Noah’s wife or Ham’s wife my point still stands. Its question begging anyway to assume soulless hominids when there is no evidence for people without souls.

Yes, if God declares something good then it is good. How is this relevant? Foods like crayfish are not specifically mentioned until Moses either and then again by Jesus. Was God just whimsically back flipping on the food issue? Of course not. There are specific reasons for why God permits some things and outlaws others.

The whole Bible lends credence to atheistic conclusions on truth. That is because they do not have the Spirit, without which the truth of Bible is foolishness to them (1 Cor 2:14).

If you want to make up stories about races of soulless people in order to escape any possible connotations of incest, then I think you are walking on shaky ground given the examples of the Patriarchs I mentioned and that Cain had sisters and probably nieces available for marriage.

Oops. Chapter 4 it should have been.

Eschatology is one of those areas that I don’t think we can be too confident in our views. Revelation is a very confusing book. I think though that there are a few things we can know. One is that we will not know the time at which these things will occur as Fisher mentioned above. Another I think is the pre/post-tribulation Rapture question answered in 1 Thess 3 16-17. There seems to be a general consensus that the tribulation is described in Rev 8-9 and each judgment is heralded by a trumpet. Note the word “after” in 1 Thess 3:17. So this seems to indicate a post-tribulation Rapture. There are other things I think that herald the end of days like a one world leader and the mark of the beast but I don’t really have any scriptural proof of timing for those events at hand, just speculation that they will happen before the Rapture.

How is Noah’s wife relevant? What do you think the resulting child of a father with a soul and a soulless mother would be? A child with only half a soul? The kind of reasoning that comes to the conclusion that there are/was races of people who did not have souls, opens the door for the kinds of racial abuse that our history is famous for (Eugenics, slavery, Ota Benga etc). If Adam was the first human (among many humanoids) to get a soul, then all those other races not descended from Adam are not sinners, were not cursed and have no afterlife to look forward to? What would be the point of sending missionaries to the pygmy tribes, Native Americans or Australian Aborigines? The “science” you hold in such high esteem tells us those races date back 10’s even 100’s of thousands of years at least, well before Adam. They also show evidence of ceremonial burial, jewelery and musical instruments. Do you think the soulless capable of that?

Incest: Sarah was Abrahams half-sister (Gen 20:12), Nahor married his niece Milcah (Gen 11:29), Isaac married his cousin Rebekah, Esau married his cousin Mahalah and Jacob marries his cousins Leah and Rachel. The point is that incest was not outlawed until Moses. Why? Well, for starters we know that incest results in a high chance of genetic defects being copied to the children of incestuous relationships. A YEC worldview of a perfect creation holds that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect (good) and the curse resulted in a kind of genetic degradation that built up in the years since. We can see this in the ages that the patriarchs lived to in the time after creation (up to 1000 years), which gradually reduced to about 100 at the time of Moses. We also see some evidence of this degradation as modern science, looking at the genetic code, has identified some abilities we have lost like lactose intolerance and a sharp sense of smell. Not to mention the far too numerous examples of genetic problems and disease present in society today. I believe God instituted the law against incest at this time to stem the flow of genetic defects being copied amongst the population. People seem to look at incest through the eyes of a modern viewer rather than that of the patriarchs and fail to see how incest was culturally and morally acceptable in the days of Genesis.

My bad on using the term cousin. It was a sister or niece of some sort at least. As to the incest question, I’ll begin by returning serve. When did God command against it? And why do you think He did it?

As to your “end times” questions, I think Harold Camping would be better suited to answer them for you. Jokes aside, the issue of soulless humans is removed from your “end times” scenario when we realise that Noah was a direct descendant of Adam and it was only his family that survived the flood. So everyone from Noah onwards (at least) is a descendant of Adam. Anything more specific on “end times” would be getting into the realm of speculation. We can be more assured of what happened in the past than what will happen in the future.

[3]
The answer to almost all your questions here can be found in Genesis 5:4 “After Seth was born; Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”. Note the start of chapter 5 is also a recount of the creation of man (Adam), and not another creation like you seem to be thinking Genesis 2 is. Anyhow, we are not told when Cain killed Abel, so the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve could have easily populated the area with many offspring at that time. These would be the people whom God had to prevent from say, taking revenge on Cain for killing their brother Abel. And this is also the pool of people where Cain got his wife from. His wife was either a sister, cousin or niece etc.

The big problem with thinking otherwise (say a pre-Adamic hominid) is that we learn from other texts that through Adam sin came to all his offspring, 1 Cor 15:22, Romans 5:12-21. Other created men would not have this link to Adam and would have to be considered sinless or soulless, right?

Ryft will be able to reply specifically as to Walton’s evolutionary leanings but I have come across a bit of his book where he seems to indicate that he is a theistic evolutionist.

“In promoting the theological position of the Bible and the interpretation of Genesis 1 presented here, there is no reason to believe that biological evolution teaches something contradictory to the Bible (though some evolutionists are proponents of metaphysical conclusions that contradict the Bible). Believing in the Bible does not require us to reject the findings of biological evolution, though neither does it give us reason to promote biological evolution. Biological evolution is not the enemy of the Bible and theology; it is superfluous to the Bible and theology. The same could be said for the big bang and for the fossil record. (p. 166)”

Definitely doesn't sound like the opinion of a "staunch anti-evolutionist"?

I’m feeling your pain JoE. I’ve done that myself a few times. And you can never seem to recapture the original while your rehash always feels weaker than your original.

Duane seems to have done a good job in response. On some of the other issues…

You might have to expand on your “soft tissue” point because the links did not provide much meat (pun intended). Your term “Soft tissue mineralisation” is confusing. If the soft tissue mineralises then it is no longer soft tissue but has become mineral. Yes this is an understood process. And it is understood that this process does not take up to 65 million years to occur.

These Ice Core articles provide the YEC interpretation of this data. Included in the first one is, in my opinion, a reasonable rationale for multiple dust layering during the ice age. http://creation.com/ice-cores-vs-the-flood http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-o...

What are the discrepancies you find for a Gen 2 is day 6 view? One of the connecting dots for me is that in Gen1:27 we have God saying he created them male and female and in Gen 2 we find the creation Adam and Eve expanded upon i.e. Adam from dust (beginning of chapter 2)and Eve from Adams rib (end of chapter 2).

JoE,

All your questions can be answered on the CMI (Creation Ministries International) Website so I shall only briefly touch on your queries. For more thorough explanations please check out the answers from those who do this for a living.

Where does the Bible say the age of the Earth?

Just like the trinity, the Bible does not say explicitly “the Earth is 6000 years old”. It is an inferred position. The genealogies get you so far then you add on the creation account. The creation account, you’ll no doubt be aware, is being debated on another thread so I’ll leave that up to you to come to your own conclusion with regards to that part of the equation.

Adam names the animals?

Before you ask how long did it take, the first things you need to know is how many he had to name? The Bible says only the “beasts of the field” not the “beasts of the earth” along with the “birds of the air” were paraded in front of Adam for naming. Note that God also created “kinds” not individual species. So the YEC answer is that Adam could have easily names all he was required to name in the time allotted.

Adam and Eve?

Genesis 2 is an expanded account of day 6. So Adam was around for less than a day before Eve and they were “sin free” for only a short period of time. This time is not specified but considering they had been given a command (and most likely urges) to be fruitful and multiply…I don’t think they would have waited long. The fall would have happened before Eve got pregnant or else there would have been someone who would not have inherited the “sin gene” from his father. As for mortality being an indicator of age…. I think rather time is an indicator of age. Time starts ticking and can measure how long Adam has been round…mortal or not.

Petrified trees?

Probably the same time as it takes for bones to fossilise (organic matter and all that)…..so is the answer is 65 million years? My recent T-Rex example would seem to indicate otherwise? Organic material just doesn’t appear to be able to survive that long. Some experimentation in Japan has shown petrification can occur in less than 10 years.

Dinosaurs?

Job mentions a behemoth and a leviathan. Many people believe the behemoth to be an elephant or hippo but it is described as having a tail like a cedar. Hardly a description of an elephant’s tail now is it. There are numerous example evidences of human - dinosaur cohabitation. There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all. It was drawn by North American Anasazi Indians that lived in the area that has now become Utah approximately 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D. A brass inlay of the tomb of the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, 1496 in Carlisle Cathedral in the U.K. has an engraving of a dinosaur on it. Both, well before the first dinosaur fossil was dug up. These are just two examples of many too numerous to mention, perhaps worthy of a post of its own.

Cavemen?

There are still people living in caves today.

Babel?

God just confused their language. The people separated themselves and migrated on their own. And considering how quickly England colonised around the world, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe tribes of people are capable of migrating around the place. There is evidence to the effect of an ice age occurring after the flood which could have connected most land masses so people could travel from one place to another.

Ice Cores?

This I believe is along the same lines as radiometric dating. Assumptions about the past have been made as to how many layers are laid down each year. But CMI can shed more light on this topic than I can…this one starts to get heavily scientific. What affect did all the geological activity associated with the flood have? What about the ice age? The flood showed how sedimentary layers can be laid down rapidly. Why not snow and ice as well? Is it not possible to have multiple dust storms and snow storms in a season/year? Why, after a hundred years of ice and snow study, where those WWII fighters only expected to be found under a few feet of snow? Seems like they didn’t know much about the topic because they were surprised at how deep in the snow and ice they actually were.

Hopefully these help, but see CMI for more detail from the professionals on these topics.

Is it eisegesis on my part or eisegesis on the part of the Bible translators who translated those Hebrew words into all those English translations of the Bible (KJV, NIV, NASB etc)? After all it was they who selected the English words in order to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew text as the author intended.

I am interested in the people, time and place when Moses wrote and taught Genesis 1 to the Israelites. Can you go into any more depth on how they recognised Genesis 1 as a temple text? The Israelites were slaves coming out of Egypt right? As slaves, what did they know of the inauguration of temples and the recognition of a temple text? Is it not question begging to say that once they saw the tabernacle inauguration of Exodus 40 that they then recognised Genesis 1 as being the same thing? There is no reference to Genesis here like in the Ten Commandments. I can see a vague similarity in the pattern of the text but is that all we are going on? This text has a specific description of the material phase of the tabernacles creation in the preceding chapters. Would this not be part of the temple text? And would not the other temple texts in the OT have a material component or precursor? Solomon’s did. Why not Genesis 1?