re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

this idea that believers have that you can just change what the text clearly says over and over again is a little ridiculous

---

Who from OEC is suggesting this because of OEC?

quote:

---

the text still gives us the age of the father when the next listed person was born

---

"became the father of" does not have to mean the very next person in the genealogy.



Biblical genealogies must be understood in the context of the ancient Near East.

The adoption of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, by Jacob created a new way of interpreting the 12-tribe configuration (Gn 48:5). “Joseph” appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:22–26), but the blessing of Moses counts 12 tribes by deleting Simeon and dividing the house of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh (Dt 33:17). Thus, as we see from this example, the contents of genealogies were selective and not intended to be exhaustive and precise.

Shortening genealogies by omitting names was commonplace. Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus exhibits a pattern in which three sets of 14 generations are achieved (Mt 1:17). The number 14 was desirable because of the importance attributed to the symbolic meaning of seven (“complete, perfect”). Thus “Joram fathered Uzziah” (Mt 1:8) omits three generations (2 Ch 21:4–26:23) so as to accomplish the desired number (cp. Ezr 7:1–5 with 1 Ch 6).

From this example we discover another unexpected feature in biblical genealogies. Genetic terms, such as “son of” and “father,” were flexible in meaning, sometimes indicating a “descendant” and “grandfather or forefather.” The word “daughter,” for example, could mean a subordinate village affiliated with a nearby city and thus be translated “surrounding settlements” (Jdg 1:27, NIV).

Although the years are reliable, this genealogy cannot be used to reconstruct the age of the earth. Genesis does not present genealogies for establishing absolute chronology (see 1 Kg 6:1). Also, Genesis 5 does not possess a complete list. Genesis 5 and 11 exhibit 10-name genealogies that consist of stereotypical patterns. The two genealogies are also linear, meaning that they include only one descendant per generation (segmented genealogies have more; see Gn 10:1–32). Since genealogies may telescope generations (see above), and since Genesis 5 is highly stylized, it is likely an “open” (selective) genealogy that spans many generations.


Mathews, K. A. (2007). Are the Biblical Genealogies Reliable? In T. Cabal, C. O. Brand, E. R. Clendenen, P. Copan, & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (pp. 14–15). Holman Bible Publishers.

quote:

---

If there’s no real Adam, no real Fall, and no true origin of sin, then the need for a Savior is meaningless. The message of the Gospel is built on the events in Genesis. Dismissing them as symbolic or metaphorical doesn’t just reinterpret a passage, it dismantles the framework of the Christian faith

---

Is there someone from OEC suggesting this because of their OEC leanings?

quote:

---

The people claiming the six creation days weren’t real days, that they were long epochs or metaphors adding things that aren’t there. The Bible doesn’t describe them that way. It says “evening and morning, the first day”… “evening and morning, the second day”… and so on. That’s plain language for ordinary 24-hour days.

---

Again, a 24 hour day was not understood by people of the time.

The Egyptians had a 24 hour day, but each hour was of different lengths.

It was not until the late 2nd century B.C. where Hipparchus pioneered accurate timekeeping for astronomy.

Of course you can reply, every ancient knew what a day was.

But then I ask you, did they know what a day was without the sun? (4th day).

Could anyone living in the time tell you that all days are the same length?

Was it exactly 25.9 billion kilometers worth of light travel?

quote:

---

That’s plain language for ordinary 24-hour days.

---

Please define a 24 hour day.

I'm assuming you mean at sea level? Uplands of Iraq?
Down to a Planck second?

quote:

---

So when people reinterpret the days of creation to fit extremely long timelines, it’s not just a poetic twist, it’s a total overhaul of what the Bible is plainly saying. And the motivation usually isn’t textual, it’s cultural. It’s to fit a secular worldview rooted in naturalism and evolution.

---

The motivation is not cultural, It's no easier to create matter in 6 billion years than it is to do it in 6 days or 6 seconds.

If anything it's a rejection of 16th-19th century simplicity in time.

quote:

---

But once you start doing that, once you edit the text to harmonize with evolution, you chip away at the Gospel itself. Millions or billions of years puts death and struggle before sin. That completely unravels the biblical account, where death came as a result of Adam’s sin. If death wasn’t a punishment, then why did Jesus have to die to overcome it?

---

I do think it is a theological belief, not a fact that death for animals is the result of Adam's sin.
Humans are special, Adam was special.
I'm not sure you can call animals living and dying "evil" or a "punishment".
Then what about bacteria that lived in Adam's mouth?
Where do you draw the line between life and death?

God created Adam, in a personal way, God breathe.

Jesus didn't die for snakes and butterflies, Eve eating the apple didn't start killing Zebra.
Maybe all Dogs go to heaven, I hope they do, but there is nothing in the Bible about it.

quote:

---

But the mechanics in Genesis matter because it’s foundational. When you insert long ages and death before sin, you’re not offering a minor alternative, you’re changing the core of the biblical message. Scripture teaches that death entered through sin. If death was already part of the world for millions of years, then the Fall loses its meaning and the entire redemptive story unravels.

---

Again, death is part of God's plan. Most bacteria have a lifespan of around 12 hours.

Is it foundational that animals could not die before Adam? That the bacteria in Adam's mouth were immortal until the apple?

No, Sin as a cause of Death is a human condition.
But that's about people who sin.
About something created in the image of God dying.

quote:

---

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

---

quote:

---

If there’s no real Adam, no real Fall, and no true origin of sin, then the need for a Savior is meaningless. The message of the Gospel is built on the events in Genesis. Dismissing them as symbolic or metaphorical doesn’t just reinterpret a passage, it dismantles the framework of the Christian faith.

---

A real Adam, a real Fall, and a true origin of sin is not dependent on anything before God created Adam.

quote:

---

you were demanding of others what you were not willing to do yourself. And then you freaked the frick out

---

None of this is true. You can read back through the thread to see you are lying

quote:

---

You can't even follow a thread

---

Says the person who is lying. Jeaux made a claim. I challenged the claim. Jeaux didn't back it up and then I provided a list of substantiation anyway just for funsies because you two were stomping your feet like children

quote:

---

cssamerican

---

Couldn't have said it better

quote:

---

1. You keep referring to grammar. Grammar is how sentences are constructed. It does play a role in how we understand communication. However, that's not the issue in this case. The issue is that yom can mean more than one thing regardless of the grammatical structure. The story absolutely can be about long ages and the theological point of the story is changed precisely none. You then claimed that morning and evening dictate a narrow definition of yom. Both of those words can absolutely be metaphorical and you can't deny that. It is absolutely a valid translation which in no way undermines the reliability of scripture. Those are facts. Denying them just shows an emotional commitment to something unnecessary.

---

Can you show me any example within the text of Scripture where the word yom is translated as something other than a 24-hour period of time when it is modified by the words "morning" or "evening", and has a number associated with it?

So far, you've only provided a claim. I've provided Scriptural proof for my claims. I'd like you to support your claims for me on this, otherwise you would have to admit that yom can mean literally anything the reader wants it to mean, which would make many passages unintelligible.

quote:

---

2. You started grousing about metaphorical meanings so I would ask you why you allow for metaphorical meaning in some cases but not others. No doubt, you are going to respond "context." If so, refer back to #1.

---

Context absolutely determines how a passage of Scripture should be read. There are many different genres being represented in the Scriptures and in order to understand what God is telling us, we have to read His words in light of how He is communicating.

quote:

---

3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.

---

Once again, I didn't say OEC necessarily destroys biblical inerrancy or automatically makes someone a heretic, only that it can due to how one must throw out the biblical rules of Bible interpretation to get there, as you seem to be doing.

quote:

---

4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. Careful now. You're about to step on some landmines with that question. You might want to withdraw that question.

---

No need to withdraw. You're speaking of an apples and oranges example. The issue I'm bringing up still relates to the word yom and its usage. You're bringing up an example of numbering only, which can be affected by scribal errors or even how numbers are used in ancient Hebrew.

Regarding Noah, I chose that as an example precisely because the number (40) is modified in a similar way to Genesis 1 in terms of time.

quote:

---

5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.

---

The phenomenological explanation doesn't work here. The grammar doesn't support it. The same creation account was used by the same author as the basis for the 7-day week which ended with the Sabbath that the people of God needed to keep. Jesus, again, accepted that as "Lord of the Sabbath", and He also taught that man and woman were created in God's image "from the beginning of creation". As I've said several times now, whatever was actually meant in Genesis 1 has to fit within the interpretative paradigm of the 4th commandment and Jesus' teaching on creation. The straight-forward, literalistic reading of the historical narrative of creation fits within those boundaries. If you're going to propose an alternative, you need to show just how that alternative works within the grammar and other literary and theological constraints of the Scriptures.

quote:

---

6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.

---

I've said multiple times that OEC won't lead to heresy by itself, but the interpretative framework used by OEC could lead to heresy. I don't need to justify this any more than I have.

quote:

---

7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.

---

I'm not interested in those things for this discussion. I'm talking about which one best fits the boundaries of Scripture. I've provided my reasoning and defense for why YEC does, and so far, you have not proposed or defended any particular claims beyond that the word yom has a larger semantic range (which I don't disagree with), but that statement alone doesn't negate my position, nor does it support yours.

quote:

---

8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.

---

In some views, yes. I'm not saying that all OEC views are heretical. I'm saying that the methodology used to get there can certainly lead to heresy.

quote:

---

9. I'm sure you know that there are different eschatological camps. It's the exactly same situation as the age of the earth issue. The reason why is because none of us has been to the end of creation and scripture does not lay out a minute for minute accounting and some of the language is metaphorical.

---

Apples and oranges. Eschatology relies on a lot of poetic and apocalyptic language. The age of the earth doesn't.

You need to prove that Genesis 1 is poetic and metaphorical language rather than historical first. I've already given proof that it was interpreted by Moses and Jesus as historical language rather than poetic, so you need to make your case. You haven't done that yet.

quote:

---

There are plenty of OEC advocates who love the Lord just as much as you, serve just as much as you, believe in the inerrancy of scripture, are not teaching heresy, are conservative evangelicals, aren't out checking boxes like the jdubs, aren't wearing special underwear like the mormons, etc. Take a step back and you will know that what I'm saying is right.

---

I don't think you are reading or understanding what I'm saying. That could very well be my fault, and if it is, I apologize for my lack of clarity. However, I have NOT claimed that OEC advocates cannot be Christians. I've said from the beginning that I do not believe that this issue necessarily differentiates between orthodoxy and heresy; the saved vs. the unsaved. All I've said is that it the methodology used to arrive that conclusion can certainly lead there if applied to other issues.

We knew this in the 90s/early 2000’s when they tried to use a genome weapon to sterilize the Palestinians and it couldn’t make it past early testing.

quote:

---

No. It most certainly is not.

---

It is. It's much more clear than simply saying "day" (yom), which does have a larger range of meaning by itself. The meaning is defined by its context, and the other modifying words provided narrow down the usage of the word.

If we can't know what was meant by "day" in that context, we don't know what is meant by the word in any context.

quote:

---

How do you have a morning and an evening, when there is NO SUN? The description was written by men who had only known a day to be from morning to evening. They had no concept of anything else.

---

It was written after the sun was in place, and the standard for one earth day for Israel was already known during that revelation. The same standard of time keeping was given both before and after the sun was created, so the continuity informs us of what was meant by it. Whatever a day was after the sun, it was a day before the sun. "Morning" and "evening" help us to know that.

quote:

---

The creator existed in darkness, and for how long no one knows.

---

I don't think that's accurate. God is light (1 John 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:16; Revelation 21:23). What is meant about the earth being in darkness in the beginning is up for debate, but even if God's light was not shone on it, it doesn't mean that God, Himself, dwelt in darkness. It's a minor point, though, as it doesn't impact the meaning of day.

quote:

---

You also have to remember Adam didnt write Genesis. He was the only one that God communicated with. Therefore, you have no concept of how long he lived before the fall, because he didnt record it. And likely had no idea himself. Especially when you know that God rested for an entire "day", AFTER Adam and Eve were created

He was created as an immortal. So was his wife. They did not keep a calendar. No reason to. They were all alone. God was resting. Then came the fall. Adams genealogy in Genesis doesnt begin until after the fall (Gen 5). And doesnt even mention Cain and Abel. Only the birth of Seth

---

You're right in that we don't know how long Adam lived prior to the fall, however it seems that it wasn't very long.

Adam and Eve were commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply", which is a way of telling them to have sex and conceive children. Considering that they did not have sex and conceive Cain until chapter 4, right after the fall, it would be reasonable to conclude that they weren't in the garden for very long, or else they would have either not have had sex (in violation of the creation mandate), or that God was withholding conception until after the fall, which would be strange considering their primary purpose was to reproduce and have dominion over the earth. God withholding the benefits of their obedience would have been uncharacteristic, therefore either Adam and Eve didn't wait long to have sex after creation (days at the most?) or that God was not blessing their efforts for a long, long time, if the assertion here is that they lived long lives (thousands of years?) prior to the genealogies kicking in.

So you're right in that we don't know how long Adam and Eve lived prior to the conception of Cain, but it seems from the context that it couldn't have been long. Certainly not long enough to make a difference in the overall dating of the world from the biblical narrative.

quote:

---

You couldnt in your lifespan, even using todays technology, rename every plant, animal, and object while seeing them enough times to remember the assigned name. Adam did all that before Eve was even created. Nor have an idea of how long they lived as just a couple. Their aging began when they had to learn to produce food. They had to know and understand the seasons to survive. None of that mattered to them prior to the fall

You simply cant apply the beginning of mankind to how you track things today. No one can remotely calculate the time since creation

---

You're right in terms of there being differences between then and now, but not where you think. Adam and Eve were made perfect in their humanity. Likely their memories, comprehension, and information processing was much better than ours is now. They also seem to have been either taught by God or by angels how to do the things you mentioned (we just don't know), or that they were created with knowledge innate. It seems they were able to speak early after creation and didn't have to learn it over years like we do when we're little.

Also, why do you think they had to name and have dominion over thousands or millions of different species of plants and animals? The record in Genesis 2 says that God was the one who brought the animals to Adam to be named. Adam didn't have to go in search of them all. Also, it's the case that the animals named were much fewer than what we have today, because God wouldn't have had to create every species on the spot, but only animals "kinds" that would reproduce and create additional species over time. So the task wouldn't have been as time consuming as you're making it out to be.

quote:

---

I'm the only one in our conversation that's actually quoted previous posts

---

Including the fact that I provided a list as was requested so you're contradicting yourself.

Did I provide a list, yes or no? If yes, then what in the world are you even talking about. If no, go back and find the post where I provided a list to know that your accusation of me "asking others to provide what I wouldn't provide myself" is a lie

quote:

---

You only provided a list after I accused you of being a hypocrite for not providing it while demanding proof from others

---

Because I didn't make the initial claim of consensus genius. Why is this so hard for you to understand. If you make a claim and don't back it up, Jeaux, then people are likely to not take you seriously

quote:

---

then you went off on some diatribe about how I should have provided your list

---

Yes, you were complaining about my challenge. Put on your big boy pants and find out if I'm correct. Or just keep having your mom wipe your rear end for you

quote:

---

You can't seriously be this retarded, can you?

---

It's astonishing that you can't grasp what is happening despite it being explained to you multiple times. How did you get through school when the instructor gave you an assignment? Did you hire other people to do your work for you? Did you never write a research paper?