You understand that the Genesis creation story is a poem right? If you were alive at the time the story was originally told you would know that it is in a common poetry structure of the time period. I guess there are plenty of people today who aren't familiar with that fact. But it seems hard to argue against scientific theory and instead take a piece of poetry as literal fact. As a Christian, it doesn't make sense to misinterpret scripture like that.
No, I'm not joking, and it is an established structure used at the time. Why would I be joking? You can read something about it here. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html There's plenty of more study that you can do on it as well.
It's not my opinion, it's fact, and anyone who was around at the time and understood Hebrew would have been aware of that. Is there a reason why you doubt ancient hebrew poetry structure? Do you have any credible reason to cast doubt on it?
It is a fact. You understand that Genesis was originally in ancient Hebrew, correct? Do you deny that or believe that's only my opinion as well? Then if you look to any study of ancient Hebrew and see the structure of Genesis and some of the poetry at the time, it turns out that it's a poem. It is based on the language that the story was originally in. If you'd like to know how everything was created it depends on what everything is. The best anyone can tell is that different things were created in somewhat different ways, but for starters gravity had a lot to do with it.
Genesis was written in Hebrew but that doesn't mean it automatically had to be a poem. Look it's two ways. Either you believe in the bible and put faith in God's word or you don't and believe whatever other scientific theory that pops up.
Actually I believe the bible, but I also try and understand it. Just being in Hebrew didn't make it a poem. But the fact that it was in hebrew and written in the exact format as ancient Hebrew poetry makes it a poem. If that's how this story in the bible was intended(as a poem), who is it that isn't taking the bible at its word the person who realizes and accepts it as a poem, or the person who denies it, despite it being clearly an ancient hebrew poem. I don't look at the bible for an answer of how everything was created. I look at the bible as far as lessons on how to treat others, and spiritual upkeep consistent with the message of Jesus Christ.
The Creator created is what I believe. But the how? I don't know exactly. I'm curious from an inquisitive standpoint, but not from a faith standpoint. I do not read Genesis literally. There are parts of the Bible where the author of the particular book seems very serious about you taking him literally (Luke is, I believe, the best example of this)...Genesis, particularly the first few chapters written in prose, don't strike me as the kind of book that was meant to be read literally.
There is no possible way the egg came first. Because the correct question is which came first the chicken egg or the chicken? If evolution produced the chicken, the first chicken was identified from an adult fossil not an egg. It is ridiculous to think that someone found a fossilized egg and scientifically proved it was the first chicken egg that hatched a chicken. Just because evolutionists claim they absolutely know the bird that was the ancestor of the chicken that is not proof that the first chicken was identified by an egg. I am equally confident that if God created the chicken or the ancestor of the chicken it was identified in the same way, as an adult. My small understanding of scientific taxonomy classification is that a very methodical scientific method is used that would not rely on an egg to be conclusive of the species and genus code. So how could the chicken egg precede the chicken?
in genetic terms, the first chicken that came about was encoded as a chicken at the cellular level before it actually hatched. so, technically, the chicken egg came first.
Can there be no middle? Can I not believe that God's words were written by man through poetry to explain the natural order of creation, even though God may or may not have created a big bang which started it all? Let there be light. BANG!
Well, my post was in jest, but to turn the tables- please explain to me how you know the chicken egg wasn't laid by a chicken? I think the reverse is true- only a chicken can encode chicken DNA into an egg. So which came first the 'chicken' egg or the chicken?
