.

Jagoon:

because the bible infered their were other people who could have killed Cain.

The Bible does not teach that such "other people" existed before Adam. If it does, where is it? Second, in what image did those men exist? Did they have human spirits of souls? Are they mentioned anywhere else in the Bible?

Jagoon:

Also who did cain marry?? he couldn't have married his sister as some people try to suggest.

Why not so? Strange that a man at that time could have married his sister?

Jagoon:

After abel died the other child adam and eve had was Seth and he was a man, the other children came several years later after cain had married.

The Bible does not teach that the other children of Adam came "several years later" - that is an assumption that fails to follow the context of the verses. I asked what Adam was doing for 800 years after he begot Seth - it would be interesting to read a good response from you.

Besides, even if the children came several years later, were they too young to have married their brethren and relations?

Jagoon:

The bible also said that Cain built a city. Obviously there must have been more than one family for them to have a city at that time or was the city built for him and his family alone??

The Bible demonstrates that the "city" did not just arise out of hand - that is why Genesis 4 carefully pointed out the lineage of Cain! After Cain married, he had children - his generation built the city mentioned.

Jagoon:

The truth is that even if Adam was the first man, other men and women were created simultaneosly which the bible wasn't explicit on.

This is meaningless without cogent pointers for your assumptions. Help us see why you hold this view - present well reasoned answers to help us follow your thoughts rather than just assuming things and claiming the "non-explicit" idea.

Blessings.

Perhaps not enough info to help us understand what exactly you mean. On a light note, to cleanse the body, if lux soap will not do, just take a bubble bath to help the skin cells relax for a while.

Okay, seriously. If the question was about finding spiritual refreshment, a few would help (from a Christian view) -

(a) Renew your mind by the Word -
"be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind"
-- Rom. 12:1-2

(b) Obey what it teaches by the power of the Holy Spirit -
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit"
-- (1 Pet. 1:22)

(c) Depend on God's unfailing love -
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fea"
-- (1 John 4:18)

Will these be of some help for the moment?

@Jagoon,

Jagoon:

I asked a simple question, no one as been able to provide me with any serious answers really i need someone to disect my analogy of the subject and tell me were iam wrong, that is if i am wrong

I'd like to have a go and do some 'dissecting' as you proposed. However, perhaps you could first help us clarify what you mean by 'fornication'. What meaning do you attach to that word, and what are its implications when applied to your analogy?

@huxley,

Good to see that you opened a thread on the same questions in raised in the other thread a few minutes ago. Basically, a few answers (or rather, introductory pointers) have been offered there, and perhaps it might be helpful to repost them here and invite contributions to help the thread?


Here then: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136330.0.html#msg2298885

huxley:

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

Talking about "independent, extrabiblical sources" would go beyond what many people call the "scientific method" - that's why the reference to teleological (philosophical) enquiries. What does this entail? It would require us to examine what is usually called the "scientific method" - and which "science" would that be? The "natural" sciences (such as chemistry, mathematics and physics)? Or to a broader range of what is actually "science"?

When we carefully examine this point, we find that what many people claim or otherwise discredit as "science" may be surprisingly off the mark and prejudiced. Upfront, I would say that there are quite a number of leading scientists who are not plain honest in their assumptions.

huxley:

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively?

Possibly - but what "genetic investigative methods" would we be looking at? Let's take evolutionary biology, for instance - there again, we might ask what model of evolution would be most suitable for this enquiry - Lamarkian, Darwinian, or Neo-Evolutionary? To choose any of these or others not mentioned would require regorous justification as to why that particular model over the others. This was why I stated that we should not lose sight of the "model" employed so far in this enquiry - theology. If we go on from there to another model (say, the teleological one), then we should further scrutinize it before applying it.

huxley:

Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

Genetics could offer some explanations (based on any of the afore-mentioned models) to some of the enquiries; but let us not be so self-assuming as to adopt a jaundiced idea that it would offer the most satisfactory answers to the whole range of queries on this topic. Infact, I risk the guilt of stating upfront that definitelyy would not (because I have certain queries which are not within the range of genetics investigative models).

huxley:

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

Possibly; but as stated earlier, these all would have immense contributions to offer in certain aspects of our queries (whatever they might be). However, I am not sure that any one of these (or even in combination) would be able to sufficiently account for thr very origin of life and matter - they may offer explanatory models for understanding the transformations of geological, paleontoligical, astronomical, and physical changes - but all these are looking at the "aftermath", not at the very first cause of existence.

huxley:

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?

Again, possibly - and yet again, these models of investigation would not be able to tell you with a higher degree of certainty WHO Adam actually was. When you look at the Genesis account, for instance, you find certain things mentioned there that archeology and paleontology would simply not be adequate models of enquiry into those things. Example? How do those models account for origin of the soul and spirit of man?

huxley:

If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

Like I said, the reason is basically that the thread so far was created more for theological enquiries than for a teleological one. As you can see, no one model of investigation has a concensus - creationists are not all agreed as to a single model of investigating "creation" (is it young-earth or old-earth, for instance). So it is with any teleological investigation - they are not all having a concensus on ths and other questions of this nature.

The question now is: what would you rather offer as a more satisfying model - and how can your readers be sure that you would not lead them with some measure of hubris? As a reknowned thinker once said - "Hubris is a sin - whether in religion or science". Words on marbel.

Many blessings.

huxley:

4HIM and Syrup,

You guys are doing bible-verses lashing again, slapping your favourite bible verses on each other's faces in the hope of converting the other side to your point of view.

Well, not exactly - we are not doing a Bible-verse lashing at each other, much less at anyone. It is clear that our view points (whether as answers or questions) would be more meaningful by referencing those verses than making assumptions without any such quotes. I am reminded in another thread that humbled me graciously that there are other readers that visit our threads and we should always carry them along by making our points accessible (thank you, D-reloaded ).

huxley:

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

Talking about "independent, extrabiblical sources" would go beyond what many people call the "scientific method" - that's why the reference to teleological (philosophical) enquiries. What does this entail? It would require us to examine what is usually called the "scientific method" - and which "science" would that be? The "natural" sciences (such as chemistry, mathematics and physics)? Or to a broader range of what is actually "science"?

When we carefully examine this point, we find that what many people claim or otherwise discredit as "science" may be surprisingly off the mark and prejudiced. Upfront, I would say that there are quite a number of leading scientists who are not plain honest in their assumptions.

huxley:

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively?

Possibly - but what "genetic investigative methods" would we be looking at? Let's take evolutionary biology, for instance - there again, we might ask what model of evolution would be most suitable for this enquiry - Lamarkian, Darwinian, or Neo-Evolutionary? To choose any of these or others not mentioned would require regorous justification as to why that particular model over the others. This was why I stated that we should not lose sight of the "model" employed so far in this enquiry - theology. If we go on from there to another model (say, the teleological one), then we should further scrutinize it before applying it.

huxley:

Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

Genetics could offer some explanations (based on any of the afore-mentioned models) to some of the enquiries; but let us not be so self-assuming as to adopt a jaundiced idea that it would offer the most satisfactory answers to the whole range of queries on this topic. Infact, I risk the guilt of stating upfront that definitelyy would not (because I have certain queries which are not within the range of genetics investigative models).

huxley:

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

Possibly; but as stated earlier, these all would have immense contributions to offer in certain aspects of our queries (whatever they might be). However, I am not sure that any one of these (or even in combination) would be able to sufficiently account for thr very origin of life and matter - they may offer explanatory models for understanding the transformations of geological, paleontoligical, astronomical, and physical changes - but all these are looking at the "aftermath", not at the very first cause of existence.

huxley:

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?

Again, possibly - and yet again, these models of investigation would not be able to tell you with a higher degree of certainty WHO Adam actually was. When you look at the Genesis account, for instance, you find certain things mentioned there that archeology and paleontology would simply not be adequate models of enquiry into those things. Example? How do those models account for origin of the soul and spirit of man?

huxley:

If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

Like I said, the reason is basically that the thread so far was created more for theological enquiries than for a teleological one. As you can see, no one model of investigation has a concensus - creationists are not all agreed as to a single model of investigating "creation" (is it young-earth or old-earth, for instance). So it is with any teleological investigation - they are not all having a concensus on ths and other questions of this nature.

The question now is: what would you rather offer as a more satisfying model - and how can your readers be sure that you would not lead them with some measure of hubris? As a reknowned thinker once said - "Hubris is a sin - whether in religion or science". Words on marbel.

Many blessings.

Hi huxley,

Having gone through your concerns (good questions, nonetheless), it struck me that perhaps you are missing the vital link on a topic as suggested by the thread. What is that topic?

Adam was not the First Man

Great. However, rather than narrow the interractions between just two contributors (myself and 4Him), I think it would be fair to have also considered others as well - including yourself. What this implies is that it should be plain to us that the basis of this question is the BIBLE - it has been more a theological discussion (and has remained so for quite a while) than a teleological one. Those who have made contributions so far have been concerned with what the verses quoted might suggest. They have not been concerned presently with other considerations - and there are myriads of them (another thread where I have enjoyed a similar discussion is the one on EVOLUTION and CREATION).

Certainly, a teleological response is welcome anytime. However, those who would follow that line of thought should also make informed and seasoned contributions rather than merely pose questions and stand aloof and non-committal. Nonetheless, it would be a pleasant exercise to offer some answers to the points you raised.

4 Him:

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

I'm not so sure that was what was being pointed to. That was why I offered other texts from Isaiah and Zephaniah to help us here. Most Bible commentators who start out interpreting Jeremiah 4 as alluding to Genesis suddenly switch at this verse and speak of the fruitful places as "Carmel". This is quite funny, because I still don't understand how they flew from Genesis to Carmel in such a woosh and leaving no clues (example, see A. Barnes; otherwise see K& who correctly and more lucidly see the chapter as prophesied jugdments pronounced upon Jerusalem).

4 Him:

- There is one thing we need to understand, the bible is not written in a particular order so verse 20 could actually be talking of a time period ver distinct from verse 24 (for example).

I agree; however, we can't have private interpretations of particular verses by failing to see other verses as well.

4 Him:

The key for me was Jer 4: 23. It is no coincidence that the author of this verse used EXACTLY the same expression as was used in Genesis 1:2.

As far as the KJV goes, yes, the authors translators of the KJV used exactly the same wording. But check other versions like the JPS as referenced above - it is not EXACTLY the same.

4 Him:

However let us assume that there were no pre-adamite men . . . read Gen 1:2 again - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If the earth was truly empty before the creation in Genesis, why would the author qualify it as being WITHOUT FORM? What form?

I hardly know why he did so; I could only offer my thoughts on that. My thinking is an allusion to an epoch between Gen. 1:1 and 2 - many argue and amke such inference, and in due course I'll offer you why I am inclined towards that. However, Jer. 4 would not be my butressing text - because I would have a hard time reconciling those inferences that are not warranted by that text. . . and then fall guilty as those who make the sudden switch to Carmel!

4 Him:

Why would he say the earth was VOID?

For the same reason as above.

4 Him:

Darkness? How did he know what darkness was since darkness is simply the absence of light?

I don't know how he knew - rather, I'd rather follow the lead that the writer (Moses) was not there when creation occured, he only recorded what God inspired him to pen down.

@4Him,

4 Him:

Syrup, i never alluded that God was speaking to pre-adamite men in Gen 1:26.

Point taken; otherwise I was wondering what you meant by this:

4 Him:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

. . . it would make one wonder if the highlighted part of the verse and your questions following was drawing that inference. Another way of seeing the question would be: "who was he speaking to?"

However, I understand now where you might have been pointing me to: there supposedly might have been a class of men who were not in God's image - and in the Genesis 1:26 quote, He was embarking on another class of men who should be in His image and likeness.

If that was the inference, the one thing that would support that view is to corroborate it with other verses in Scripture. Do we have such?

However, if that was not the inference, where did I miss it again?

4 Him:

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

I am not particularly sure that this is only a "twice" occuring event. Another good reference to look up is Zephaniah 1:2-3, where God explicitly says:

I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.
I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven,
and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked;
and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

Now, was Zephaniah pointing back to Genesis, or rather to some future even beyond his time (more in correspondence to apocalyptic judgements)? I'm sure the case is made.

Again, it is hard to concieve your point when we see the context of Jer. 4 and simply ask: what time or epoch could the prophet have been alluding to - the past or the future?

From Jer. 4:20, we see it was a futuristic event. . . the whole scenario points positively to that epoch by the very inference to "Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled" - it was a coming destruction by apocalyptic judgements. The whole picture bloc dovetails into verse 27 where the implication of that vision which Jeremiah beheld is given: "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

I also appreciate the allusion to the descriptive words and constructs. True, there is a semblance between Genesis 1 and Jeremiah 4 wording of those verses; but that does not establish the inference you drew. We know of other events that are not so connected but have been expressed precisely with similar wording.

An example? Take for instance a hotly debated issue among many Christians - the baptism with the Holy Ghost. Some view this as only meaning an experience of speaking in toungues (as in Acts 2); others allude to the Body of Christ bonding together as in 1 Cor. 12:13. Now we know these are not speaking of the same thing, but they are both called the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

In the same way, we have to be careful to not just go by the wording and therefore make the faulty conclusion that Gen. 1 and Jer. 4 are speaking of the very same thing in the same epoch. I have two objections to offer here:

(a) the Hebrew for both verses might have been worded differently, but the translators used precisely the same wording in English. If we consult both texts in other English versions, they are not the same (see JPS as an example - Gen. 1:2 says "the earth was unformed and void", while Jer. 4:23 says "the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void" - not precisely worded as same).

(b) a better understanding would be to look at the context of the naratives - in Genesis 1, we find creation, whereas in Jeremiah 4 we read of apocalyptic judgements. This was made clear by reading from Isaiah's prophecy - and when we turn to Daniel and the Revelation, we see similar inferences.

U guys and ladies should provide the price list . . . some of us are also interested!

But then, what about Jeremiah's prophecy?

Let's look at it for a moment:

4 Him:

Jeremiah 4: 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

- This sounds eeriely like Genesis 1:2 so clearly the author was giving us a tiny insight into what actually happened that was not explained in Genesis.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

Lol. . . that sounds interesting. But I implore you to read the whole chapter - there you will find that God was alluding to a futuristic prophecy, and not something that occured in the past!

In order to connect this thought contextually, let's apply the same principle of corroborating Scripture with scripture. And what do we find? Simply that Isaiah also spoke of such apocalyptic world devastation. Reference - and then compare:

What is the picture in Jeremiah's prophecy?

It was simply alluding to the judgement of the nations - not in the past in Genesis, but rather a futuristic one. Let's compare them:

Jeremiah 4:20-23
"Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled:
suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.
How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children,
and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good
they have no knowledge. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form,
and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains,
and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo,
there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Okay, now please carefully consider this with Isaiah's prophecy:

Isaiah 24:18-23
"And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear
shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit
shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open,
and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is utterly broken down,
the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like
a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall,
and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD
shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth
upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered
in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be
visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed,
when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem,
and before his ancients gloriously."

What this portray is a declaration of apocalyptic judgements - especially by the reference to "And it shall come to pass" . . "and in that day". . . "then. . ".

At best, what I see are presumptions for pre-Adamic men; I do not see such theories espoused in Scripture.

@4Him,

4 Him:

Syrup, i don't agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Very much appreciated. It's interesting to be challenged by the views of other people.

4 Him:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

I don't think Genesis 1:26 supposes that, and my reasons are thus:

(a) that verse is a pointing to God's prerogative in creation - He was not speaking to other men when He stated "Let US make man", because that would be inferring that such men could also be creators themselves.

(b) the highlighted part of that verse ("in our image, after our likeness" qualifies the first part ("Let us make man". The question now is who were involved in the "us" and "our" in that verse? It could be none other than a pointer to the Holy Trinity manifesting His creative and redemptive prerogative.

(c) that God was not speaking to other men is clear and self-evident in that verse - because when He said "Let us make man", He wished us to understand that He alone (as the Trinity) was solely involved in that divine act. No "other men" are said anywhere to have also created anything - and God was not enlisting or recruiting any so-called pre-Adamic men.

(d) this point is further corroborated by other verses; a few would be helpful to quote --


Isaiah 44:24 -  
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,
I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone;
that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself"


Isaiah 45:12 -
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched
out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

Jeremiah 27:5 -
"I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground,
by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto
whom it seemed meet unto me."

These are just a few of those verses demonstrating that God alone created all things - nowhere we do read that He solicited the help of others. If there were any such inferences, perhaps we could all consider them? I'm open to learn.

(e) Further, we find that this holy discourse in the Trinity is not perculiar to Genesis. Several centuries later we find Isaiah the prophet recording such divine discourse - "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me" (Isa. 6:8 ). As far as we know, no angel sends out men on divine commision - and no other created being (if there were any such pre-Adamic men) could have arrogated that prerogative to themselves as well.

(f) Now, in the quote "Let us make man", it is clear that God could not be speaking of creating "men" if there were already "men" who were existing before that statement! It is illogical to intone that He was going to create something that already existed - would that not have raised the question of the same "men" wondering what the new injunction was about? If I were a carpenter, how could I (for instance) say that I wanted to make a chair when I had already made one?

These are some of the reasons why I'm not persuaded at all by the argument to see some pre-Adamic men in Genesis.

huxley:

So how long ago did god create Adam&Eve? How long ago did he create the earth?

It's impossible for me to give an exact time with a figure. The answers I gave were actually what I have come to understand from the Bible on the topic of the thread.

Hi TV01!

It's been quite an age. I just logged out to take a break when I saw yours! Glad to see that several good friends are still challenging our thinking on the forum - bless God for all you guys!

I enjoyed your contributions - and this one is to be remembered for a long time to come:

TV01:

3. Divorce for adultery is never better than 2nd best, mercy triumphs over judgement

Good word.

Thank you all for such blessings.

Phew. Let me just say this for now. I want to deeply apologise for my outburst (yes, I was wrong, and I have to concede that there should have been a better attitude in my response - thank God for those around me who impressed that upon me). So, apolgies to you huxley and D-reloaded. . . yes, we can all discuss amicably.

I have to take a break now. . . and maybe come back sometime soon (if I can). If otherwise, good wishes to all on the Forum.

Blessings.

@justcool,

I am humbled by your loving and gracious spirit in your response. I had to excuse myself from another thread to allow the heat calm down.

Many thanks for putting your points across lucidly and simply on the matter of a day possibly stretching to include millions of years. I don't have much of a worry on that subject and would be willing to consider it more if it leads there. Grateful also for the links - I'll take my time to read through so I don't offer hasty conclusions.

Now, the main point that has been of some concern to me was the creation by evolution. Please forgive me, I'm not trying to pressure you into any position (whether "for" or "against". I was trying to see how I could understand this "process" that might have suggested a creation by evolution theory or idea to some thinkers.

Again, grateful for your responses.

@D-reloaded,

D-reloaded:

First off, please don't insult me. If anything was an attack it was this. .

Okay. Again, it would be more mature to save your stylish examples of same, as here:

D-reloaded:

shouting at him and saying "he loves lies" because he's showing you how you barely responded to his question is quite ridiculous.

. . .That was uncalled for, and that was why I responded the way I did without deliberately meaning it as insult.

D-reloaded:

All this because he said olabowole did a better job answering his question than you did which is actually true. You immediately accused him of "loving lies"

I did. If someone posits that lying is a "better" answer, it points to me that such a person comes across as favouring such. That is something I coulod not conscientiously applaud. But he should have been honest enough to express his views and leave it there instead of deliberately and outrightly intone that I was "dishonest".

D-reloaded:

That's not the point. He asked "who is my neighbor", an insightful explantion on that would be have nice, instea dofd "I go by the Biblical view of a neigbor", then you turn it on to him by asking him who does HE consider to be a neighbor, that is what he problem with and I understand that

That has been settled. Asking to elaborate would not hurt, rather than assume I made no attempt at responding.

D-reloaded:

You claim you replied like that because he quotes the Bible like one who knows, just because he made the thread doesnt mena he's the only one reading it.

Did I assume that at all? What is wrong with your reading my views?

D-reloaded:

Many of us tend to gander ta some threads in this forum that are of interest. You shouldnt just assume everyone understands.

Did I also make such assumptions?  I prefer asking these questions instead of jumping to conclusions. If I assumed such, please let me know.

D-reloaded:

Going into depth about certain things doesnt just benefit the OP but other people who reads these threads as well. That's my point.

I appreciate your point. . . and in due course I have offered somne elaboration.

D-reloaded:

Most people would disagree with you. However, I do see what you are saying.

I welcome disagreements. If everyone agreed with me, I am in serious trouble already!


Truce now?

@huxley,

Now that you have sought to disccuss rather than be first accusative, I am willing to consider what you post. Was it too much to ask for sincere appraisals from others? Anyway. . .

huxley:

My main post contain a number of simple questions, which if you had really wanted to respond to them rather than equivocate you could have dealt with them thus;

Indeed I responded to some initially and was going to come back and address some more and then finally deal with a few. Olabowale engaged me and kept me on the jolly side of things, which was no problem. But your outburst was uncalled for, and I hope it will end there.

huxley:

Yes, he should tell a lie because human lives are at risk in this case . . . . . . ,

To tell a "lie" and to "bear false witness" in my view are not the same thing. Let me explain. If you had done nothing wrong and I bore false witness against your innocence, what life would I be saving? We have to be careful to distinguish issues before lumping them up as in a bag of generalizations.

It wasn't long ago I read a similar discussion in another forum - interesting and spirited it was. Afterwards I asked myself what point was being made by someone who was constantly being disparaged by those who disagreed. Going back, I saw his point - he had only sought to argue that "rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia" are all pointing to sexual intercourse - but they are not exactly the same thing simply because they are all sex!" The poor guy was constantly and virulently disparaged by others who refused to see his point.

Why did I narate this incident? Because it made me think outside the small box of generalizations, which many people make. On the present subject, however, I would not be so generalistic (if there's a word as such); for bearing false witness also involves putting lives at risk. What we have not considered is the other side of the implications - and it would not help to just assume things on a single stroke.

huxley:

As a matter of principle, and as there is really no lives at risk, I would be 100% truthful in my application . . . . . . ., . Shame to those who proclaim the Christian precept of honesty and yet violent this principle in their personal lives . . . . . . ,

Agreed. But why "Christian" in particular? Was that the motive for your thread afterall? I would rather say that no group is exempt - shame on all those who expect too much on others when they themselves have dirty hands - religion or none!

huxley:

You would get a wide range of responses; some honest and some dishonest . . . . . . . , To some the matter of earning social and economic advantage at the expense of a little white lie is a small price to paid for the integrity. To others, the injunction not to lie is absolute . . . . . . .

I would take the latter side of the inference. I price integrity, even if it hurts me personally. But what happens when someone tells "a little white lie" to risk my integrity. This happens so many times where I work - but I'm happier that for me it has always gone well, because later others come to see that I was falsely accused. Still others were sometimes angry that I did not "blast the shameless liars". . . my answer has always been that I had nothing to fear, for in due course the truth would be open to all.

For yet other people, things may be tougher. Would I be judgemental towards them if they do not remain calm? Not at all.

huxley:

This is a central subject in modern philosophy; the existence or otherwise of absolute moral values . . . . . , Personally, I lean on the side advocating no such thing . . . . . . . ,

I respect your preference - although I know others who are philosophically inclined otherwise than yours.

huxley:

The biblical concept of your neighbour has undergone enormous redefinition from the Old Testament understanding to the present day. In the OT, a neighbour to a Jew would have been another Jew, not a Hittite or an Egyptian . . . . . . . . ,

This was why I appealed for context rather than generalizations. The concept of neighbour in the OT was not always "the Jew next door" as opposed to the "stranger dwelling in your midst". There were times when "neighbour" included others who may not have been Jewish. Examples abound - for instance, while the israelites were still in Egypt, those who were referred to as "neighbours" were not just Israelites but rather those who were close to them without ethnic distinctions (see Exodus 3:22). Again we read a general rule of life in Prov. 14:21 - "He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth" - which is not a matter of if a Jew despised another Jew. No one should despise another - whether Jew or Gentile.

huxley:

Does the above not represent a fair attempt at responding, rather than the equivocation and evasions I got?

Does accusing a discussant of dishonest represent "fair attempt" especially where you largely ignored my initial response?

@D-reloaded,

D-reloaded:

You skipped most of his questions though, syrup.

I did so, and I didn't argue that I answered a page full of all his queries. What is the topic? "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness!  Or Shall One?" - and that was what caught my interest. I was going to come back and offer more detailed answers, but since he didn't say a word before olabowale engaged me, I felt he had tucked away his interest already.

However, for huxley to have accused me of being "dishonest" is silly. I have engaged many of his type and try as much to address issues cordially. Accusations of such brigand manners is not the first rule of call to engage in a neighbourly discussion.

D-reloaded:

What do you have to say about the Nazi situation he offered, you ignored most of that and went off on a different tangent that a simple passerby like myself sincerely couldnt understand, shouting at him and saying "he loves lies" because he's showing you how you barely responded to his question is quite ridiculous.

Point of correction - huxley did not assume I barely responded; rather he pretended not to have seen my initial answers. Please let's grow up here. What should have warranted his response to ANYBODY as "dishonest" when he ignored (rather than acknowledge) their initial answers? Where was that type of hyper-silly attitude coming from?

D-reloaded:

You say in regards to "who is your neighbor", all you said is "I take the Biblical view", why couldnt you go in depth?

If he called for an indepth answer or elaboration on that, he should have simply asked. Did he? He quotes the Bible as one who knows - could he have been vacant on that as well?

If you would know, here was what I pointed to:

Luke 10:29-37
"But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?  . . .Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."


I think in the spirit of discussions, we should aim to be filial to others. To expect to attack someone and seek to duck under a sulking mood is childish.